Notes:
Growing under live oak. Reticulate stipe. Red pore surface. Dense. Cap margin is irregular. Context blues quickly and is yellow.

Species Lists

Images

94652DB8-EB71-4F37-9DCF-CBF172A69BD0.jpeg
3DAAD8C8-8066-498E-A188-8681D55F824E.jpeg
6A9A7C5D-A2F1-4D5D-A261-700F19F54E88.jpeg

Proposed Names

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
DNA results & discussion
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2019-03-19 20:33:07 PDT (-0700)

DNA Sequencing Results & Discussion:
Results:
A clean and contiguous TEF-1 sequence of 1071 bps has been obtained from this collection by Dr. Kudzma and uploaded to this post. The sequenced fragment of the gene starts from the first character (a “C”) immediately following the EF1-983F primer (edited out) and terminates in character #112 following the EFgr primer. There is a single ambiguous base present in this read, a “Y” (C/T).
A BLASTn search of the whole sequence gave two high-scoring hits with Ernst Both’s accessions of Rubroboletus rhodosanguineus:
MG897426 = “R. rhodosanguineus voucher BOTH4263” = 1069/1071 = 99.8% similarity (a “Y” in each sequence)
KF030412 = “R. rhodosanguineus voucher 4252” = 1068/1071 = 99.7% similarity (1 ambiguity in MO294540 + 1 A/G mismatch and 1 C/T mismatch shared)
Alignment of this sequence with the TEF-1 of Eva’s obs 284926 shows the 959 bps overlap to be 99.5% similar (1 ambiguity in MO294540 and 4 ambiguities in MO284926).
Alignment with the TEF-1 of Dario’s obs 285495 shows the 1071 bps overlap to be 99.8% similar (a “Y” in each sequence).
Alignment of this sequence with the TEF-1 of Logan’s obs 320146 shows the 1004 bps overlap to be 99.7% similar (2 x “Y” in MO320146 and a “Y” in MO294540).
Lastly, alignment of this sequence with the TEF-1 of my own obs 250470 shows the 1071 bps overlap to be 99.25% similar (a “Y” in MO294540 and 7 ambiguities in MO250470).
Of course, a number of matching haplotypic combinations are common to all 7 organisms, so they are all conspecific.

Comment:
The identity of this voucher is confirmed by TEF-1 sequencing. This gene easily distinguishes rhodosanguineus from other species of Rubroboletus (data as per the BLASTn results). Uncertainty still remains regarding the identity and taxonomy of the morphologically similar B. rubroflammeus A.H. Sm. & Thiers. Conspecificity between the two taxa cannot be completely ruled out in the absence of genetic data for comparison. Other than Smith & Thiers holotype, M. Kuo’s voucher is the only material that best resembles rubroflammeus : https://www.mushroomexpert.com/boletus_rubroflammeus.html.

R. rhodosanguineus
By: Jason Bolin (j.bolin@outlook.com)
2018-06-23 04:46:35 PDT (-0700)

Looks great Logan. That cap color is spot on. Nice observation.

Created: 2017-10-16 07:45:28 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2019-07-03 20:41:00 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 118 times, last viewed: 2019-09-03 02:59:47 PDT (-0700)
Show Log