Collection location: Umstead State Park, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA [Click for map]
Collected for IGS.
These orange / yellow pore surfaces with brown/red tops and instant blue staining with nearly smooth bright yellow stems are all over the place right now.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|Could Be||1.0||5.64||1||(geoff balme)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I love this stuff anyway. People have no idea how wild all this still is!
I’m good with educated guesses when the truth is no one knows!
ON we go! I’m hoping for a good rain soon, I love OCTOBER here!
Did you actually expect otherwise? :-) I, for one, would be skeptical if they gave it one.
The fact that we are calling this subluridellus is still a conjecture, an educated guess based on nothing more than an approximate macromorphological match. But a reasonable lead on the possible name is better than no name at all…
Someone needs to sequence the holotype, barcode it, hoping to get some readable DNA out of it. The same should apply to all the other old types from herbaria across the country. The window of opportunity is shrinking by the year. Who knows, maybe it’s already too late. :-(
I take it?
The posted nrLSU sequence is identical to accession #MF797695 (=Boletus sp. strain MGW1536 from Great Smokey Mountain National Park in TN) submitted to GB on 30-Aug-17 by Matheny, Trudell & Wood.
Back in the day I was doing searches with leafhopper sequences (actually 16S rDNA) and getting back results that weren’t even INSECT! :)
So yeah, I can imagine that there are protocols that need to be finely tweaked more than a decade later!
The short answer is “I have absolutely no idea”. You will have to run multiple BLASTs on your sequence, varying the parameters, and then sift through the data very carefully. I don’t think anyone has enough patience to do it this way (manually)… unless there is a big shortcut in GB I am not aware of.
As I commented in your Alessioporus rubriflavus obsie, it all about choosing the query length and cut-off positions before running a general BLAST search. Each “dragnet” is different and will return a sequence report of unique composition… but the general trends should be very similar. GB operates based on the query length first and foremost – it’s a significant parameter affecting the overall hit score. . Thus, looking for a best possible identity match for your sequence in GB can be an extremely frustrating experience.
More food for thought: ‘Boletus subluridellus KF030249’ sequence is 881 bps long and overlaps with fragment 67—>945 of MO255442 when the two are aligned (yours is slightly longer because KF030249 has 4 gaps). When I searched that exact sequence fragment, KF030249 was only hit #60 (sorted by identity). At the same time, Sutorius magnificus from China (KF112320 & KF112324) is the top hit at 98.7% (824/835, including 2 gaps). Lanmaoa pseudosensibilis KF030257 is #8 at 97.7%. None of these ever surfaced in the original BLAST. Do you see what I see?
Do we have an idea of how may of these sequences (close to our red-pored critters) we are able to compare to on GB?
> A clean, contiguous sequence consisting of the last 345 characters of nrITS locus (including the entire ITS2 region) and the first 963 characters of nrLSU locus was obtained from this material.
> A BLAST search of the entire nrLSU sequence returned the typical hit list associated with other cryptic East Cost red-pored boletes sequenced for me and posted by me to MO. There were no matches and no highly similar hits (i.e., >99%). In fact the highest similarity was only 98.2% with Neoboletus sp. ‘vividivelutinus’ voucher JLF2993 (KU160161).
> A separate BLAST search targeting B. subluridellus (taxid:1354913) sequences posted to GB gave a single hit, #KF030249, which was only 853/881 = 96.8% similar. That sequence is associated with the seminal publication of Nuhn et al. (2013) on the phylogenetic architecture of the Boletinae. Taking this into account and thus accepting (at least for the time being and in the absence of evidence to the contrary) the identity of the KF030249 voucher as correct, MO255442 is not subluridellus. On the other hand, if KF030249 was misidentified, this collection is a good fit for subluridellus.
> Finally, a BLAST search of the ITS2 region did not return any meaningful results that shed light on the identify of this collection, as there were no matches or close hits associated with any named species.
: Based on the current interpretation of the LSU data through the lens of GB, for all practical purposes MO255442 falls into the diffuse and yet to be delimited Neoboletus-Sutorius association in the ‘Pulveroboletus Group’ of Wu et al. (2014 & 2016). Morphologically this collections fits the modern descriptions of B. subluridellus. In light of the difficulty of genetic typification of Smith & Thier’s holotype (probably too old to be sequenced), and also questioning the identity of KF030249 (no pix or description to support the ID), this sequence could serve as the current genetic anchor to the species epithet.