Habitat ~ mixed hardwoods (oak, hickory, walnut, juniper) in a creek valley. (near a walking path)

Odor ~ not distinct but strong.

Taste ~ no taste test.

Cap ~ tacky texture with yellow and brown tones darkening when handled, quickly staining dark blue black. Ammonia negative.

Pores ~ slightly stuffed with yellow and orange tones (mainly orange) yellow lining the margin. Quickly staining dark blue black. Ammonia negative.

Stem ~ no retuculation; yellow with red in the base darkening when handled; staining quickly dark blue black. Yellow context quickly staining dark blue fading to a green blue and finally redish brown. Basal mycelium light yellow. Ammonia clears staining turning orange.

Best matches are Suillellus hypocarycinus, Boletus subluridellus, and Neoboletus luridiformes.


Proposed Names

36% (5)
Recognized by sight
-30% (5)
Recognized by sight: Not sure if the reported range of this alleged species extends intio Texas. Also, is discolor still housed in genus Boletus?
27% (2)
Recognized by sight
57% (1)
Recognized by sight: These are dead ringers for Neoboletus xanthopus . Too bad that’s a European species that doesn’t occur in North America.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-06-04 19:44:53 PDT (-0700)

I think Boletaceae is the most accurate name applied to this observation in light of some considerations below. Also, to me this collections looks different from everything we collect in the northeast, and I am sure that DNA will eventually prove it.
First, what is exactly ‘subvelutipes group’? Has anyone actually tried to delimit it in terms of morphology, geography and habitat in any sense, broad or narrow, or has it become the proverbial ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ for all red-pored with smooth stipes? I have my own definition of it, considering that B. subvelutipes Peck type was collected in NY, probably in mixed woods of hemlock and hardwoods (more boreal settings). So, IMO, this moniker should be applied to a group of northeastern taxa occurring from Canada down to DE and west to the Lakes. But then I am stepping into the uncharted waters of bolete biogeography. How far south do the northern species descent and vice versa? Do we see our classic subvelutipes types from our hemlock/oak or pure deciduous habitats reported from the southern tier of the USA? Conversely, how many of the iconic bluing red-pored southeastern/Gulf species do we see in the northeast? Well, it’s a known fact that some southern bolete taxa creep up north to NJ and NY across the Atlantic coastal plains (e.g., rubriflavus, oliveisporus, patrioticus, and weberi). I also recall a point made by Roy Halling at his lecture about some boletes from the east making it down south with their oak hosts all the way to Mesoamerica over the some millennia. Clearly, there is an exchange facilitated by climate change (in the northern direction only?), distribution/migration of host trees, and climatic tolerance by boletes, but it’s also clear that many boletes are happy to remain strictly regional/territorial with a fairly narrow distribution range relative to the size of this country.
Second, assuming that most of our red-pored boletes will fall into any of the 2-3 known genera (Neoboletus/Sutorius/Suillellus) that are currently residing in the phylogenetically unresolved ‘Pulveroboletus Group’ (i.e., not in any of the 6 known and accepted subfamilies of the Boletaceae), the family rank IMO, though broad, is perhaps more accurate than the controversial ‘subvelutipes group’ for this Gulf region collection.
I am not going to blink on Suillellus hypocarycinus. Suillellus is an old genus erected by Murrill in 1909 to accommodate Boletus luridus Schaeff., which is the current type species. He also transferred Singer’s hypocarycinus there in 1948 for reasons I am yet to read about. I don’t know if Vizzini’s circumscription of the genus from 2014 has been supported by recent phylogenetic studies, but hypocarycinus didn’t make it there for sure. Right now, there are probably no proven phylogenetic Suillellus species in eastern USA, unless luridus actually is lurking in our woods. West NA has S. amygdalinus, which phylogenetically clades with luridus.

The stipes on these…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-06-04 19:36:44 PDT (-0700)

lack the reddish punctate longitudinal streaks associated with the subvelutipes types. The stipes are very yellow. These don’t look like what I have called subvelutipes.

Prepare to receive a request from Igor
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 18:20:39 PDT (-0700)

He’s the one who’s been doing all the sampling. An excellent contact if you want to get involved in that kind of thing. I believe he’s negotiated a good, reliable rate for each test that he can pass on if the samples run through his hands. But I will now shut up [since it’s too late. Sigh. I never learn…]

By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 18:03:24 PDT (-0700)

I’m good guys, was unaware of the subject. I didn’t think it was directed to me so no worries.
I actually do have dried samples of this observation.

Igor, why are you voting for “Boletecae” instead of the more focused “subvelutipes group”?
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 17:55:09 PDT (-0700)

Wasn’t that “Group” designation was going to be the new default for “red-pored blue-stainer with no reticulation”? Why go more general?

FWIW, I acknowledge that you are going to blink at the idea of continuing hypocarycinus in the genus Suillellus. Morphology suggest that it will be another species that will eventually get dragged into the overall reshuffling. Aside from the nomenclature thing, what is your opinion on hypocarycinus as a possibility? As noted below, the mycelium color bugs me more than the chemical test variation.

Jared, do you still have any samples? I see you marked “No Herbarium Specimen”. Any chance that could change?

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-06-04 17:45:08 PDT (-0700)

Sometimes chastisement helps get the point across. :-) I was just surprised and frustrated that you, of all folks involved in our red-pored project, dragged ‘B. discolor’ out again following what I had thought was a successful attempt to communicate across (by various means) the matter regarding calling NA red-pored boletes European names several months ago…
Yes, I forget that for many it’s difficult to embrace and remember new ideas after spending many years consulting old literature/field guides. The brain tends to readily default to familiar/known concepts.
Regarding your 245002 and my optimistic vote for ‘B. discolor’ there, that was months before I finally sat down to read the Urban/Klofac paper and then did the sequencing of some of our red-pored collections. I am sure there are still many old endorsement of discolor of mine on MO, but I am going to let them be. FYI, I collected what I thought was discolor, too (obs 141832 = obs 170841 = obs 243052), but DNA sequencing of the latter collection eliminated any possibility of it being a European taxon.
By the way, your 245002 resembles obs 244427 of mine. Both have pale yellow stipes devoid of any red tones (at least early on), and cap color are similar, too. The latter collection was sequenced, too, and was found to have an LSU trace identical to that of 243052. They may or may not be the same species, but it’s clear from my other sequencing endeavors that LSU doesn’t always resolve discrete taxa.

Jared, I want to repeat what Dave W. wrote
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 17:13:26 PDT (-0700)

This was an excellent and interesting observation. FYI, you’re sort of walking into a blender here because the “Northeast Bolete Consortium” has been actively studying the red-pored blue-stainers for the past year, with a huge amount of conversation, debate, and DNA testing both on this site and elsewhere.

Igor, in particular, was responding to your post as if it was an extension of that conversation. Since you’re missing a full year of dense back and forth, there’s a lot of code, shorthand, and assumed knowledge that isn’t obvious. The debate on “The Artist Formerly Known As Discolor/Luridiformis” has been especially intense since we know it’s actually a European species. Your observation fits the description in NAB and BENA to a “T” and I think it would probably get that as your result but for the fact that this is the one species we’re pretty sure CAN’T be right. Repeat after me: Aaaaaaargh! [Grin]

NO ONE was knocking you in any way. EVERYONE is grateful for your willingness to share. I apologize for all of us if that didn’t come through.

By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 17:04:02 PDT (-0700)

Photos from the other observation added to the Bolete Filter, with thanks. Everyone should check that out. I will offer no further opinion on the ID, but it’s easy to see that the two specimens are VERY similar. If that one was ID’s by as reliable a source as the Drs. Bessette, this one should get serious consideration for the same ID. It also lacks the red speckling that is supposed to be characteristic.

My detailed critique here would start with the yellow mycelium. BENA reports hypocarycinus as having a white mycelium. That isn’t a variable factor, correct?

The chemical results for Hypocarycinus in NAB are a little different too, though I give that less weight in light of personal experience. NH4OH (Ammonia) was supposed to turn the cap surface yellow-olive, but there was no reaction here.

NAB reports that ammonia should turn the flesh blueish gray versus the “clears the staining & turns it orang” here, but how you could see a bluish-gray shift in the already-blued flesh is beyond me.

Note that NAB also says the blued context of hypocarycinus “dries bright yellow.” That would be an interesting follow-up fact to hear about.

Jared, the red-pored boletes…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-06-04 16:47:09 PDT (-0700)

of North America are not yet well understood by anybody. This is a really good observation… good photos, habitat including types of trees.

I’m new here.
By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 16:40:05 PDT (-0700)

This my first day posting and I’m not completely up to date on what is or is not valid. I’ll learn. This red pored bolete been hard to ID from the get go. I’ll add a description.

Here’s one example…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-06-04 16:37:36 PDT (-0700)

I had in mind for comparison with the present observation, obs 245002. I’ll be certain the consensus on this changes in the near future. But for the present, please note the voting record on 245002, which was posted less than one year ago.

People forget things.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-06-04 16:21:40 PDT (-0700)

One nice thing about MO is that it provides the opportunity for exchange of information. I think this is best accomplished sans chastisement.

This observation reminds me of what was once called discolor. Now that I’ve finished eating dinner, I’ll review the relevant observations. It’s easy for one to make adjustments to one’s questionable proposals.

Discolor, seriously?!
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-06-04 16:13:34 PDT (-0700)

After everything that has been said and discussed about this dubious name of European origin that is no longer in use even across the pond, it’s truly amazing that folks here still want to apply it to NA taxa. It seems to me that I’ve wasted a lot of time trying to communicate the message from the article by Urban and Klofac (Sydowia 67, 2015), for it all fell on deaf ears!

By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 16:11:57 PDT (-0700)

In the case of the S. hypocarycinus obs. Yes. The Bessettes confirmed my ID. If you get a copy of Boletes of Eastern North America you’ll see where the range has been extended to Texas.

Wow, that IS similar!
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 15:48:46 PDT (-0700)

And you say the Bessettes did your ID? I can see why that was your initial thought here. It’s enough to make me think about that seriously too.

By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 14:46:53 PDT (-0700)

is the link for the Suillellus hypocarycinus observation.

Point me to the observation #, or post the photo
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 14:02:05 PDT (-0700)

You can look at the site to see what’s missing or short on photos. It’s hypocarycinus that I have none for. FWIW, subluridellus, subvelutipes, discolor, and the rest of those lookalikes are almost certainly going to be redefined and sorted out into various different names, genera and new species in the next few years. A lot of those names actually refer to European species, and Igor Safonov’s recent testing has shown that the current species names don’t match up well to the spectrum of DNA.

I have no idea how it will all boil out, but I’m confident about saying it’s going to boil up a lot and then resettle.

Bolete filter
By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 13:25:50 PDT (-0700)

I do have several confirmed with the help of Arleen Bessette in some cases. Not this suspected species (B. subluridellus) but I have photos of several other boletes .

Let me know if you have any good photos from a confirmed ID…
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 12:56:30 PDT (-0700)

That you’d be willing to share on the Bolete Filter. We’re currently at none – a most deplorable problem!

By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2017-06-04 11:51:26 PDT (-0700)

Suillellus hypocarycinus is common in hickory/oak creek areas in the Texas hill country. The stems of what I find in Texas tend to be more yellow.

Why suillellus instead of a more typical red-pored genus?
By: Scott Pavelle (Scott Pavelle)
2017-06-04 11:17:17 PDT (-0700)

Were you thinking of Suillellus hypocarycinus? I only know that from books, but isn’t it supposed to have a lot of red in its stem?

Created: 2017-06-04 10:37:30 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2019-03-22 16:12:05 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 272 times, last viewed: 2019-11-27 12:19:31 PST (-0800)
Show Log