Notes:
> I found these at the NJMA foray, growing in leaf litter and tenuous soil around scattered boulders in mixed deciduous woods with red and white oak, chestnut oak, maple and other hardwoods.
Description: The partially expanded caps are 7-8 cm wide and 1.5-2.0 cm thick in the center. The caps’ original color is rosy-red (i.e., more bicolor-like) at the time of collection in the woods, but the pictures taken ~2.5 hrs post collection show a different hue (notice the “dimples” are still purple-red to rose-red); hours later, the color was observed as tannish-pink over the disc and still rose-red toward the periphery. The pore surface is dingy lemon yellow, bluing when injured; the bluing gradually dissipates to grayish brown, finally resolving medium brown. The pores are clogged in the young fb, as visualize with a lens, and are variably-sized and round in the older fb, 3-4 pores per mm. The tube layer is 3-4 mm thick at the widest section, bluing when cut. The stipes are 8-9 cm long, 1.5-1.7 cm wide at the apex and 1.8-2.3 cm wide at the base, curved and twisted, and with a very uneven and convoluted surface topology. The stipe surface color is ranging from medium scarlet red in the bottom half, transitioning to orangish-red and mixed with yellow-brown hues the upper half, with a very narrow yellow band at the juncture with the pore surface. The younger fb is unevenly reticulate over the upper 1-1.5 cm on one side of the stipe and is smooth on the other side; the older fb is delicately reticulate just at the apex.
The context is very firm, especially in the stipe, whitish to very pale yellow in the cap, light to medium lemon yellow in the stipe, gradually bluing in the cap above the tubes (in the smaller fb), with just a trace of bluing in the older one (see pix).
Taste is mild and not distinct. The odor is reminiscent of chicken bouillon to my nose; this was confirmed by two other individuals at the foray.
Macrochemical tests: KOH = amber yellow-brown at first, then rusty orange-brown on cap surface; pale orange on cap context. NH3 = at first pale rusty orange, resolving to mustard yellow with a diffuse green zone around the yellow on the cap surface; erasing the bluing but otherwise negative to yellowish on the cap flesh. FeSO4 = grayish olive green on cap surface; negative to pale slate on cap context.
The gestalt morphology and the chicken bouillon odor are consistent with the description of Boletus pallidoroseus.
DNA Sequencing Results and Discussion (last update/edit 12-Nov-17):
> Partial contiguous nrITS and nrLSU sequences were obtained for this material. Both sequences suffered from a non-specificity issue affecting a portion of the read in the middle. More specifically, the annotated report reads: “The nrITS sequence becomes non-specific early in the ITS1 region and the overall trace appears too long to try to join a haplotype contig from the other end. The nrLSU trace is missing about 1/3 of the 5’ end because there is a non-specific region between primers LR22 and LR3.” Nevertheless, both sequences are still useful, as the nrITS contiguous fragment is 541 nucleotides long and the nrLSU contiguous fragment is 920 nucleotides long.
> A GenBank BLAST search of the nrITS fragment did not return an matching or meaningful hits. There are no B. pallidoroseus ITS sequences in Genbank. Lack of hits eliminates the possibility of this being B. bicolor, for GB sequences of that taxon do exist (whether they are correctly identified remains to be seen).
> As expected, a GenBank BLASTn search of the “full-length” nrLSU fragment did not return any matching or meaningful hits. However, a search of the first 445 characters (through the LR5 region) gave the following hit profile:
1) Boletus bicolor voucher TH6933 (#AY612800) = 100% match. This is almost certainly a misidentification (see discussion in obs 210760)
2) Boletus pallidoroseus voucher snHor01 (#KF030305) = 99.8% match
3) Lanmaoa carminipes voucher MB06-001 (#JQ327001) = 99.5% match
4) Lanmaoa asiatica HKAS54094 (KF112353) = 99.0% match
5) Lanmaoa asiatica HKAS63592 (KM605142) = 99.0% match
6) Lanmaoa asiatica HKAS54095 (KM605141) = 98.8% match
7) Lanmaoa angustispora HKAS74765 (KF112322) = 97.8% match
8)-10) Three more Lanmaoa vouchers with ~98% similarity
Furthermore, alignment of the “full-length” nrLSU fragment of 247881 with the corresponding 920 bp region of my benchmark B. pallidoroseus voucher, obs 210760, shows them to be 100% identical.
> A clean and contiguous TEF-1-α sequence of 610 bps was also obtained from this collection. There are 5 ambiguous characters: one “R” and four “Y”. Alignment of this sequence with that of obs 210760 shows them to differ only in the 4 ambiguous characters (the two traces share one of the "Y"’s). Thus the similarity of the two sequences can be as low as 99.3% and as high as 100%. For a TEF-1 BLASTn search profile, see the discussion in 210760.
> Based on the morphological and molecular profile of this collection, the best diagnosis at this time is Boletus pallidoroseus/Lanmaoa pallidorosea.

Species Lists

Images

Younger fb: Uneven reticulation
Younger fb: photographed ~1 min after dissection
Older fb: photographed ~1 min after dissection; faint bluing
Older fb: photographed ~26 min after dissection; the bluing is gone

Proposed Names

-29% (1)
Recognized by sight
29% (1)
Recognized by sight
86% (1)
Based on chemical features: 1) nrLSU & TEF-1 BLASTn data
2) obs 210760

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Alan,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-12-31 03:27:56 CST (-0500)

The sequences have already been uploaded for this obsie.

Also I asked you not to upload any more of my sequences to any of the associated observations (original comment in 288188). This is my project and I don’t need any help. This will get done soon enough.

Do you have the sequences for this?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2017-12-31 03:22:16 CST (-0500)
Why only “could be”
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-08-14 23:57:01 CDT (-0400)

Because the bicolor group is not delineated even morphologically. Perhaps callling it B. bicolor with the same confidence level would have been more fitting under the circumstances. Based on my understanding of the textbook B. bicolor species concept, I feel this one is close, yet not exactly the same. The color of the stipe, the lack of “seamless” transition of the pores into the stipe, the unusual odor and the non-matching chemical tests are my “supporting evidence”. On the other hand, some of the other morphological characters are in line with B. bicolor, e.g., the appearance/color of the pore surface, the tube layer thickness, and the color and staining of the context.

Why only “could be?”
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2016-08-14 23:12:24 CDT (-0400)

What other species do you have in the running?

FWIW, I completely understand that it may just “feel” different. This is why the whole bicolor group/spectrum needs studying.