When: 2014-07-03

Collection location: Vancouver, Clark Co., Washington, USA [Click for map]

Who: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )

No specimen available

Species Lists


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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Well too bad
By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2014-07-20 13:55:18 MST (-0700)

because discussing an archaic term used by an old dead mycologist in a identification key is exactly how this started. And now we have a current term that we can all agree on.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-20 00:40:50 MST (-0700)

Don’t want to discuss archaic terms used by

Singer (1906-1994)
Peck (1833-1917)
Kauffman (1869-1931)
Coker (1884-1956)
Lloyd (1859-1926)
Burt (1859-1939)

If MO cannot agree on current terms, what is the point?

it’s not fun…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 22:04:05 MST (-0700)

it’s actually annoying at this point…
because, it happens every other month when someone collects a “purple Gymnopilus” and automatically decides it’s G. luteofolius (w/ 0 evidence to support their claim) because that is what “the images on Google look like.”
it’s kind of ridiculous, actually.

i am surprised by Alan’s vote but, at least i understand his point of view.

if you would like to discuss it further, we can through email…
but, i am not posting anymore information on the topic than i already have in a public forum.

By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2014-07-19 21:58:26 MST (-0700)

Every publication by Singer, Peck, Kauffman, Coker, Lloyd, Burt, etc. used frondose to refer to angiosperms. It was such a straightforward and obvious term that I doubt any of them felt the need to include it in a glossary as I am sure they didn’t think they would need to include coniferous forest. I don’t know what you want me to cite. The term is is just an unfortunately vague sounding and used practically only by mycologists. It is now archaic because authors realized it should just be replaced with more scientific terms like angiosperm.

Richard, what was our third option again? Sorry this thread has been going on a long time so I may have forgotten. It should would be ideal to have a collection and don’t think we will be able to naildown any name for it beyond a tentative identification but it can still be fun to try!

lol, indeed…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 21:47:23 MST (-0700)

i posted a photo, “I” took of Singer’s “The Agaricales in modern taxonomy,” which was published in 1949.
do you want to see the rest of the key…?
or, maybe i can photocopy and mail you the entire publication…
you copy and paste something off the interenet…and “I” need to cite references.
good one.

By whom, Joshua?
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 21:39:58 MST (-0700)

What is the citation for that statement? Both you and Richard seem so adamant about this, but have offered no concrete citations for your viewpoints.

Science is not a viewpoint. Science is verifiable. Science has references.

there is a difference…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 20:54:42 MST (-0700)

and there are 3 options to be considered.

but, you first need to COLLECT the specimen..before you “call it” anything.

In the context of mycological history
By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2014-07-19 20:47:19 MST (-0700)

“frondose” is used exclusively in reference to angiosperms in contrast to conifers. It is an unfortunately less the precise term which is why it is not longer used in scientific literature. Additionally Cycads do not produce “cones” as defined by most botanists, but instead produce stobili. The term cones is typically used only to specialized stobili produced by the Pinophyta.

So in the end we decided that if we follow Singer’s key it can be neither aeruginosus (because it has strong purple-red coloration) or luteofolius (because it grows on conifer wood)? I still have serious doubts if the two species are different sensu Singer or Hesler. Type studies are definitely required.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 20:45:36 MST (-0700)
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 20:21:03 MST (-0700)

there certainly is in the text…

No, this isn’t rocket science.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 20:18:40 MST (-0700)

Definition of frondose:



1. Bearing fronds. 2. Resembling a frond or leaf.

Origin of frondose
Latin frondōsus, abounding in foliage, from frōns, frond-, foliage.

There is nothing about conifer trees or deciduous trees mentioned.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:54:29 MST (-0700)

c’mon dood…
this isn’t rocket science.
there are needles all over that log…

Singer is very clear on what he is separating…
if the type was found on a Cycad species…im sure it would be mentioned.

Conifer means “cone bearing”.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 19:48:51 MST (-0700)

Can’t you think of a tree that bears cones and has fronds. (Hint: Cycads.)

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:43:47 MST (-0700)

it would be nice to examine this observation for pleurocystidia…
but, since we can’t apparently…we might as well “call it” G. luteofolius, right…??
logic wins again…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-19 19:37:16 MST (-0700)

So which conifers have fronds???

if that is so…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:33:47 MST (-0700)

then he would not have made a distinction between frondose wood and coniferous wood…
and no, i do not see a “distinct annulus at the beginning of maturity.”
also, the stipe “context” is wrong…

Oops. Yes, I did. Sorry Richard.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 19:29:24 MST (-0700)

But even so, don’t you see what looks to be a partial annulus on the stipe just above where it was cut?

“Frondose” does not refer to either conifers or hardwoods. It refers to both. A conifer needle is still a leaf.

yes, it does…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:25:57 MST (-0700)

read “A.”

Rocky…this comment was obviosuly meant for Daniel.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-19 19:25:47 MST (-0700)

Doesn’t just mean leafy, it means the leaves are large and divided. No conifer can be frondose.

I did not vote on G. luteofolius before.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 19:24:10 MST (-0700)

I have now since the reference to Singer’s 1949 text is so accurate.

Singer’s key does not mention an annulus.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:23:33 MST (-0700)

he CLEARLY makes a distinction between “frondrose” and conifer wood.
“leafy” means, with leaves…not needles.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-19 19:17:50 MST (-0700)

Your citation provided (thank you!) seems to prove this as G. luteofolius. Frondose means “leafy”. So this reference could as easily refer to coniferous as hardwood trunk. Read that way, “frondose trunk” is kind of meaningless…

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 19:14:04 MST (-0700)

why would you change your vote…
when, this key clearly states that G. luteofolius is found on frondose trunks, has a distinctive annulus and a “light purplish/vinaceous” stipe context…?

Singer, R. 1949. The Agaricales in modern taxonomy…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-19 17:37:34 MST (-0700)

For what it is worth…
By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2014-07-10 08:33:29 MST (-0700)

We are trying to sort out the staining species of Gymnopilus here at UT. Helser accepted three (if I remember correctly) Peck species that bruise or stain blue or blue-green with some reservation. I am skeptical of the differences between the species in the way Hesler delimited them but Peck’s specimens should definitely be checked to really know what the original concepts are. We are primarily looking at the eastern species but might try and sort out what you have on the west. If you wait a couple years hopefully we will be able to publish something on these guys! Science takes too long these days…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-10 05:24:38 MST (-0700)

Sorry for the confusion, obviously Alan is correct. I was confused by a passage in Singers notes in which he compares a Chilean collection to Peck’s type and complains about the ambiguity of the original description.

Neotype …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-09 17:20:16 MST (-0700)

I thought it meant a specmien designated once the original name has been replaced. Upon actually reading, the ICN states a neotype is only designated if the holotype specimen itself is destroyed, lost, or deemed invalid. Type designation is very specific.

MO, I am derp.

My obs. is that Vancouver, WA
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-09 16:29:27 MST (-0700)

is a whole 12 miles away, and Pseudotsuga menziesii represents approximately 99.999 percent of Douglas-fir in the area, provided one does not examine populations further than 50 miles from Vancouver.

There is a variant of Pseudotsuga menziesii that has been reported (rarely) in the PNW, that does not allow endophytic fungi in Douglas-fir needles. This genetic modification is found in about 1 of 100,000 trees. One of these “Eagle” trees can be seen near Eddyville School, Lincoln County, Oregon.

Why would there be a Singer type?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-07-09 16:22:49 MST (-0700)

This is a Peck species. You don’t make a new type collection when you move a mushroom into a new genus.

Singer Specimen …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-09 15:56:57 MST (-0700)

After doing some research, Singer deposited specimens in a variety of locations incluing BAFC, INPA, MICH, and SCO. I looked for a refernce in Hesler but he didn’t work with Singer’s collection. Singer described G. luteofolius in 1951 in The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy originally published in the Argentinian journal, Lilloa. I found a reprint from Lubrecht & Cramer Limited in 1975 in hardcopy and just requested it from UGA via GIL so it should be here by the end of next week.

It should have the location of the type specimen along with his description.

host tree
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-09 13:32:10 MST (-0700)

Douglas fir but I didn’t get it’s genetics tested so lets just call it Pseudotsuga but probably not
menziesii the campus botanist might be wrong

When I have time I’d love to comment and how genetics and deep homology reshape taxonomy and

That is
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-09 11:18:56 MST (-0700)

Peck’s Pholiota holotype, can you find Singer’s Gymnopilus?

G. luteofolius Holotype Location …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-09 11:10:10 MST (-0700)


As “Agaricus (Pholiota) luteofolius” the holotype is located at the New York State Museum in the Charles Horton Peck Mycological Collection. Link regarding specimen loans: http://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/...

However it’s old so contamination is a big factor.

For What It’s Worth …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-09 10:17:47 MST (-0700)

There appear to be coniferous needles on the ground. The bark of the stump feom which it’s growing also looks coniferous.

Modified Hypothesis, do you know what species of tree made this mushroom’s substrate?

EDIT: Misread it. Two specimens from DAOM and University of Tennessee were used in Guzman’s study.

One is at the DAOM (Canadian Dept. of Agriculture) and the other at University of Tennessee’s herbairum. I couldn’t find accession # 15085


any obsie that stimulates good discussion is a plus!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-09 09:56:24 MST (-0700)

sometimes folks vote “as if” just to manage the names. It takes an “as if” to balance out a “I’d call it that.”

It really isn’t a value judgement, and I kinda wish that Nathan would just remove it, or change what it says.

It does sound kinda snotty, eh?

WE have too many people here who know too much, and also like to argue their points of view! But this is also true in the Professional world of mycology. Even published names need to get accepted. Names published with incomplete or incorrect data need to be rejected, eventually. MO is pretty cutting edge in this way.

I like Rocky’s explanation for why the best name here should be Gymnopilus sect. Gymnopilus, but I also agree with Alan … I would have called this G. luteofolius too, just in looking at the photo and from my western field experience.

Keys must constantly be updated, right along with our knowledge. Something is always gonna be behind the curve. But how cool is it to have a site where someone really does know the best, most thorough answer, and is willing to share that knowledge freely?

WE are in the midst of a sea-change in how we ID mushrooms. But we need to incorporate all of our existing tools and discover what parts of this new DNA technology are actually true, and what is still an illusion. Only time will tell that.

The vast majority of we field collectors are still using eyeball tech to make our IDs. Just be sure that you qualify that ID, at least in your own mind. Morphology and color are variable, and some fungi turn out to be identical in microscopy, but different in their DNA!

The mushrooms can fool us, and frequently do. But that is what makes mushroom ID so fun and challenging.

This is defintely the taxon
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-07-09 09:28:37 MST (-0700)

that we call Gymnopilus luteofolius on the west coast. Whether that name is correct or not is hard to tell, as we haven’t studied the type collection.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-09 06:12:30 MST (-0700)

Hesler’s systematics of Gymnopilus have been demonstrated to be completely invalid by Guzman’s preliminary molecular studies in 2005, and again and far more thoroughly by Bettye Rees a year later; the only appropriate label for this observation is ‘Gymnopilus’- even if there were microscopy to support it.

The name luteofolius was first misapplied by Rolf singer, probably to one of the purpuratus types; Hesler later conflated the situation by using collections of G. aeruginosus to write the description for G. luteofolius, leaving us with a concept for that species that is actually based on the morphological and microscopic traits of two other species.

The epithet luteofolia was first applied by Peck to a New England collection from the base of birch. Pecks description makes no mention of green or blue bruising and compares the gestalt to a Tricholoma with a rimose pileus, similar to those possessed by G. praeofloccosus and fulvosquamulosus.

As far as I can tell, there are two small purple Gymnopilus on the west coast (excluding pulchrifolius, which isn’t that closely related anyway) the first being the extremely cosmopolitan wood chip loving aeruginosus and the second being a pine inhabiting species which may or may not have a valid name at the moment(thiersii).

You can all vote as you see fit, but every confident vote for a species epithet in this observation diminishes the validity of Mushroomobserver as an accurate database in addition to propagating the popular misuse of the name luteofolius.

Microscopy Would Be Very Helpful …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-09 05:28:34 MST (-0700)

This website is for mushroom identification via any means necessary. Nucleotide sequencing is merely another tool to suppport or reject an arguments. It is not the “be all, end all” solution to taxonomy. Macroscopic identification can help but for all we know this Gymnopilus sp. could be undescribed. Anyway, since its definitely close to G. luteofolius, Gymnopilus sect. Gymnopilus should suffice for now.

just trying to understand why
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-08 22:14:48 MST (-0700)
Gymnopilus luteofolius (Peck) Singer makes no sense to you people that voted

“as if” or “not likely” other then just to make it Gymnopilus Genus rather then a species name. It basically looks like that’s exactly what happened.

Id like maybe a list of species or is this site about about genetic work for ID and nothing is what it is unless we do the genetics?

Is it really foolish to ask what features about this mushroom make you think it wouldn’t be luteofolius? Instead you guys just change the subject.

Is English Your Primary Language?
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-08 16:55:35 MST (-0700)

Insulting people won’t help your case. It’ll just make people think you’re a polemic and make them dislike you. Mycology is no easy science and macroscopic identification can often be misleading. Also I see no post which contains links other than your most recent comment.

P.S. I would be happy to read your posts if they were legible. Your grammar is atrocious and you get butthurt far too easily.

EDIT: P.P.S. Don’t let confirmation bias get the best of you.

Gymnopilus luteofolius (Peck) Singer
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-08 13:05:20 MST (-0700)

If you read where this is Gymnopilus is located, the color and the shape saying “as if” or “not likely” to Gymnopilus luteofolius makes no sense


1b Average diameter of mature caps 3 cm or more

2b Cap essentially some color or mixture of colors as above but with tinges of bluish or greenish color, either innately or from bruising

3b Cap without innate blue-green, but may stain or appear to stain so on bruising

5b Fruiting body not uniformly colored: at first dark red to reddish brown from dense fasciculate scales, then pinkish red, yellowish red, to yellow; cap without umbo, may stain or appear to stain light grayish green where bruised

Gymnopilus luteofolius

I will agree this key is really strange that it doesn’t have a and b in separate places in relation to the next feature but shrug it works and makes sense

I mean that’s my logic for

its like the Dicentra formosa I collected a few days ago, and going well it could be any other Dicentra Screw me keying it out or an expert of the area keying it out.

Definitely Not G. junonius
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2014-07-08 12:10:04 MST (-0700)

I assume thats what you meant by “big gym” as it is also known as the “big laughing gym.” Looks like some sort of Gymnopilus sp. though. Also please keep in mind that it takes a while for most of us to reply, so just chill and forget about it for a while.

there you go
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-08 07:39:48 MST (-0700)

sorry posted from phone , forgot to rotate and MO wasn’t letting me

Gills in first photo
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2014-07-08 00:44:03 MST (-0700)

distorted, but in 4th photo straight and not distorted.

I think it may be Gymnopilus too.

By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-05 21:17:32 MST (-0700)

two can play the game of changing their comment. But seriously whats your theory and reasoning behind it not being Gymnopilus luteofolius that’s all i want to know, you said " As If! " and that other guy said “not likely” . Personally that doesn’t make sense to me when its more so highly probable based on the macroscopic features.

All I’m saying is what makes you think you know better then people of the PWN.

Modified Hypothesis…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-07-04 11:05:53 MST (-0700)

MO is an open forum for discussion.
There is no need to email me…not once, but twice (in less than 12 hrs.) regarding my vote on this observation.
You seem to have already made up your mind…

blue green
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-03 19:44:58 MST (-0700)

In areas

forgot to put the name
By: Modified Hypothesis (Modified Hypothesis )
2014-07-03 13:16:21 MST (-0700)

you guys beat me too it in was in class

Created: 2014-07-03 12:22:14 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-03-14 08:43:36 MST (-0700)
Viewed: 694 times, last viewed: 2019-10-09 09:39:13 MST (-0700)
Show Log