Observation 247370: Caloboletus Vizzini

Notes:
collected for ISafonov Orange/maroon stain with KOH on pileus

Species Lists

Images

Showing KOH stain (mushroom dried for 1 hour)

Proposed Names

1% (2)
Used references: Key in BRB
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
61% (2)
Based on chemical features: A GenBank-generated phylogram of the top 31 hits places this taxon in Caloboletus; the closest relative is C. yunnanensis

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
TEF-1 was recently sampled…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2020-03-25 14:09:55 PDT (-0700)

…from this collection, but unfortunately the material failed to yield a usable sequence. The same extracted DNA stock solution that successfully delivered nrLSU almost 3 years ago has been kept in the deep freezer all the time, so degradation during the storage is not to blame. According to Dr. Kudzma, it “looks like contamination or some other serious issue”. The raw chromatograms show what appears like a mixture of 3 sequences, one of which is probably the desired amplicon, that cannot be resolved.
However, this failure is inconsequential because I now have a bunch of ITS-LSU data from at least 3 three other collections of this species, all from Virginia. One of these gave a nice TEF-1 sequence. More on that later… Oh and as far as I can tell, the current ID stands! :-)

Thanks for commenting, Dave
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-02-22 18:43:42 PST (-0800)

I’ve been updating my herbarium records with Dario’s samples from last year, and couple of his obsies (286751 & 287818) kinda reminded me of this collection, which is not to say they are all the same species.
I periodically run BLAST searches for some of the more interesting collections for which I have sequences just to see if any new GenBank submissions of value pop up. Unfortunately, I didn’t get any new leads on this collection — the hit list looked the same as last time.
I agree that the gestalt morphology of 247370 is not really evocative of a typical Caloboletus, and it may later transpire (if or when more loci get sequenced) that it doesn’t belong there. However, the LSU phylogram puts it in Caloboletus, and that’s the best empirical evidence that we have at this time with the kind of data that exist in GenBank. Actually, it was reassuring to see that the cladogram topology consisted of what looked like monophyletic clades, i.e., the program grouped the 31 hits into several recognizable genera.

THIS molecular analysis…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2018-02-22 16:18:51 PST (-0800)

is really interesting. I would never have guessed “Caloboletus” based upon observable morphology.

THAT could be interesting!
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-05-07 09:22:42 PDT (-0700)

I was working on my list for the park – with photos (they are talking about publishing it as a little guidebook to sell) and realized I was looking at these two photos, one ID’d and the other now not . . . and thought they must be the same.

Field guides I think would take us to a determination like you proposed. The genes are not being particularly cooperative – but we have to use TOTAL EVIDENCE not just genetic evidence ultimately in these determinations.

So, in other words, I’m not so certain your original field guide determinations can be disposed of so easily. :)

Geoff,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-05-07 08:22:20 PDT (-0700)

I am very glad you brought obs 251383 to my attention. Looking at the two observations, I am now confident they represent the same taxon. These are not But. roseopurpureus. So, I had made a mistake in proposing that name for 251383 and just changed my vote/proposal for that observation accordingly.
I have your collection of 251383 in my possession, but I never made a connection between it and 247370, and I haven’t submitted it for sequencing yet.

Is there any chance of this being equivalent?
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-05-07 08:03:55 PDT (-0700)

Observation 251383 : Butyriboletus roseopurpureus (Both, Bessette & Roody) K. Zhao, Z.L. Yang & Halling, comb. nov.

Thanks Igor,
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-05-07 07:49:03 PDT (-0700)

I’ll look into it. I loved the velvety texture of the cap.

This one…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-05-07 07:32:23 PDT (-0700)

…is not in any of the contemporary field guides, as far as I know, but it may already have a name that had been relegated to obscurity. Chances are it could in Both’s Bolete Compendium, but I have no practical ways of searching for it there.
You have Coker & Beers’ tome, so try to find out if it matches any of the descriptions tied to obscure names therein not popularized in NAB and BENA. Maybe you will get lucky.

Interesting.
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-05-07 04:13:03 PDT (-0700)

I feel a lot less bad having had so much trouble IDing some of these! :)

This was a lovely little thing.

Discussion of Sequencing Results
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-05-06 17:33:39 PDT (-0700)

> A clean and contiguous nrLSU sequence of 969 characters has been obtained from this material posted in the comment below.
> A GenBank BLASTn search revealed that this entity is a “denizen” of the ‘Pulveroboletus Group’ containing orphan clades that don’t fit into any of the 6 recently erected phylogenetic subfamilies of the Boletaceae. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear to be closely related to any of the clades in the ‘PG’, as the highest similarity achieved is only 97.2%.
The top three hits are all members of Caloboletus (yunnanensis from China and coniferatum from Western USA). Other, less similar hits are members of Neoboletus/Sutorius, Rubroboletus and Lanmaoa.
Given the hit list stats, 247370 is likely to belong in a new genus.

Quite right!
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2016-08-10 12:25:26 PDT (-0700)

What I found is that there is a KOH test AFTER I already had it in the dryer for an hour! I pulled it out and dropped some KOH on it to see if I could get the orange reaction and it seemed to me to do so.

The pictures of the bolete in the field are all long exposure natural light. I try to never FLASH anything in the field. On the table with the rule under them – I flash them because the light is not so good inside, the flash inevitably adds contrast, washes out highlights and in general creates a slightly unreal look.

Geoff,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-08-10 12:13:17 PDT (-0700)

Sorry for my lack of outward excitement toward your collection. One of those days, I guess…:)
It is a very interesting collection, nonetheless, at least on account of the identification challenge. It would have been nice to see an older fruiting body that would add valuable details to the morphology… and stir up more excitement. I wonder if Dario Z. finds something like this in VA.
Your in situ pix show a lemon-yellow stipe in the upper half and grayish-white with an olivaceus hue below. The bottom pix, evidently taken with a flash, give a slightly different presentation of the colors. I also see quite a bit of wrinkling and ridging on the stipe in those photos due to natural dehydration, suggesting that they were taken much later in the day. Am I right?
How about writing a brief description of this bolete to counter any distortions in perception due to the effects of digital photography?

Me either!
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2016-08-10 11:39:46 PDT (-0700)

It’s a new one on me – I’m not sure I’ve seen anything so brick-red and also bright YELLOW. With just a hint of reticulation near the apex. I’m making my best educated guess according to the key.
The images in BRB are of older specimens so it’s a bit tricky. but I gotta love that name Red-Citrus!

I was hoping you’d jump all over this one! :)

Thanks, Geoff
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-08-10 11:35:02 PDT (-0700)

I am not familiar with B. rubricitrinus even though its range of distribution includes NJ according to NAB and Phillips. I don’t recognize your bolete as anything I see here or to the north.