I’ve suggested that my observation 242156 is the same species because of similarities in the overall look and feel, the KOH reaction, the shade of the bluing, and especially the distinctive netting. But mine had a lot more red in the pores.

These photos appear to be a yellow-pored specimen turning orange as it reaches maturity. Did you see or find any that would show a progression onwards toward true orange or red?

:) Nice efforts, Igor!

> A clean, continuous 957 bps nrLSU sequence was obtained from this material and posted in the comment below. The first 21 bases (a very conserved region) are not shown.
> A GenBank BLAST search of the full-length sequence gave the following relevant profile (sorted by % identity):
Hits 1-4 = Alessioporus ichnusansus vouchers (accession Nos. KJ295505, KJ295506, KJ295509, and KJ295510) = ~98.1% similarity
Hits 5-7 = Pulchroboletus roseoalbidus vouchers (accession Nos. KJ295500, KJ295502, and KJ295503) = ~97.3% similarity
-—————————————————————————
> Given the observed clustering pattern, and knowing that Alessioporus and Pulchroboletus are sister clades (Wu et al., 2016),¹ placing 243202 into the former genus may seem like a reasonable proposal. Getting warm here, right?
But how come A. rubriflavus never showed up on the 100-mushroom hit list (hit #100 = ~95% identity) despite the fact that it’s been sequenced, the sequences are in GenBank, and the expected similarity for a generic association should be well above 95%? Well, it’s a known and annoying ‘issue’ with GB that I covered in one of my previous discussion, and the quick answer is it’s all about sequence lengths.
The two published A. rubriflavus nrLSU traces, accession Nos. KT223009 (holotype) and KC812306, are only 695 and 582 bases long, respectively, corresponding to fragments 36—>730 and 52—>633 of my sequence, respectively. So, plugging a sequence of 957 bases for a global GB search will produce hits with very low % identity scores due to the non-matching ‘overhangs’ on each side of the trace that will register as gaps in GB! It’s almost like a penalty imposed on a user who is supplying accurate info, which doesn’t make sense! Isn’t GB supposed to help users find answers that make sense?
So, what’s the remedy for this ‘problem’? Well, unless one knows what to look for, conducting searches with a shorter query lengths to screen hit list profiles might work. But then one needs to make a decision with regard to the sequence length and the beginning/ending positions (e.g., there are 258 ways of cutting a contiguous 700 bps fragment from the original trace of 957 characters). If you do know what to look for, you can conduct narrow GB searches centered around a species name or a genus name. Unfortunately, entering ‘Alessioporus rubriflavus’ into GB will not help you, as there are no entries corresponding to this taxon ID. What gives? Ask the authors! Entering Alessioporus will lead you to KT223009, but the taxon ID for that sequence is “Alessioporus sp. ARB1262”. The long story short, KC812306 is hiding under “Boletus aff. ornatipes JLF2561”, so you will never find it unless you have a publication in your hand with accession numbers!
> Both KT223009 and KC812306 are a 100% match to the corresponding aligned fragments of the nrLSU sequence of 243202. The case is closed.
¹ https://www.researchgate.net/...

That’s exciting.

…establishes MO243202 as Alessioporus rubriflavus and the first reported record of this species from NC on MO.

collection may be a very good fit for this newly described species. Thanks for the heads up on the paper.

…was recently submitted for sequencing (nrLSU only).

Least I can do for all the help! You can email me an addy.

One of these fruiting bodies has my name written all over it! :-) Thanks.

I’m gonna throw them in the dryer. Let me know!

My keying skills left something to be desired. As the old saying goes keys are made by people who don’t need them for folks who can’t use them! :)

as the name indicates has a brown cap. This looks closer to var. speciosus.