Collection location: Seven Tubs Natural Area, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]
Who: Dave W (Dave W)
Single specimen collected from a spot where I have observed many “granulatus” fruitings, near a stream, under hemlock, mature white pine about 100 feet away.
Spore print color seen in photo is accurate… to my eye, yellowish-brown.
Spores 7-8 × 2.5-3, ellipsoid.
|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||4.14||1||(jimmiev)|
|Could Be||1.0||6.50||1||(Dave W)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.10||1||(the3foragers)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||11.50||2||(Dave W,IGSafonov)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Five dollah doesn’t buy much nowadays, and, besides, that’s Dave’s money for he won the bet. Well, maybe I will have more luck looking for potential sponsors at NEMF. I hope you change your mind then. :-)
use it as you wish.
Would you like to contribute a fistful of dollahs to the IGS sequencing fund? :-)
You mean UV in the sense of Pulveroboletus ravenelii? Maybe, if the structure is real. The original description in The Michigan Botanist says:
“Veil fibrillose to cottony; white to pale cream in color; in young basidiocarps sheathing the lower portion of the stipe and covering the hymenophore; remaining as a sheath on the lower portion of the stipe and at least for a time as patches on the pileus margin; not forming an annulus.”
The authors also add:
“Mrs. Paul H. Weaver, of Faribault, Minnesota, has sent us a collection of an undescribed species of Fuscoboletinus Pomerleau & A.H. Sm. Notes on the macroscopic characters of the basidiocarps of the new species were recorded by Mrs. Weaver.”
So it appears that Smith & Shaffer never came in contact with the fresh type material, and their macroscopic description is based on the field notes of Mrs. Weaver. The plot is getting thicker. :-)
why not run that DNA?
these remnants represent a UV? Smith et al. did not specify.
I’ve checked out your other granulatus observations. Here is what I think. The narrow band of fuzzy tomentum on the cap margin of 175553 doesn’t appear to be a PV because it’s not touching the stipe — it’s more like a pseudo-PV associated with S. glandulosipes (formerly neoalbidipes). The white fuzz on the stipe base of 175385 looks like the basal mycelium, not a sheathing PV, to my eye. Still, these are very interesting features rarely seen in the NA ‘granulatus’, so thanks for pointing them out to the attention of MO users. By the way, were you able to find that bluing ‘granulatus’ collection I asked you about?
I think the bigger question remains regarding the existing species concepts of weaverae and NA granulatus – they have to be somehow reconciled. This means that someone will have to go and study the type of the former to make sure that it is what M.G. Weaver gave Smith & Shaffer.
The change of name rests entirely on a single ITS sequence of less than perfect quality (still, it’s amazing that a 50-year old specimen yielded readable DNA) of what purportedly is the type collection, MG-1086. More ‘granulatus’ collections from the northeast have to be sequenced and the scope of DNA work should be expanded to other loci.
weaverae/granulatus with tiny cottony deposits along the cap margins obs 175553. I have also seen white basal deposits obs 175385. Mature versions of this taxon (only one taxon?) sometimes exhibit yellow pores that are slightly boletinoid obs 151009, which is reminiscent of species formerly placed in Fuscoboletinus.
If weaverae is a phantom taxon, i.e., an aberrant form of an existing entity elevated to a species by mistake, it could be a nomen dubium. However, at the same time, since normal-looking NA ‘granulatus’ is not S. granulatus (L.) Roussel of Europe, the name weaverae could still legitimately apply if F./S. weaverae is indeed the NA ‘granulatus’. Weird! We need some input from nomenclatural geeks on MO.
Regarding the veil, Smith & Thiers say “eventually evanescent”, meaning eventually disappearing, but persisting long enough to be observed “sheathing lower part of stipe when young and also covering the hymenophore”. The latter part suggests the cap expands enough to show the pores being covered by a PV, i.e., old than the button stage.
is the question about the validity of the photo (Minnesota 1964) as a representative of the rare taxon, weaverae.
However, the Smith description of weavwerae includes presence of a veil, but the adjective “persistent” is not used. This may be an important detail.
I think “weaverae” was created due to a mistake… by Smith? by someone working in an herbarium? Seems perhaps impossible to tell with virtual certainty. I’ll be looking at “granulatus” a lot more closely.
According to the rules of taxonomy, does it matter if a name is created by mistake? And if so, does the type of mistake matter?
I just knew there was depth and reasoning behind your vote. :)
oh yeah, even the folks who make their living with DNA work doubt some of those conclusions. funny how others accept those results so blindly. Me, I’m a skeptic on most fronts, until shown the “proof.”
And even then sometimes …
I am not disputing anything, as evidenced by my voting history in this obsie. I, personally, just don’t have sufficient confidence in that application of S. weaverae to the most iconic suillus in eastern USA is warranted at this time. There are several pieces of information in this puzzle that don’t fit together very well, leaving room for doubt. At the same time, I do accept the fact that the European S. granulatus (L.) Roussel 1796 is not con-specific with the NA ‘granulatus’ despite the very similar morphology between the two — the DNA clearly separates them.
Smith was a mycological giant, and in his mind there had never been any confusion between the striking and rare weaverae and the ubiquitous NA granulatus that he had seen/collected many times throughout his long career. The fact that weaverae has a persistent PV covering the stipe and hymenophore speaks volumes. I don’t think that Smith & Shaffer, who obviously saw and worked with the fresh material, could have mistaken a hypomyces infection for a PV (the hypomyces theory was promulgated in Nguyen et al., Mycologia 2016). And then there are _weaverae_’s spore print color and the observed dextrinoid reaction of the spores in Melzer’s, both of which separate it from the NA ‘granulatus’. All of this unequivocally points to the conclusion that the two taxa are not con-specific.
On the other hand, photos of the holotype (MGW-1086) show a ‘granulatus’-like mushroom with the stipe sheaved in some white material, and I don’t know what to make of that in light of the above discussion. How come Smith never admitted anywhere in his publications, looking at that photo or during his study of the fresh specimens of weaverae, “Gosh, aside from the fluff on the stipe, this mushroom looks like S. granulatus!”? So, is it possible that the photo is not of S. weaverae/MG-1086?
Then there is the second ‘syntype’ of weaverae, MG-1992 (from 1969), that was sequenced for the first/seminal suillus phylogeny paper (Kretzer et al., Mycologia, 1996). In that paper it clades with S. brevipes. Now we know it was a case of mistaken identity, but the details of how this transpired are sketchy. One thing for sure, someone IDed MGW-1992 as weaverae, most likely Ms. Weaver herself and maybe even A.H. Smith, and then it wound up in the MI herbarium. So now we have a species epithet associated with two collections that clearly are not the same taxon, provided that the material that was sequenced is indeed that of MG-1086/1992.
Finally, Debbie, I want to leave you with the quote from the 2016 paper regarding the ITS studies of Suillus: “[T]he weakness of a single gene study is concerning”. Maybe I am taking it out of context, but the quote sounds more like a blanket statement. The case of S. granulatus is going to look stronger when at least another locus is sequenced.
why do you dispute this? I know you have long experience with the boletes.
Tom Bruns, who has hosted our BAMS meetings at UC Berkeley for almost a decade, and encourages everyone in the mycological community. Also, smart as a whip, and humble, too.
Tom is one of the good guys in our Myco-World. There are many others.
as traditionally applied to both American and European material is depreciated. There exists both molecular and habitat-related evidence to support this. (The European version associates with different “hard pines” whereas the NA species favors white pine, a “soft pine” (an perhaps also hemlock, if this is the same species as the pine associate).
If my interpretation is correct, the species name “weaverae” came about as the result of a mis-identification of a collection of “granulatus”. According to (my understanding of) the rules of taxonomy, this does not matter. The name “weaverae” precedes any other proposed name, and so now takes preference.
Created: 2017-06-09 06:17:51 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2017-09-27 20:25:31 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 174 times, last viewed: 2019-08-13 04:50:08 PDT (-0700)