Observation 98703: Gymnopilus sapineus (Fr.) Murrill
When: 2012-06-20
No herbarium specimen

Notes: These were found in the northern section of the Turkey Creek Unit.
Fairly plentiful and growing on wood.
Spores were 7.6-8.9 X 5.8-6.1 microns.
ID based on lack of a ring, spore size, and the relatively heavy ornamentation of the spores.

Proposed Names

20% (2)
Used references: Mushrooms of the Southeastern United States by Bessette et al.
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
61% (2)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Can’t help you with a revisit.
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2012-07-01 01:06:53 WAT (+0100)

I live in California and my body can only handle a few days in that east Texas heat and the onslaught of critters and chiggers.
There were quite a few of this species in the area and I suspect they were mostly growing on hardwoods, which were the most dominant.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-07-01 00:31:30 WAT (+0100)

i’ve read the monograph front to back and there is a definite conflict between the two, let alone Gymnopilus as a species…
amongst different authors.
but this is really the only guide we have.
so i believe we have to stick by it to make sense of the genus.
can you revisit the land and see what kind of wood it was?
that would help narrow things a bit.
sorry for rambling.

I did not save these so
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2012-07-01 00:24:56 WAT (+0100)

I’m unable to look for cystidia.
I only measured about 10 spores but the numbers were so consistent that I stopped. None of the spores were below 5.8 microns wide…6 microns was solid.
I considered G. sapineus but could not see any veil or veil remnants. Also the references I have note that the spores of G. sapineus are narrower, none over 5.5 microns, and that they are only slightly roughened. I have seen and recorded G. sapineus spores in other MO postings, and these seemed much rougher.

how many spores…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-06-30 23:51:06 WAT (+0100)

were measured??

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-06-30 23:45:58 WAT (+0100)

for caulocystidia in tufts.

according to Hesler’s monograph…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-06-30 22:57:01 WAT (+0100)

the spore measurements are 7-8.5 X 4-5.5.
these seem a bit too narrow.
also noted, is an even margin (not wavy) with brown, waxy dots and a non viscid cap.
the apex of the stipe should be whitish or yellowish.
the location does not match and caulocystidia should be in tufts.
i will do some more research and get back to you.

Not sure of the wood type as they were
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2012-06-30 22:27:59 WAT (+0100)

growing on dead branches in mixed woods(85 species of trees in the Big Thicket).
Also didn’t really smell them.
However, the spores according to the Bessette book should be 7-10 X 4-6 microns, which is right in the range I found. The spores were more warted than the usual Gymnopilus so I figured that was a further indication for the G. liquiritiae.
Not being all that familiar with the local species, I’m open to other suggestions.

spore measurements…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-06-30 18:57:54 WAT (+0100)

are also not right for G. liquiritiae.

what ype…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-06-30 18:51:05 WAT (+0100)

of wood were these growing on? what did they smell like and did the cap have any brown, waxy dots on it?

Created: 2012-06-30 18:47:55 WAT (+0100)
Last modified: 2012-07-01 12:40:10 WAT (+0100)
Viewed: 111 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 12:54:53 WAST (+0200)
Show Log