Observation 26500: Panellus stipticus (Bull.) P. Karst.

When: 2009-10-10

Collection location: Beaver Co., Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]

Who: Bob Zuberbuhler (Bob Z)

No specimen available

A small mushroom clustered in layers on a dead stump. Fan-shapped, tan, soft and attached narrowly at the margin. The free margin is scalloped and somewhat toothed. The upper surface has a mosaic appearance and the underside has tan gills converging on the small area of attachment. No particular odor.



Proposed Names

61% (5)
Recognized by sight: Did you taste them?
33% (2)
Recognized by sight: it looks like the European P.stypticus but is an independent species which they even cultivate sometimes in Europe. It emits light in the dark like Omphalotus.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
No need to separate stipticus from stipticus
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-10-13 08:28:12 BST (+0100)

In spite of minor differences in DNA, they are sexually compatible and considered the same species.
I have a link to a swedish article (but originally written by Ron Petersen) that shows examples of what has been tested so far, comparing european and american look-alikes:
A cladogram is shown in p.49. In the text is said that there is no other way to tell them apart than testing their DNA.
Earlier work was reported here:

So, trying to make these different species, wouldn’t that be like making a new species of a flat-foot population of humans in an inbred, isolated village somewhere in the world?

By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2009-10-13 02:19:23 BST (+0100)

Not sure how far one would want to go with using the “ameri-” prefix. I have noticed that the bioluminescence is variable even with mushrooms growing on the same log.

In this observation:
Some mushrooms from a single cluster are glowing green while others are not glowing at all.

By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2009-10-12 23:23:12 BST (+0100)

then let’s do like you do with Amanita franchetii and say in addition ss.auct.amer. or similarly. Or Panellus stypticus American group or I don’t know what else…

Yeah, but…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2009-10-12 12:08:35 BST (+0100)

Well, I think you mean Boletus eastwoodiae (Be kind to Ms. Eastwood there…), but that is a different concern. That was a case that a really cool name (B. satanas, I mean cum’on everyone wants to use that name…), got used for a confused species, and eventually a actual good published species name got used after recent work was matched up with old names.

But that is not what is happening here, is that an observation that should be matched with other observations of P. stipticus of the eastern US, is now dumped into a wider bucket, because of a suggestion of a new species, but one which isn’t published, so this should go to a species observation that doesn’t exist?

I’m just trying to understand what should be done in these cases, or else we could drop perhaps, most? of the US observations back to generic levels and that would seem to create more confusion to sort out, instead of less. I mean I’m pretty sure I could find published siting of P. stipticus for the US, so I think we should be able to keep using that name as published, until someone publishes a new name to use. At least then we know which observations to change at that point. As what has been done for C. califorincus, B. rex-veris, M. fallax, and some others probably, I think just in the past year. These were sited as European species, until there existed a new name published for US observations.

Just dropping people back to generic identification because it isn’t European just doesn’t seem right, there are too many cases of that. Like there could be a argument that most US Russula species should just be R. sp. then, and I’m not sure that helps us listing all those obs. in that way.

Earlier discussions about stipticus
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-10-12 07:35:26 BST (+0100)
Yes, you’re right inasfar as I don’t know any published name
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2009-10-12 01:35:35 BST (+0100)

But my opinion differs from yours. Look at China; they up to now mostly use European or North American names for their fungi which mainly are indigenous ones and are sold at markets and eaten before they even get into hands of science…
The problem is that mycologists are so slack in daring to give the species new names when they have proven to be different. And I have the information from one that breeds those Panellus and names them “stipticus America” for he is not interested in describing and working scientifically. How far and finally the study on these is I don’t know yet but the people at the international meeting where it was told belong to the best in the world. And how long did it take to call Boletus underwoodii Boletus underwoodii and not Boletus satanas? ;) It adds to confusion when the taxa all around the world are named after European names … I want to point out that this is my personal opinion only!

Are they really published as different species?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2009-10-11 19:29:02 BST (+0100)

I’m not sure they were really published as different species. I think I heard of a study that showed a number of differences in molecular studies, and the fact that some of the eastern US ones glow in the dark, where none of the European ones glow (and also not all of the eastern US ones glow either), so the assumption was that there might be different species here. But the actual different species weren’t published were they? It would be good to get a citations on this one perhaps.

But I kinda don’t like how with they studies of suggestions that the first thing that happens is that people start putting id’s back to Genus sp., I mean these are the same probably as other Panellus stipticus of other observations in the eastern US. Why not site them as such, if there isn’t any other name published that could be used?

I just wonder where things are going when suggestions of new data, just seem to devolve the identification of species, so soon we are just all back to Fungi sp. at some point… Until there is another species name to use, why not just go with P. stipticus for now?

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-10-11 18:34:58 BST (+0100)

I didn’t know that Europe and North America had different species of this. Do you have any links to where I can read about them?

Created: 2009-10-10 19:29:22 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2011-01-28 05:18:48 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 338 times, last viewed: 2018-07-11 19:01:21 BST (+0100)
Show Log