Effectively published 22/07/2014 22:16:15 (ISSN 2049-2375)
Nomenclatural novelties : Jonathan L. Frank
Xerocomellus dryophilus , comb.nov.IF550688 Basionym: Boletus dryophilus Thiers, California Mushrooms (New York): 82 (1975)
that the Czech paper shows the true “Boletus chrysenteron” to be a Xerocomus, not a Xerocomellus!
I look forward to seeing future discoveries and reading more of the debate about this interesting group of boletes.
As to SEM photos: nice if you can get ’em, but not too practical a character for most.
BTW, “bacillate” means looking like rod bacteria. Bacillate spores are spores that are covered in a relief of shapes that resemble rod bacteria, but are just raised portions of the spores. Beautiful SEM micrographs in that Czech paper. Thank you, Else, for that great reference, and most especially a place to read it online for free!
I’ll bet that most of you at home didn’t know that “bacillate” definition, either!
Luckily, you need neither DNA nor an SEM scope to tell these genera apart. At least most of the time.
Thanks for the summaries, guys.
Xerocomellus are mostly small to medium sized bolets, that generally have a finely velvety cap that becomes areolate in age (the cracked-capped boletes, although X. zelleri usually doesn’t do this). Most have some to a lot of red color on the stipes, and also have granulose, mostly non-reticulate stipes
Verse Xerocomus, which are small to large boletes with drab colors, a velvety cap that rarely cracks, generally a reticulated stipe that lack bright colors.
Microscopically, among other things, Xerocomellus has palisadoderm pileipellis, vs. trichoderm in Xerocomus
The paper Else referenced has an excellent run-down of the differences.
In CA, we have a handful of Xerocomellus; the X. zelleri group, X. “truncatus” X. “chrysenteron”, etc. And with _Xerocomus we have the X. subtomentose group (which has a western NA name Ceriomyces oregonensis) and the X. spadiceus group.
Sutara 2008 wrote a long article on the morphological differences between those genera. you can find it free on line at the Czech Mycology web site
JOSEF ŠUTARA – CZECH MYCOL. 60(1): 29–62, 2008 – Xerocomus s. l. in the light of the present state of knowledge
what are the generic not genetic differences between Xerocomus and Xerocomellus?
It’s nothing new.
We have seen a few new genera for Xerocomus outliers recently; Imleria for Boletus badius, Cyanoboletus for B. pulverulentus, Alessioporus for Xerocomus ichnusanus and Pulchroboletus for X. roseoalbiduus.
Our placement of it is based on a fuller phylogenetic tree of Xerocomellus and related genera and taxa.
These recombinations will be part of a full “normally” published paper at a later date.
Jonathan wanted to include a couple paragraphs on being conservative with IF ‘quick-pub’ names, but the comments field is hidden on IF for some reason.
Scott Redhead seems to have taken a shining to this method recently, and while it has its utility, it can cause big messes if used over-eagerly…
funny that IF doesn’t have Xerocomellus dryophilus up yet as a searchable species, since that is where you published it!
BTW, what are the generic differences between Xerocomus and Xerocomellus? The Boletales site did mention that Xerocomus was more of a “grab bag” than a distinctive Genera; in other words, there were species contained within that genus that really didn’t quite fit. I can only assume that dryophilus was one of them.
and yes, just a simple name change (recombination).
it has JUST been published as a synonym for Boletus dryophilus. It is NOT up on Mycoportal yet, though.
Where did y’all publish this one? Just a simple name change, right? Online somewhere?
I´m not sure what you mean by “keep it as Boletus dryophilus”:
MO has 3 names for this taxon:
Xerocomellus dryophilus, which Christian just created and has 1 observation ( observation 161303);
Xerocomus dryophilus, which has 13 observations and, per Index Fungorum record 309674
MycoBank #309674, is the current name; and
Boletus dryophilus, with 28 Observations, and which I just deprecated in favor of Xerocomus dryophilus (but which I could undo).
If you mean something else, please let me know and I’l try to fix things up. But if Xerocomellus dryophilus remains an MO name, I think it should be synonymized so that users can easily see all observations, no matter which name they start with.
Created: 2014-03-13 11:22:13 PDT (-0700) by Christian (Christian Schwarz)
Last modified: 2014-07-23 14:54:51 PDT (-0700) by Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
Viewed: 759 times, last viewed: 2019-03-30 12:46:56 PDT (-0700)