Species Lists


Proposed Names

-59% (2)
Recognized by sight: Initially determined by Ernst Both
45% (2)
Recognized by sight
Based on chemical features: nrITS & nrLSU sequence data
83% (3)
Based on chemical features: nrITS & nrLSU sequences in good agreement with obs 250839 and obs 252208

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
nice find and something to look for down my way…
By: Bill (boletebill)
2017-07-13 10:25:31 PDT (-0700)

…I have found something similar in the past that did not blue at all but with a red blush on the stipe…I’ll try to find a photo.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-28 16:14:22 PDT (-0700)

thanks for providing additional habitat details for your collecting site(s). When certain kind of trees are absent from the scene, that’s very unequivocal. We have n = 3 for pure hardwoods for this species, excluding UB-6 (growing under hickory), so the broad evidence strongly points in that direction thus far. Mixed hardwood-conifer habitats, however, present the obvious challenge in determining the actual ECM host – frequently, proximity to a certain tree doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the actual host. Furthermore, one also needs to consider if the fungus is a mycorrhizal specialist or a generalist. That’s an equation with too many unknowns. :-)
It’s interesting how you perceived your bolete as H. subglabripes when you found it for the first time. I thought mine was an old B. separans, though the young collection growing nearby was immediately recognized as something new to me. I didn’t know all were the same mushroom till I took a more careful look.

I could add in support of But. taughannockensis growing with oak, and perhaps hickory,
By: Renée Lebeuf (Renée Lebeuf)
2017-03-28 14:51:46 PDT (-0700)

that my main collection site (I have two) doesn’t have a single conifer. It is a very small urban forest with clayey soil, beside a river. The first time I saw it, it reminded me of Hemileccinum subglabripes, but with a reticulate stem and growing under oak.

Thank you…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-27 19:48:02 PDT (-0700)

…for your kind words, Renée, and for being a contributor to solving this mystery.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-27 19:32:17 PDT (-0700)

Thanks for the info. I am glad you referred to 241296 as the example of a morphological outlier for But. brunneus. I’d seen that obsie of yours before and, too, was surprised by the faint bluing and weak reticulation pattern. Mixed deciduous habitat with only one hemlock sapling further muddle the picture for the best possible identification of that young bolete. Habitat and mycorrhizal relationships should rightfully be part of species concepts, and, when the morphology leaves room for doubt, ecology could be enough to tip the balance one way or the other. However, when all the information and facts are carefully weighed, including the early collection date, But. brunneus indeed appears to be the optimal ID for 241296 notwithstanding any lingering doubt.

There is no evidence at this time But. taughannockensis grows with conifers due to lack of data to support such a notion. Both Renee’s and Geoff’s were collected under oaks, and my own west NY collection comes from the oak-dominated hardwood section of a complex ecosystem featuring pure hemlock stands and hemlock-hardwood mixed woods elsewhere.
This new eastern Butter Bolete can perhaps be separated from But. brunneus by lack of bluing on any parts and the ecology (not a hemlock associate). Separation from auripes could be trickier, especially for novices, as that oak-loving taxon doesn’t blue either and can have a variably colored cap (dark brown to yellow). But tauhannockensis has a uniform pale to medium yellow stipe (i.e., lighter in color than that of the Golden-Foot Bolete) with some reddish-pinkish tones taking over in age from bottom up and a medium chamois-brown to pinkish-brown pileipellis when young and developing yellowish tones in age. In addition, young specimens of auripes feature a white layer of hyphae (a rare case of partial veil in the Boletaceae) covering the pore surface, whereas taughannockensis was not observed to have this trait.

Thank you Igor for all your good work
By: Renée Lebeuf (Renée Lebeuf)
2017-03-27 17:51:42 PDT (-0700)

One more mystery solved!

Igor, interesting that you mention brunneus…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-03-27 06:00:22 PDT (-0700)

as a possible mis-ID for taughannockensis, even though brunneus generally stains blue. Most of what I have IDed as brunneus has indeed stained/bruised blue fairly prominently, especially on the stipe surface. But last summer (2016) much of what I IDed as brunneus showed rather weak bluing. And… the reticulations were not as prominent as I had seen in previous years. For example, obs 241296 , which was found in a spot where I find brunneus pretty much every summer.

Hello, Renée
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-26 20:33:21 PDT (-0700)

I don’t plan to do any more sequencing on any of the three collections at this time. We got yours well-fingerprinted. :=) Like I said, it would make sense to compare something like TEF-1, maybe in the next round of sequencing later this year or next year.
I am pretty much convinced that all three are the same, perhaps a little bit more so for yours and mine than for Geoff’s. A few hetero-sites here and there are expected as part of intra-specific variation for this taxon in the three samples. This is definitely NOT Boletus aureissumus according to Dr. Beatrice Ortiz-Santana, who has sequenced vouchers of this taxon collected in Belize/Dominican Republic. As a matter of fact Dr. Ortiz said LSU was only 93% similar and ITS was <70% similar when comparing aureissimus and obs 252208. This means that aureissimus does not fall into Butyriboletus, which makes sense from the point of morphology, too.
Yes, I had seen UB-6 in December of last year (as soon as I got the book) and immediately made a connection with taughannockensis. I have already asked Alan Bessette for more pix, but they are in the hands of his colleague, William C. Roody, who will have access to them sometime in the spring. It would probably make sense to sequences a collection of UB-6 to settle this question.
Seems to me taughannockesis is not all that uncommon and its distribution range is fairly wide (SE Canada south to NC and west to WV)! I think in the past it might have been confused with auripes or brunneus at various forays (even thought the latter species blues).
It a good story and the case is pretty much closed. Moving onto other bolete mysteries. :-)

I just read the comments Igor,
By: Renée Lebeuf (Renée Lebeuf)
2017-03-26 19:29:28 PDT (-0700)

as they ended up in my spams in gmail. It sure looks like your Butyriboletus taughannockensis. Do you plan to do the additional DNA sequencing to confirm the identity?

The usual aspect of the collections is the one on the last picture. The caps are usually not darker when young. Did you see UB-6 (p. 436) in the last Bessette’s book on Boletes? It also looks like taughannockensis.

Yes, they do, Dave :-)
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-18 20:16:46 PDT (-0700)

The last pic is definitely taughannockensis; the other ones leave some room for doubt though, but they must be same entity, as all were collected at a single site.
I came across Renee’s pix online last year while searching for info on Boletus aureissimus. I asked her to send me a sample and post a collection (numerous were made over years in that spot – it probably fruits there every year) on MO for the record.
It’s funny how all these connections were made – purely by chance and fortuitous timing. I keep thinking that had Ernst Both identified Renee’s bolete as something else years ago, or had he recognized it was a new species and then made an effort to get it described and published, we would have had something like ‘But. canadensis’ instead. :-)
I might have told you about the unusual circumstances of my discovery of 250389 at Taughannock Falls. I walked by that collection and missed it once and then almost walked away from it the second time. Now it all makes perfect sense to me (if you believe in these kind of things) – it had to be the spirit of Herr Both that tapped me on the shoulder and made me turn around to search the area more thoroughly!

By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-03-18 18:57:36 PDT (-0700)

they look like B. taughannockensis.

DNA sequencing results and discussion
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-03-18 13:18:09 PDT (-0700)

> A clean, contiguous nrLSU sequence was obtained for this material. It consists of the first 961 characters (to the LR5 region) and has 4 ambiguous sites (all are a ‘Y’, corresponding to either of the two pyrimidine bases, C & T).
> A full-length nrITS sequence of 686 characters was also obtained for this collection. This sequence has a non-specific fragment of 128 bases in the middle of the ITS2 region. Interestingly, sequence “scrambling” occurred immediately following the poly-T motif. This sequence profile represents one of very rare instances wherein a trace with a lengthy non-specific region could be read end-to-end without interruptions in either direction. Usually when a sequence becomes non-specific, a very common problem with the nrITS locus, a contiguous end-to-end read is impossible because haplotypes are of different length (signals/peaks in the chromatogram overlap and cannot be resolved). In the case of 263101, however, there are “two nrITS sequences present that overlap and differ substantially in the ITS2 region, but otherwise the overall sequences are very similar and are of the same length (!!). Therefore, the differing region within ITS2 becomes non-specific and then returns to specific (read from both directions). In other words, except for a portion of ITS2 the overlapping sequences are the same.”.
> Both the nrITS and nrLSU sequences were aligned with those of obs 250839 and obs 252208. The following observations were made:
1) The three nrLSU sequences are of the same length, 961 bps. There are only 7 sites where at least one sequence is different from the other two and the majority of these sites are due to ambiguous characters. Other than that, the three sequences are of identical composition. Here is the summary of mismatching sites in the nrLSU locus (ambiguous characters are ‘R’ = A/G and ‘Y’ = C/T):

Position: 67 142 330 446 527 604 609
250839: Y……C……T……C……T…….G……C
252208: T……C……C……C……C…….R……C
263101: T……Y……Y……Y……C…….G……Y

2) In the case of nrITS, the three aligned sequences are also of the same length, 686 bps, meaning that the alignments are perfect and there are no gaps. The sequences are perfectly identical for the first 416 characters (i.e., the entire ITS1 and 5.8S regions and the brief early portion of ITS2) through the poly-T motif, with exception of a single ambiguous site (an ‘R’) in the ITS1 region in 263101.
As has been noted before in a comment posted in obs 252208, the ITS2 of that collection is 8 nucleotides off from that of 250839/ Butyriboletus taughannockensis, including the two ambiguous sites in 252208.
Unfortunately, the scrambling of the large portion of the ITS2 region in 263101 precludes a comprehensive head-to-head comparison/analysis of the data. Within this scrambled region, however, there is a fair number of well-resolved characters, so some comparison with the corresponding non-matching sites in the other two sequences was possible. Fortuitously, the last 140 readable characters in the ITS2 region of 262101 are well-resolved; that region is almost a perfect match (1 ambiguous character present) to the corresponding region in 250839/ But. taughannockensis. Here is the summary of mismatching sites in the nrITS locus (ambiguous characters: ‘R’ = A/G and ‘W’ = A/T; “-” = identity unknown due to broad heterogeneity in the ITS2 region):

Position: 127 417 437 453 473 510 551 570 589 628
250839: G……T…….A……G……C……G……C……G……T……G
252208: G……W……G……A……T……A…….T……R……C……G
263101: R……T……..-……G……C……-…….C……G……T……R

Conclusion: There is a very good chance this entity is conspecific with But. taughannockensis in light of the sequencing data. Sequencing of a single-copy protein-coding locus, such as TEF-1-alpha or RPB1/2, should help in settling the identity of 252208 and 263101.

To be sequenced…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-12-01 20:12:12 PST (-0800)

…sometime next year (ITS & LSU). It will be interesting to see if there is anything in common with obs 250839 and obs 252208, Boletus auripes , and Butyriboletus. Unfortunately, there are no B. aureissimus sequences posted to GenBank at this time.