|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||5.03||1||(email@example.com)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Igor, when the time is right I will post as many as you want to see. For now I will wait :)
I wasn’t asking about the sequence or sequencing results. I was simply wondering if you could post a representative collection of the “southern form” of subglabripes that you believe is a discrete taxon here on MO.
Igor, all of your ideas are good ones and they are already happening. I just can’t comment further regarding the sequencing results yet as they are part of an ongoing publication.
IMO the picture of the “southern form” of subglabripes in North American Boletes resemble rubropunctum. In light of your latest comment regarding this entity being a discrete species by DNA, it would be useful to get a record of it on MO for comparison. It would also make sense to sequence/barcode bona fide and well-document collections of the birch-loving subglabripes and rubropunctum from a variety of locations in order to have solid point of reference linking good descriptions, photographs and DNA. (Ideally, this should be done with every species, but it’s unlikely it will ever be done.)
For example, there is a subglabripes-like collection from NC, obs 244341 that is not a genetic match (LSU) to the existing subglabripes records in GenBank. Another example, albeit unrelated to the species discussed in this thread, is obs 255139.
Another broader point I would like to make is that it would appear that more recent publications on the phylogeny of boletes tend to recycle some of the older genetic data (from published papers and GenBank records) and/or generate additional genetic data using vouchers linked to older publications featuring only single collection to represent scores of NA taxa for use by the whole scientific community. One can make a case that a number of these early data points could be misidentifications, in addition to being only n=1. That’s how mistakes get propagated, even though ‘bad science’ usually gets weeded out by responsible researchers…
I have read everything published on subglabripes over the past few years in my search to reconcile the “southern form” as it was originally described. My contention is that the “southern form” does not exist and is actually a separate and distinct species. This has been supported by recent sequencing. I do not know the exact range of the birch loving subglabripes in the north and can only report on what I have found. I would actually love to collect subglabripes in the NE so that I have a better understanding of what it looks like in person.
I have made dozens of collections what I have been calling rubropunctum and each one of them had the dirty ash tray smell. I have yet to find a collection of the “southern form” of subglabripes that has this odor.
I started testing rubropunctum with my olfactory system only last year, following my digestion of BENA. This is a fairly common species in NJ, particularly in the Pine Barrens region, whereas subglabripes appears to be very infrequent in my home state. All of the examples of the ‘red-punctate bolete’ found by me last year did have the unpleasant stale cigarette butt odor. Unfortunately, I haven’t smelled subglabripes even though I saw lots of it at NEMF in VT. Maybe the opportunity to do so will present itself in Geneseo. If the odor checks out to be the exclusive trait of rubropunctum, it will certainly help eliminate the confusion between the two taxa in the geographic area where both are expected to be present…
This discussion brings out the interesting topic of biogeography of subglabripes . M. Kuo’s in-depth analysis of the subject matter is both fascinating and informative, yet perhaps outdated: http://www.mushroomexpert.com/leccinum_subglabripes.html. Suffice it to say that one germane aspect that needs to be critically investigated is the southern range of distribution of subglabripes (as a manifestation of its reported mycorrhizal associations with hardwoods other than Betula and Populus).
I’d just like to know if the “unpleasant odor” mentioned in Boletes of ENA is a dependable way to distinguish rubropunctum from subglabripes. The book also says that subglabripes has a more yellow stipe, but I have seen subglabripes with very pale stipe, obs 246588 (no unpleasant odor). Difference in spore dimensions is also cited. But if one includes outliers (full range of recorded measurements), then the dimensions are not that different.
Separating the two taxa can be tricky, which is not surprising give that rubropunctum is likely to wind up in Hemileccinum as per the molecular research by Ortiz-Santana & Kuo. I recall NAB speaking of northern and southern forms of subglabripes, the latter being more similar to rubropunctum in having pink tones in the stipes, but I wonder if those are just “paler” forms of rubropunctum. I agree with Jason’s ID – this obsie looks much like rubropunctum, albeit with a straight stipe. Also see a discussion in obs 284598.
what I would call Hemileccinum subglabripes. “Boletes of E NA” says that L. rubropunctum has an unpleasant odor that’s lacking in H. subglabripes.
Created: 2018-06-09 13:33:07 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2018-06-14 20:16:20 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 131 times, last viewed: 2019-08-02 16:30:46 PDT (-0700)