When: 2017-09-15

Collection location: Huntsville, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]

Who: Phil Yeager (gunchky)

No specimen available

Around dead stump in a grassy area. Spore print rusty orange. shown to me by my picking pal.
Spores:6.9-8.5 × 3.6-4.5


Proposed Names

-8% (2)
Used references: Audubon
61% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Thanks Richard
By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2017-10-24 16:33:47 MST (-0700)

You have explained your position quite admirably; therefore I shall defer to your experience and use G. spectabilis for further observations of this species.
ps: I don’t know if I still have these in my garage. Will check tomorrow.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2017-10-24 15:18:49 MST (-0700)

super interesting.
nice spore micrographs. nice job.
it is unfortunate that we need a lot more information to go on microscopically than spore size to determine a species here though…

G. junonius and G. spectabilis are not synonymous in my opinion.
Hesler described G. spectabilis in his monograph and stated that, “efforts have been made to study authentic collections of A. junonius, but material representing the Friesian concept has not been made available to me.”
Also, the original description of junonius, describes a mushroom that is small and growing solitary.
In my opinion, Hesler wrote the monograph and described a particular species…one that does not correspond with the original description of junonius, but more to the original description of spectabilis and that is the name that should be used.
Also, if you take a look at the Holec paper on Gymnopilus, you will see he uses the name spectabilis.
It is very evident that there are differences between the species called spectabilis in Europe and the species in North America…but, I’m not sure anyone knows why that is.
So, until someone proposes a “new name,” that details the differences and why, I believe the name G. spectabilis should be used…because Hesler described it in his monograph of Gymnopilus and it seems to me that it is the most detailed and precise and abundant information we have to date.
Just my opinion.

Now that we discussed that…
G. spectabilis, G. luteus, G. ventricosus, G. magnus, G. armillatus, G. imperialis and G. viridans and some others, that have been published, that in my opinion, are a bit questionable…are all very closely related.
Again, my opinion.
I’m not really sure why G. validipes has been put into another “group” by Guzman…
I think that the species must have been misidentified…and I could understand why…
But, again…that is just my opinion.

Now that I look at your observation again, and see the spore size…it is probably G. luteus…which is in the “G. spectabilis group” and for some reason is not accounted for in a certain publication…
Anyway, can you look for caulocystidia and look at the pileus trama?
That would help a bunch.

Anyway, sorry for ranting.

Hello Richard
By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2017-10-24 13:31:39 MST (-0700)

I just added spore sizes to my notes. Did some checking and noticed that Gymnopilus junonius group is synonymous with Gsg.

Created: 2017-10-23 18:30:27 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2017-10-24 16:13:58 MST (-0700)
Viewed: 71 times, last viewed: 2019-09-03 09:20:35 MST (-0700)
Show Log