Observation 278521: Boletus edulis group

Species Lists

Images

Copyright © 2017 Prof. Bryn T. M. Dentinger
nrITS phylogram of Boletus s. str.

Proposed Names

80% (4)
Recognized by sight
57% (4)
Recognized by sight: Variable color morphology

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Specimen accessioned to the University of Utah fungarium
By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2018-10-10 21:48:29 CEST (+0200)

This specimen has been accessioned to the UT fungarium with the following number:

UT-M0000490

Matches this NAMA collection
By: Stephen Russell (Mycota)
2018-09-23 09:30:43 CEST (+0200)
This collection…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-04-10 22:04:23 CEST (+0200)

was sent to Dr. B.T.M. Dentinger at UMNH in its entirety in March 2018.

Discussion of TEF-1-alpha molecular data (light-capped fb)
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2018-01-21 03:47:46 CET (+0100)

A clean and contiguous 613 bps TEF-1-alpha sequence was obtained from this material and posted to this observation (MO #674). There is a single ambiguous character, a “Y” toward the end of the sequence. Notwithstanding this little “blemish”, the two fruiting bodies represent the same organism.

Discussion of TEF-1-alpha molecular data (dark-capped fb)
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-21 05:32:25 CET (+0100)

> A clean and contiguous 613 bps TEF-1-alpha sequence was obtained from this material and posted to this observation (MO #133). There are no ambiguous characters, this is a single haplotype.
> A BLASTn search of this sequence gave three accession of European Boletus edulis (2 from Germany and one from Russia) as the top hits, but none of the sequences are a perfect or close match – the similarity is 98.9% with the Russian voucher (but it’s a sequence fragment of some 480 bps) and 97.9% with the two trustworthy German vouchers. Apparently there are no sequences of northeastern North American edulis in GenBank yet.
> Looks like TEF-1 has a better resolution at the species level than nrITS for edulis sensu stricto, but more data are needed to state this with full confidence. Dr. Kudzma says the TEF-1 of 278521 is a perfect match to 2 of his edulis collections from Maine.

Discussion of nrITS molecular data (dark-capped fb)
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-11-19 08:06:54 CET (+0100)

> A clean and contiguous 679 bps nrITS sequence was obtained from the dark-capped fruitbody. There are 3 ambiguous characters – two “Y” and “R” – all in the ITS2 region, meaning that there are 8 possible ITS haplotypes present in this organism.
> We don’t need GenBank to tell us what this is. If there is a single definitive thing to learn from the BLASTn search of this collection, then it’s the fact that Boletus edulis sensu stricto is definitely the most frequently sequenced bolete and probably one of the most frequently sequenced macro-fungi, period. If it matters, the top dozen+ hits are vouchers from North America. Because of the hetero-sites, the highest match is 99.6% (676/679) with three identical Canadian accessions, but the single “Canadian” haplotype is obviously present in 278521, making these collections perfectly conspecific as far as nrITS is concerned. Various European collections are not that far behind.
> A separate BLASTn search targeting specifically Boletus chippewaensis yielded two hits, one of which is accession #NR_119674 associated with the type collection of this taxon collected by Smith in mixed conifer-hardwood forest of Sugar Island, MI, on July 31, 1965 (voucher AHS71914). The identity match in this case is 666/671 = 99.3%.
> In their 2010 seminal paper titled “Molecular phylogenetics of porcini mushrooms”, Dentinger et al. write: “All of the infraspecific taxa and segregated species of B. edulis (with the exception of B. subcaerulescens and B. pinophilus) appear to be phenotypic variants of a single widespread panmictic population, confirming the results of Leonardi et al. (2005) and Beugelsdijk et al. (2008). However, the ITS may simply not evolve fast enough to detect recently diverged taxa, in which case the stable forms of B. edulis that occur throughout its range may in fact be reproductively isolated from each other. Confident diagnosis of species limits in B. edulis sensu stricto and its segregated forms will require the addition of faster-evolving genetic markers and population genetic studies with thorough sampling throughout its reported range in Europe, Asia, and North America”.

we
By: Robert(the 3 foragers) (the3foragers)
2017-06-11 01:15:22 CEST (+0200)

will see. These collection is going in Monday.

I saw this all the time last year
By: John Plischke (John Plischke)
2017-06-10 05:19:26 CEST (+0200)

I saw this all the time last year, with the dark and light forms showing up everywhere. Both in the edulis group, thinking they are the same but maybe not. I turned in a few different ones in for DNA but nothing yet.

The two fruiting bodies…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-06-09 23:18:30 CEST (+0200)

…are of the same age, but they look very different. It’s hard to imagine the pale one turning into its swarthy friend. My guess they are not con-specific.
You may want to consider getting two genes sequenced — get ITS and one of the single-copy protein-coding genes, preferably RPB-1. Try ITS first, but in case the traces are identical, which is not necessarily an indication of con-specificity (i.e., a false negative), you will need a back-up locus.

Hmm
By: Robert(the 3 foragers) (the3foragers)
2017-06-09 22:54:22 CEST (+0200)

Do they look the same to you? I am drying it now,
I want to do DNA work on them.
They coming from the same spot and there is no other kind of tree around.
Spruce spruce. I was wondering about the same thing as you are. Here 278519 is the same collection but I want to separate these two for DNA purpose.

Are these the same species?
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-06-09 22:27:33 CEST (+0200)

Created: 2017-06-09 20:57:12 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2019-06-03 11:25:03 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 378 times, last viewed: 2019-09-25 13:53:32 CEST (+0200)
Show Log