When: 2019-06-20
Collection location: Greensburg, Louisiana, USA [Click for map]
Who: Logan Wiedenfeld (LoganW)
Notes:
Big and firm and bug-less :)
Images
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. | |||||||||
Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 20.11 | 4 | (IGSafonov,the3foragers,LoganW,...) | |||||
Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
2.86 | 95.26% |
Comments
Add CommentI was grateful for this mushroom’s forthrightness :)
I know you’ve addressed the genetic implications of this taxon’s stuffed pores elsewhere on MO, but I wonder why this crucial diagnostic feature isn’t more widely noted. I don’t have my field guides handy, but it seems like the “stuffed pores” feature isn’t mentioned in the corresponding write ups. It’s omitted at Mushroom Expert too. I wonder why. What do you think?

No confusion here with Retiboletus. :-) You can also appreciate those “stuffed” pores.
Perhaps it was overlooked, as most collection were of mature fruiting bodies, or perhaps it was dismissed as hypomyces. Of the several field guides I checked, only Coker & Beers (1943) and Baroni (2017) mention “stuffed pores” in auripes; notably, NAB and BENA are mute in this feature; Smith & Thiers don’t list auripes in their book. In particular, Coker & Beers write: “Tubes… conspicuously stuffed when young, appearing as if covered by a yellow membrane…”.
In my experience, the “membrane” is white/whitish to yellowish, perhaps gradually changing from white to yellow as mushrooms mature. Here is a photo from M. Kuo’s website. The white growth on the pores near the stipe is likely the hyphal layer, not hypomyces: