When: 2018-10-14

Collection location: Bulverde, Texas, USA [Click for map]

29.7453°N 98.3833°W 284m [Click for map]

Who: Jared McRae (redeye311)

No specimen available

Notes:
Under live oak

Images

Proposed Names

2% (2)
Recognized by sight
59% (2)
Recognized by sight: “Subvelutipes group” is likely restricted to the northeast (i.e., above the Mason-Dixon Line)
57% (1)
Recognized by sight: Red coloration in context at stembase
Used references: Davide Puddu

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Not surprising…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2019-04-22 19:41:51 CST (-0600)

…- yes – but not really interesting anymore (not to me anyway), Jared. Don’t get me wrong – I am very interested in southeastern Neoboletus, because that’s totally terra incognita – but I no longer like to call cryptic NA red-poreds the “subvelutipes group”. It’s very misleading and likely factually wrong, especially without molecular support. Hence, for the time being, we should be calling yours Neoboletus (thankfully a bona fide genus once again!), rather than the “subvelutipes group”, because (1) it’s a more accurate name given the morphology and the geography, and (2) what is really the “subvelutipes group” in any sense, especially phylogenetically, anyway?
To my knowledge – granted it’s still limited despite my early sequencing effort – in the northeast there is only one taxon (or perhaps a species cluster yet to be resolved by genes other than the ones I tested) that appears to be a close and immediate relative of the hemlock/spruce-loving B. subvelutipes sensu modern/contemporary authors by DNA (LSU/TEF-1). It’s the morphologically mutable hardwood-associated species that has often been mistaken for and lumped with subvelutipes…when it looked like the latter. But it doesn’t have to look like subvelutipes, and sequencing has already proven this. It may or may not have a formal name. Unofficially, I call it Neoboletus sp. “chamaeleonis”. In GenBank phylo trees it and Peck’s red-mouth often sit on adjacent branches. Of course, one can point out that GB trees are inferior or even worthless relative to those generated by MEGA-7 and other advanced algorithms professional mycologists use. However, based on my heavy usage of GB and the kind of results they have produced, I don’t think these trees are totally worthless. Still, two related species are hardly a group!
Regarding names of North American Neoboletus, can you name a single published species with a well-established species concept that has been definitively matched to the type material? In fact there are none. European Neoboletus is not in the USA so far (sorry, BENA), unless it’s been accidentally introduced here by human activity. As of the native taxa – their true identities remain a conjecture… fagicola, pseudo-olivaceus, rufocinnamomeus, subgraveolens, subliridellus, etc. We have no idea what these things are, despite Smith & Thiers’ laudable hard work, and that’s why you don’t see them mentioned in modern field guides and other printed or online references.
I know you like your fairchildianus, but I am not going down this rabbit hole again. I say this though: sequence the type, match it to your own collection, and they you can make your claim. :-)

Very interesting…
By: Jared McRae (redeye311)
2019-04-22 06:43:15 CST (-0600)

But not surprising… really…. nothing surprises me much with boletes… especially those found in south central Texas. I need to dig out my jars and oddball samples and send some your way Igor. I’ll be sending some of the stuff I’ve been calling “fairchildianus” over to the University of South Florida. I’m not sure if I ate all of this Neoboletus but it’s a common occurrence when rain comes in the summer.

Created: 2018-10-15 00:16:38 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2019-06-02 17:52:19 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 56 times, last viewed: 2019-06-02 17:51:56 CST (-0600)
Show Log