Observation 169694: Boletaceae Chevall.

These were at near the base of the Loch Leven Lakes Trail in the Tahoe National Forrest. They were probably under Pinus contorta subsp. murrayana, or Lodgepole Pine. I forgot to check as we were rushing to get off the trail before dark. They turned very blue when cut.


Proposed Names

5% (3)
Used references: Mykoweb & Mushroom Expert descriptions after Ron Pastorino suggested it could be this.
0% (2)
Recognized by sight
-26% (2)
Recognized by sight: This is not a Suillus, nor a Buchwaldoboletus, and if we go beyond that – what about B. abieticola? There is true fir present (see the habitat picture), the colours fit; this is just a specimen that had not the best of best growth opportunities. Colours, bluing – spore sizes – fit.
55% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
which begs the question …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2018-07-11 19:30:55 PDT (-0700)

what in heaven’s name is a “Neoboletus?!”

when things just don’t fit neatly, there is usually a good reason.

so basically, we got nuttin’? weirdo bolete, just like another one, and both really don’t have good names yet?

Or did I miss something?

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2018-07-11 18:48:12 PDT (-0700)

It’s absolutely not a Butyriboletus.
It appears to be a very strong genetic match (100% cover, 99% identities) to Jonathan Frank’s collection JLF 4396, a “Neoboletus” found on 31 July 2016
GenBank: MH203881.1

I’ll wait …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-10-04 07:43:30 PDT (-0700)

for Else to explain herself and her findings, and we can go from there.

Ok, first of all
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-10-03 15:14:43 PDT (-0700)

Else suggested something, but I don’t think she suggested the mystery was solved.

I’m not sure how Else arrived at her spore dimensions, but when I scoped them today, the spores didn’t much look like Butyriboletus abieticola. They have spores that are shaped much more like a Buchwaldoboletus (low Q value, not elongate-tapered like a typical bolete). But they don’t match a known Buchwaldoboletus (as far as I can tell, the spores are larger than those of any published species in that genus).

But they also had long, sinuous, clear hyphae that look like lactiferous hyphae. My understanding from the information in Funga Nordica is that this trait is shown by Buchwaldoboletus, but not other boletes (although I am not sure how well this holds up after separation of the many current bolete genera).

Unfortunately the consensus name is now Suillus tomentosus… Maybe time to update votes?

See images and a comparison here:
observation 181457

real is observing in hand/under scope.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-19 13:42:25 PDT (-0700)

theoretical is looking at a photo and making guesses.

There have been ZERO obsies of any species of Buchwaldoboletus in the Sierra, and only a handful of B. lignicola, the only Buchwaldoboletus that has demonstrated an association with Phaeolus schweinitzii, in the PNW.

That of course doesn’t mean that they couldn’t occur there, just that no one has found evidence yet of their occurrence.

Pores on Buchwaldoboletus are described by Thiers, Bothe, etc. as small or very small. These butter bolete pores are pretty large, as are Suillus pores. The bigger/older the butter, the faster and harder it blues, but all mushrooms are variable in exact shape and size and color changes. Got bluing edulis?

Guess there was a reason that it wasn’t quite matching up to Suillus tomentosus, either! It does explain that tomentose cap, though. I was just examining that feature under my own hand lens yesterday, from material that we also collected in the Sierra: Butyriboletus abieticola, not Suillus tomentosus.

Another mystery solved. Good work, all.

thank you Else.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-18 08:46:46 PDT (-0700)

good to see these things get taken from the theoretical to the real. I knew it wasn’t Buchwaldoboletus, I just wasn’t sure what it WAS.

David and I just found a couple of butter boletes this past week up in Lassen, but we haven’t taken them to the ID point (now only photo available) since we ate one and gave another to an Italian tourist and his family!

Buchwaldo vs Suillus
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-07-15 10:36:10 PDT (-0700)

The pores of these fruitbodies look too bright to be S. tomentosus, which are usually more of a dull ochre-brown, but there is some variability there. They are not too large for Buchwaldoboletus.

The stipe is also brilliant yellow, which is rare for S. tomentosus.

The extensive blue staining is atypical (but not unheard of) for S. tomentosus. For an example of the extreme of S. tomentosus staining, see observation 115665. However, note how much duller the stipe color and especially the pore surface is on those specimens.

The shape of the young cap (irregular, strongly rounded-inrolled and lobed) is much more typical of Buchwaldoboletus, and coniferous debris can be seen fused to the stipe base.

Even though these appear to be lignicolous (making Buchwaldoboletus more a better guess), it’s worth mentioning as a side note that although Buchwaldoboletus are often on wood, they don’t always appear that way (as with the B. lignicola at Oswald West). There is evidence that some are actually parasitic on Phaeolus schweinitzii, and not solely wood-decayers.

was this growing on wood …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-07-15 08:52:11 PDT (-0700)

or digesting woody debris on the ground? If not, this is not Buchwaldoboletus. Those pores also look too large to be Bu-bo.

Both proposed sp. can share traits like bluing, reddening of pores, inrolled margins and a tomentose cap.

There are no prior records of Bu-bos from the Sierra, at least here in MO.