Who: Pablo (pablobph)
On Nothofagus dombeyi living tree.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||8.40||2||(Chaelthomas,pablobph)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
and with a name like “endoxantha,” must be yellow on the inside as well!
from: https://www.researchgate.net/..., pg. 4
Fistulina antarctica Speg.
Hosts: Nothofagus dombeyi, N. pumilio, N. betuloides and N. antarctica (Rajchenberg 2006).
Distribution: an endemic species of the Subantarctic Patagonian forests (Bosque Caducifolio and Pehuen Districts). Remarks: it produces a characteristic reddish, chestnut staining of the heart wood that does not produce the loss of technological properties of the wood (at the least in the preliminary moments); in fact, it was always isolated from apparently sound although ‘brownish dyed’ wood (Cwielong and Rajchenberg 1995).
Fistulina endoxantha Speg.
Hosts: Nothofagus nervosa and N. obliqua (Rajchenberg 2006).
Distribution: an endemic species of the Subantarctic Patagonian forests (Pehuen District).
Known host tree species would indicate this to be F. antarctica, according to this document. But a host tree is not always known. I am still curious as to the morpho or micro differences between this species and other similar species of
Plus, I would love to see this sectioned (and bleeding) by one of our southern hemisphere colleagues!
C and I have a long unpleasant history. this is reflected here, on both sides of the dialogue.
I chose to not respond further to his postings. Feel free to contact me off MO for more. Or just let it go. I certainly did.
Nice find but what are all these negative comments from debbie.Theres no need for that here.
slow day at “work,” C?
You said “without DNA determination, this species might just be a rumor.”
Then you bothered to actually look at that DNA evidence, which did not support your unfounded claim.
So you changed your tune and said, oh well, “DNA breaks are a human construct”
This doesn’t bode well for you to be the one casting aspersions about seeking truth.
Then I pointed out that ecological relationships are extremely informative (the “single species” you mention being widespread is actually likely not a single species across Europe and North America).
At which point you tried to shut down the conversation by calling it a rant.
Que lastima es gastar palabras en ti
depending upon where it occurs: oak and chestnut in the east, chinquapin and tan oak and even hemlock (!) here in the west, and on Eucalyptus in OZ. So, hosts for a single species can be quite variable, and differ in different places where they occur. A new host does not a new mushroom make, unless there is also other data to support that finding.
I asked about morpho characters, because I was curious. Yup, even those vary.
As does the micro, contrary to common belief. But still, we need to get a multiplicity of data points to make a good determination.
The possible DNA differences (still 93% with all sequence BLASTED) and morpho differences would be more convincing to me than a mere host tree.
But methinks that your point here is not to seek truth, but to poke the tiger.
“all I said was that a different host tree is not a slam dunk for a brand new species, esp. when it is occurring in a wholly different place.”
As far as I can tell, it’s actually greater evidence for the mushroom being distinct if both its geographic distribution is disjunct and it has a different substrate/host.
“what I asked for were actual differences in the mushrooms themselves.”
What makes you think ecological relationships are not features of the mushroom itself?!
If you’re really so concerned about DNA breaks being human constructs, take a long hard look at what assumptions you are making about ecology. The interactions of organisms are MUCH more meaningful than the morphological criteria you seem to be so hung up on. As an Amanitologist, you are clearly aware that spore dimensions are radically variable…
for your link, but little detail in that very complicated tree!
I am in process of running BLAST on the antarctica sequences already up on Genbank.
It does appear that there are DNA differences; the first match (hepatica to antarctica, partial ITS sequence) was at 93%. But of course, our DNA species breaks are a human construct. I am running the rest of the sequences to see if they differ.
would still love to hear about any macro-morph differences, if they have been observed and noted.
but only to be expected.
all I said was that a different host tree is not a slam dunk for a brand new species, esp. when it is occurring in a wholly different place.
what I asked for were actual differences in the mushrooms themselves.
I am completely open to this being a different species. I’d just like to know why, in a convincing way.
BTW C, sarcasm is a conversational tactic, not an actual answer. Just another service that we provide, eh?
Despite your constant MO bashing, I can see that you still just can’t stay away!
I can hardly blame you, for that.
MO has the best myco-dialogue in the west (and other places), and best of all, ANYONE can play!
Hibbett, David S., and Manfred Binder. “Evolution of complex fruiting–body morphologies in homobasidiomycetes.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 269.1504 (2002): 1963-1969.
…must not be a real thing."
I mean, it would be one thing if mushrooms ever showed host specificity, or that cognate-look alikes with disjunct distributions from one another were commonplace in the world of macrofungi… oh wait…
sounds like this “species” might just be a rumor.
mushrooms occur on the trees that grow where they live. that doesn’t make it a new species, w/out strong corroborating data.
from F. hepatica?
Created: 2017-05-25 10:54:41 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2017-05-28 03:44:30 MST (-0700)
Viewed: 296 times, last viewed: 2019-08-12 20:07:35 MST (-0700)