Name: Xerocomellus dryophilus (Thiers) N. Siegel, C.F. Schwarz & J.L. Frank
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2016 Christian (Christian Schwarz)
Copyright © 2018 Kingman Bond Graham (Kingman)
Copyright © 2016 Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
Copyright © 2018 Pgrunow
Version: 3
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Christian
Editors: Joseph D. Cohen

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Xerocomellus dryophilus

Author: (Thiers) N. Siegel, C.F. Schwarz & J.L. Frank

Citation: Index Fungorum no. 179

Deprecated Synonyms: Xerocomus dryophilus (Thiers) Singer, Boletus dryophilus Thiers

Classification:
Lifeform:
Notes on Taxonomy: [Edit]

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)
Descriptions: [Create]
There are no descriptions for this name yet.

Comments

Add Comment
Not quite
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-07-23 13:57:32 PDT (-0700)

Sutara founded Xerocomellus on the Chrysenteron taxon – it’s the type species of the new genus.

interesting …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-23 13:47:13 PDT (-0700)

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.

The differences…
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-07-23 12:40:13 PDT (-0700)

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.

Some of the major differences:
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-07-23 12:32:59 PDT (-0700)

Bacillate spores surface in SEM (which we don’t have access to either, mostly) on the spores of Xerocomus, smooth or longitudinally striate in Xerocomellus.

A trichoderm pileipellis layer in Xerocomus vs. a palisadoderm pileipellis in Xerocomellus… but that can become tricky in old age when the cells slump.

Sutara 2008
By: else
2014-07-23 12:27:46 PDT (-0700)

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

assuming that most don’t use DNA for simple IDs …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-23 12:10:33 PDT (-0700)

what are the generic not genetic differences between Xerocomus and Xerocomellus?

We have been allowed to “quick publish” for some time…
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-07-23 12:02:22 PDT (-0700)

It’s nothing new.

Genetically Xerocomellus isn’t all that close to Xerocomus (typified by X. subtomentosus).

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.

We have also been slow to catch on to using Hemileccinum for the B. subglabripes group in North America.

Sort of
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-07-23 11:38:06 PDT (-0700)

We did it as a response to Vizzini’s recent and incorrect move of X. rainisii to Cyanoboletus (which it is not phylogenetically speaking, a part of).

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…

so, we can just quick-“publish” names on IF, now?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-23 11:22:24 PDT (-0700)

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.

Index Fungorum
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-07-23 11:13:50 PDT (-0700)

and yes, just a simple name change (recombination).

apparently …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-23 11:07:11 PDT (-0700)

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?

MO has 3 names for this taxon
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-03-14 19:36:29 PDT (-0700)

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 that this Name (Xerocomellus dryophilus) should be eliminated and Boletus dryophilus used instead, I think that Christian is the only person who can accomplish that.

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.

I would keep it as Boletus dryophilus
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-03-14 18:42:14 PDT (-0700)

until it gets published as a Xerocomellus

Should I synonymize Xerocomellus dryophilus with Xerocomus d?
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-03-14 18:27:47 PDT (-0700)

So it seems that the right thing to do, pending publication, is to make the MO Names Xerocomellus dryophilus and Xerocomus dryophilus synonyms, without deprecating Xerocomus dryophilus.

It belongs in Xerocomellus,
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-03-14 18:10:10 PDT (-0700)

but that combination hasn’t been published yet. It is not a Xerocomus.

= Xerocomus dryophilus?
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-03-14 18:06:25 PDT (-0700)

Is Xerocomellus dryophilus a synonum for Xerocomus dryophilus?

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)
Show Log