Proposed Names

83% (3)
Recognized by sight: In the G. applanatum complex
Used references: Blast results

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I
By: Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
2019-07-17 01:15:20 PDT (-0700)

disagree with this assesment. This is clearly Ganoderma lobatum. Ganodermatace is one of if not the hardest conk bearing polypore genera’s to work with. ITS is not enough with this genera to get to complex species structures alone.

Just constructed a tree using Dr. Vlasak’s sequences
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2019-07-16 16:56:18 PDT (-0700)

and others from a recent molecular study. See it at https://mushroomobserver.org/363942 Yours is clearly G. applanatum.

Terri

Out of curiosity
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2019-04-07 16:55:46 PDT (-0700)

I pursued this a little further and found a study that verified several G. applanatum sequences on GenBank: Jargalmaa et al. 2017, academic editor Byrn Dentinger. When your sequence is blasted against these curated sequences, which includes several of Dr. Vlasak’s of G. applanatum, your collection is +99% G. applanatum.

Terri

Hi Ryan
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2019-04-07 12:19:09 PDT (-0700)

I agree that one of the hardest parts is finding “good” sequences. In this case I am pretty confident that Dr. Vlasak’s sequences of G. lobatum are that taxon. While it is true that a multi-locus analysis is sometimes necessary, especially where ITS is conserved, that is not the case here. Your collection is pretty clearly something different than G. lobatum. And while we don’t know which of the G. applanatum sequences are “good” your collection is a 99.5% match with dozens on GenBank so labeled. Obviously each submitter had reason to believe his/her submission was G. applanatum and not G. lobatum for example. Since G. applanatum is a European taxon and G. lobatum is American it is reasonable to rely somewhat on the G. applanatum sequences from Europe. In this case they are all a match. So it is pretty clearly in the G. applanatum group I think. A multi-locus analysis of this group is needed to sort our any cryptic species.

Terri

Hi Terri,
By: Ryan Patrick (donjonson420)
2019-04-07 11:41:02 PDT (-0700)

I appreciate the suggestion, Thanks. I was a bit perplexed as well. The blast results return a plethora of sequences labeled various names from various places. I’ve attempted to build a tree to try and sort it out with no luck. This seems to show this specimen aligns better with what’s labeled appalantum than lobatum although I understand they are genetically very close. I sent an email to Matt Schink when I received the ITS results, he seemed to be very confident this was lobatum based on morphology alone. I’m not sure if he ever had a chance to review the actual sequence file. Since ITS alone is not enough to sort out species within this complex I’m relying on my micro notes that align with what’s out there for Lobatum.

Blast results
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2019-04-06 21:53:52 PDT (-0700)

show this to be only a 91% match G. lobataum—see Dr. Vlasak’s sequences KF605672,3,4 etc from US. It is +99% match with sequences labeled G. applanatum from eastern US, Europe and Asia. It seems to belong pretty clearly to the G. applanatum group.

Terri

Created: 2017-06-23 18:23:50 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2019-07-17 01:17:49 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 232 times, last viewed: 2019-10-13 05:54:58 PDT (-0700)
Show Log