Notes: These were found in the northern section of the turkey Creek Unit.
Flesh was light yellow with no bluing. Pores did not blue either but some pale red bruises can be seen.
No strong odor and taste was mild.
Spores were olive brown and ~ 10.9-13.0 X 4.0-5.1 microns.
Boletus illudens fits fairly well but can’t say there is any significant reticulation at the apex of the stipe, which some authors say is “typically” present.
Am open to any other suggestion from our eastern Bolete mavens.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I think you are fishing in the right pond. These boletes appear xerocomoid (judging from the pore surface), and morphologically could be related to the illudens/spadiceus/subtomentsus group. Check whether the tubes cleanly separate from each other when pulled apart or break in half — if the latter, they are xerocomoid…
According to B-R-B and mushroomexpert.com, illudens and tenax may be inserapable, and wide-mesh reticulation is a must. B-R-B doesn’t list Texas as part of the distribution range for any of the species in this cluster, if that matters…
The proportions of your boletes are not Leccinum-like and the texture/color of the pileipellis are not consistent with B./L. subglabripes. Besides, subglabripes’ pores are smaller and circular, and it’s spores are 13-21 um (as per B-R-B).
so I don’t have any more to add.
I did narrow it down to this and B. subglabripes.
Looks like something in between or a close variant.
would help with this one. Ammonia: a flash of bright green. KOH dark brown.
That would clinch B. illudens. Another possibility is the southern form of Boletus subglabripes which is probably a good undecribed species.
Created: 2012-07-02 02:31:46 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2012-07-02 02:31:48 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 251 times, last viewed: 2016-12-31 08:13:09 CET (+0100)