Collection location: Lynn Valley Rd. and Haldimand Rd. 70, Port Dover, Ontario, Canada [Click for map]
Who: Eva Skific (Evica)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||3.86||1||(Scott Pavelle)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||11.86||2||(IGSafonov,Evica)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
> Yes, I think the oak-loving critter is part of the Neoboletus-Sutorius association. As a matter of fact, I am going to go as far as claiming the 9 unique LSU genotypes represented by the collections in the following species list to be part of that clade: http://mushroomobserver.org/species_list/show_species_list/1170.
> Yes, the “oak-lover” and the “hemlock-lover” are not conspecific.
> The Smith & Thiers types of new taxa described in The Boletes of Michigan are ~50 y.o. on average. Given the age, DNA may or may not be viable depending on how the vouchers have been stored. I don’t know if the chemicals used to prevent insect damage of dried material make things better or worse. Linas told me that in certain cases he couldn’t extract anything useful out of fungal samples half the age. I think it’s going to be case-specific, a mixed bag of success and failure. One thing for sure – the longer one waits, the worse it’s going to be. The time to do the work is now!
Do you think the oak loving species/complex is also in the larger Sutorius/Neoboletus genus?
And just to be clear, I’m hearing you say that the oak-lover and the hemlock-affiliate are definitely NOT the same species. Right? I have believed that strongly ever since the visit to Lake Caroga but my impressions aren’t worth a whole lot.
On a parallel topic, do the Smith & Thiers holotypes yield viable DNA? If so, we really ought to push some friends in academia to get that done and thereby identify what I called the genetic “surveyor’s stakes” in the vermiculosoides post. They (the holotypes) aren’t that old so they ought to be good if they didn’t get the mothballs-and-formaldehyde treatment. Do you know?
I think you already know what the answer is: Neoboletus subvelutipes or Sutorius subvelutipes. :-)
Your 287278 is likely one of the forms of the oak-loving “cf. subvelutipes” chameleon. If you submitted it for sequencing (ITS and/or LSU), we will hopefully have an answer soon.
Now, the more I read about it, the more I think that our oak-loving friend is actually represented by Smith & Thiers’ Boletus erythropus (Fries) Krombholz (1821) on p. 360 and Pl. 144 in The Boletes of Michigan. Actually, the full name of their bolete listed on the plate page is B. erythropus f. michiganensis.
The above name obviously reveals its European roots and is likely of little relevance to NA red-pored taxa (based on my sequencing effort). The trouble is that I couldn’t find B. erythropus with this particular authorship in Index Fungorum (IF). We have B. erythropus Pers. (1796) that is now listed in IF as the legitimate (?) Neoboletus erythropus (Pers.) Hahn (2015).1 Then we also have Boletus discolor (Quél.) Boud. (1904) = B. erythropus subsp. discolor (Quél.) Dermek, Kuthan & Singer (1976), which until recently was known as Neoboletus luridiformis (Rostk.) Gelardi, Simonini & Vizzini (2014) and is now known as Sutorius luridiformis (Rostk.) G. Wu & Zhu L. Yang (2016).
While the question still remains whether N. erythropus is contaxic with S. luridiformis, I will not dare to go any further into this gigantic nomenclatural and taxomic disaster with no end in sight that is well above my pay grade and not a germane problem, as far as I am concerned. :-)
The bottom line is that IMO our oak-loving chameleon probably needs a new name at the species level.
Do you at least have a suggested genus for the critter? I find these a lot: Observation 287278
Please feel free to call on me if you want suggestions for supplementing your mycolese details with a plain English summary.
Yes, the oak-loving “cf. subvelutipes” (e.g., obs 244427 and obs 288090) did test out differently vis-a-vis our current species concept of the hemlock-associated B. subvelutipes Peck represented by Dave’s obs 242312 and Eva’s obs 278342 and presumably your Caroga Lake epitype, obs 285181, that is yet to be DNA-fingerprinted.
The oak-loving “cf. subvelutipes”, assuming it’s a single taxon, is very, very morphologically plastic, as to suggest different taxa, but the 6 collections I tested so far all have identical LSUs and very close TEF-1 sequences. The latter locus’ data are interesting because they either suggest a complex population structure or perhaps hints at a species complex that this gene cannot adequately resolve. I am working on a write-up of the whole story, which I will eventually post to one of the involved obsies.
We have very little hemlock in the Pittsburgh area, so most of what we call “subvelutipes” is probably a different species. My finds are still at the lab FWIW.
Isn’t the problem tied to not understanding the key loci that create species distinctions in the Boletacea? Somewhere along the line I gained the impression that once people start doing full genome testing, we will start to identify some new loci that divide up particular species. Wasn’t this a topic of conversation when we were talking with the folks in NYC and got suggestions that some longshot protein-related genes might turn out to be key? [NOTE: I could easily have this wrong because a lot of those conversations go over my head]
And/or we will discover that the idea of a “species” doesn’t apply at all because particular mushrooms vary at the genetic level more than we see in animals and plants.
(1) Yes, that is the current species concept of B. subvelutipes Peck, so no quotation marks around the name are needed IMO. Still waiting for the sequences of your Caroga Lake epitype to come through, but I think the outcome is predictable.
(2) Yes, correct. Someone will need to need to sequence more genes and do a thorough phylogenetic analysis — the kind you see in Wu et al. papers — before resting their case of NA red-pored boletes belonging to the Neoboletus-Sutorius clade. As I said before, currently there exist very scant data on our red-poreds in GenBank that’re of very little use. That’s why all these exotic red-pored boletes from China keep showing up in GenBank as the closest known relatives of “subveltipes & Co.”
The other point I want to make is that it seems that the current golden standard of phylogeny based on a panel of 4-5 loci, as awesome as it already is, works really well only at the generic level – i.e., establishing the monophyly of a genus through its constituent taxa and placing additional taxa into their respective genera with confidence. However, this “methodology” gives an incomplete picture of the backbone of the Boletaceae because it cannot resolve all the broader evolutionary relationships between the existing named genera and identified but yet to be named ones, and yet to be discovered monophyletic clades, and organize them into a well-resolved taxonomic structure. You can massage and tweak this model by applying more advanced statistical algorithms and thus infer additional info at a local level, like merging Neoboletus into Sutorius, but this is not going to appreciably clarify the broader picture of Boletaceae beyond what’s already known. There are already over 80 named genera in Boletaceae, so you can imagine how complicated its tree of life already is. Also, recall that the “Pulveroboletus Group” is chock-full of these orphan genera and clades that are not part of any of the existing 6 subfamilies of the Boletaceae. So, it looks like the current model has already reached the limit of its usefulness, and biologist need to move on toward validating additional loci to help answer these bigger unanswered questions.
(1) This is the same species as the hemlock associated “subvelutipes” that’s common in the Northeast despite the reticulation at the top. I’ve add my vote to raise the percentage based on that reading.
(2) The DNA suggests a relationship to the merged Sutorius/Neoboletus genus, given that we all understand the need for supercomputers and massive data crunching to move from “suggestion” to “conclusion”.
Have I got that straight?
> A high quality, clean and contiguous TEF-1-alpha sequence of 611 bps was obtained from this collection. There are no ambiguous characters present.
> A GenBank BLAST search didn’t return any perfect or close matches. The most similar hit of only 95.7% is with Neoboletus sanguineoides (GB accession nos. KT990803 and KF112150), a bolete from Asia/China. The next dozen or so hits are all members of Neoboletus/Sutorius from the same part of the world, and that’s the clade where 278342 likely belongs. It appears that GenBank doesn’t contain any TEF-1 data for North American red-pored boletes yet. Recall that Neoboletus was recently collapsed into Sutorius (Wu et al., 2016).
> Alignment of this sequence with the recently procured TEF-1 sequences of Dave W’s obs 242312 (the current sequenced concept of B. subvelutipes Peck) shows them to be 100% identical. Other obsies with matching TEF-1 sequences are obs 248499 and obs 248500.
I will be send you my address via MO momentarily. If you don’t get it, check your SPAM folder just in case — MO correspondence goes there sometimes instead of the inbox depending on the type of email service/account settings.
I need Igor to send me the address
He’s the one who’s doing the real, high end driving. I’m just an eager cog trying to figure out how the engine works. Let him confirm it, though. I cannot speak for him.
I have a sample
As soon as I have time to go to town
I’m sending it to you
Yes, I think we will have a better handle on interpreting the mutable morphology and consolidating morpho-species concepts through DNA sequencing for our red-pored boletes. Even one more powerful gene may not do the trick, but who knows – we may get a lucky break.
LSU was the locus of choice for this first round of sequencing primarily because there exists so much data in GenBank for comparison purposes. Of course, I knew at the time that LSU wouldn’t be the optimal barcode gene for our red-poreds (too conserved), but barcoding was not the main reason for its selection – instead, I was hoping to get some preliminary phylogenetic insights and be able to assign taxa to genera. It’s tough to kill two birds with one stone. Still, LSU served some of its barcoding/fingerprinting purpose, as some more morphologically unique entities clearly have equally unique LSU-genotypes. The 18 sequenced collections from a variety of geographic locations and habitats are represented by roughly 13 morophological species, which are in turn associated with 9 distinct LSU-genotypes. I think this is a good starting point.
Yeah, I was also looking at 248499, but didn’t mention it specifically in my comment. (It’s linked within the discussion at 248500.) 248499 looks a lot different than this obs (278342).
Okay, lots more work to do before a solid subvelutipes concept evolves; perhaps also a better understanding of interpreting DNA sequences.
I think that 248500 and 242312 may not necessarily be con-specific, they just happen to share the same LSU sequence. Of course, I could be wrong because the morphology is misleading.
By the way, your 248499 has the same LSU trace as the two above, and it doesn’t look anything like the classic subvelutipes in our understanding. Since -499 and -500 were found very close to each other, they stand a chance of being the same taxon. However even these two don’t look the same!
Even better, 206608, 212359, 243052, 244427, 251141 have the same LSU sequence (though not the one shared by the three above Lackawanna collections of yours), and I bet there are at least 3 mophological species in that genetic series.
Anyway, as I said before, we need to look into another gene, because I still suspect LSU cannot always resolve closely related taxa.
with another red-pored bolete that features a reticulate upper stipe, see obs 248500 and discussion. Igor interpreted the sequence for 248500 and found an nrLSU identical to obs 242312. 242312 has the overall classic appearance of subvelutipes.
Interesting how DNA analysis seems to confirm the pre-DNA concept of subvelutipes as a highly variable species.
I thought it was a good candidate for typical the conifer-associated subvelutipes, by and large, till I saw the prominent reticulation on one of the fruiting bodies. Also, some of the other, younger fbs have grayish-olive caps, which is unusual… Yet another interesting data point that may have to be investigated further down the road. Thanks for posting, Eva.
Hard to believe it’s one species, but I’d have to agree with the “group”. Have you saved an herbarium sample? I know some people who’d be interest in it if you have. There’s an active study of the red-pored blue-stainers in process.
I tried writing you an email but the system seems to be down for that. You’ve checked the default license, which would allow such use, but I prefer to get direct consent.
There are a few species where we have no specimen photos, and you have examples up with reliable percentages from those-who-know. Plus you take some really lovely pics that are just wonderful to look at. Please let me know, either here or by email. You can look me up at my professional website if the email here continues to be less than helpful.
Created: 2017-06-07 16:49:47 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2019-05-24 06:25:55 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 301 times, last viewed: 2019-10-12 10:09:39 CDT (-0400)