Collection location: LaBagh Woods, Chicago, Illinois, USA [Click for map]
On unknown decaying hardwood. It looks similar to Daedalea quercina found in the same area although browner cap, fusing laterally and not vertically, pores more lamellar and almost entirely enclosed and filled in by seemingly sterile tissue.
|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|
|Could Be||1.0||4.13||1||(Space Time Matters)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
On further examination, I realized that the grayish color of the cap was due to a very thin covering of mud. Washing away the mud revealed a faintly zonate brown cap, still far too brown for typical D. quercina. But this means that the mushroom was likely flooded, which may account for the odd pores.
I also found another example of a Daedalea with odd pores. In Observation 139147, the larger specimen actually has what appears to be pores that started to develop on the upper side, possibly due to disturbance. So a disturbance hypothesis, as Patrick suggested, is starting to look better.
Still, I can’t get past the dark zonate cap and almost rusty context that don’t seem to fit with D. quercina.
The log was right off of the main trail on the south bank of the river in the flood plain. So if it hadn’t been disturbed by flooding it could have been disturbed by people. Although, I didn’t see any obvious indication of this, I hadn’t considered this possibility and wasn’t looking for it. The polypores were level when I found them.
But I don’t think the river flooded enough around that time to reach the heights needed to disturb that log. Plus it was well rotted and maybe dug-in enough that it wouldn’t float and would need to be hit extremely hard by debris to move it. As for human disturbance, this was a pretty large log that might take more than one person to roll, making that seem less likely.
Have you ever seen anything like this before?
Could the log have been rolled over so that the brackets were upside down or otherwise not level? This might cause the growth of mycelium into the pores as the fungus tries to reorient itself.
You’d still call this D. quercina even with the pores enclosed in sterile tissue like they are? I will now throw another monkeywrench into that identification. After further examination, it seems that the context could possibly be considered a bit rusty, although maybe not rusty enough to be a Gloeophyllum. But a bit dark for D. quercina perhaps?
Further pondering lead me to wonder if the tissue enclosing the pores could be overgrowth by a fungal parasite. But the context of the sterile tissue matches the context of the rest of the mushroom and appears to be continuos with the pore walls.
The sterile tissue seems to belong to the polypore itself. I guess it is possible that a parasite could have induced this growth in the polypore, along similar lines to galls induced in various plants. This would be an ingenious method of sporophagy, but also seems a bit far fetched.
You’ll notice that, in one of the pictures I added, I removed some of the sterile tissue to reveal surprisingly thin pore walls. And for the record, the sterile tissue in this area was about 3.5mm deep.
Would be a good name for these but you could also keep calling these “Daedalea quercina” until someone proves that’s not what they are. As Derek mentioned, Daedalea americana is not the species going as Daedalea quercina in North America and a very different mushroom. Check out the photos in the paper here . Daedalea americana is more likely to get confused with some of the larger Trametes species IMO.
It’s possible that the “Daedalea quercina” in North America is the same as the european species, especially since there are some other polypore species that have been confirmed to be present on both continents. Hapalopilus rutilans, for example. As far as I know, no one has investigated this issue yet.
According to the paper that published that name, D. americana is poroid with 4-5 pores per mm. And it seems unlikely to be a development stage since I’ve seen D. quercina from this locale at essentially all stages of development, and I’ve never seen anything like this one.
Plus if it were a typical developmental stage, there should be other similar pictures from other people. But alas, I’ve found none. And pictures of abnormal D. quercina that I’ve found tend to have a less well defined pileus and obviously contorted pores.
This specimen looks like a normally developed polypore other than the filled-in pores.
Han, M. L., Vlasak, J., & CUI, B. (2015). Daedalea americana sp. nov.(Polyporales, Basidiomycota) evidenced by morphological characters and phylogenetic analysis. Phytotaxa, 204(4), 277-286.
I think D. quercina isn’t occurring in North America right? It has been renamed Daedalea americana. Correct me if I’m wrong.
And this appears not to be secotioid to me just an abnormity or development stage. Why do you think it is something different?
On the other hand I am not an expert in American bracket fungi though.
I’ve been trying to figure out this polypore to no avail. I only just thought of this, but the way that most of the pores on this specimen are enclosed reminds me of secotioid specimens of Lentinus tigrinus (which also happen to be common in the same area as this one was found). I can’t find any mention of secotioid polypores anywhere though.