Observation 67937: Lentinus brumalis (Pers.) Zmitr.

Notes:
Original Herbarium Label: Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr.

This particular collection was examined and annotated by Jim Ginns who wrote the following:

OC2090520-004 Polyporus brumalis Pers.:Fr. With very short tubes, less than 0.1 mm deep, and few basidia these are probably a young fruiting bodies. The pores are small, 5-6 per mm, whereas in P. brumalis they are 3-4 (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987, N. Amer. Polypores vol. 2). The margin is even, not ciliate or fimbriate as it “often” is in P. brumalis (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). Basidia rare, 6 µm diam. Basidiospores few, only 3 found, ellipsoid, slightly curved, 6-9 × 3.0-3.5 µm, but smaller in _P. brumalis at 6-7.5 × 2-2.5 µm (Gilb. & Ryv. 1987). At the base of one stipe there is a black cuticle made up of a palisade of hyphal tips that are covered with a thick, yellow-brown resin. Such a cuticle is reported to occur in “old basidiocarps” of P. brumalis (Nuneez and Ryv., 1995. Polyporus and related genera. Synop. Fung. 10: 16, Oslo). In conclusion, although this collection differs in some features from the description in Gilb. & Ryv. (1987), I think P. brumalis is the best name for the collection.
Jim Ginns, 4 Apr 2011

Species Lists

Images

306397
IMG_9062.JPG
306398
IMG_9057.JPG
306399
POLYPORUS BRUMALIS drawing.jpg

Proposed Names

-10% (5)
Recognized by sight: pore size, spore size, cap structure – young specimen
-3% (4)
Recognized by sight: Just throwing another name out there.
-34% (4)
Eye3
Used references: Jim Ginns, pers.comm. 2011-04-04

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Just throwing another name out there.
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2018-11-09 02:37:59 CST (-0600)

Please, stop throwing yet another name out here. We are following Ginns, J. 2017. Polypores of British Columbia. Prov. B.C., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 104.
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/TR104.htm
and we would like to be consistent in “naming” our MO observations of the BC polypores.

I’m not telling you, AOC
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-06 00:23:56 CST (-0600)

I’m telling everyone, in the event that one observation might inform us as to the identity of the other.

I too pine for another joint Sava and myxomop Sauvie Island foray. Hopefully you’ll join us.

another unID-ed Polyporus from the PNW
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-05 11:34:00 CST (-0600)
Adolf
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-02-05 06:32:19 CST (-0600)

I did actually read Ginns’ annotations carefully, and that is why I suggested leptocephalus. In his notes the pores are even smaller than in Oluna’s sketch. Unfortunately he found very few spores (maybe immature), but I can’t see anything speaking against leptocephalus.

It’s of course not Polyporus badius. It’s supposed to be a species without clamps, hence the other genus name, Royoporus..

The elephant in the room here…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-02-04 22:04:10 CST (-0600)

is that many “amateurs” are far better than many “professionals”. This is not a secret.

Right now, I would say that if we were to have an imaginary metric weighing ‘field sense’, amount of work done towards a mapping initiative, number of species known, and rate of correct identification, the amateurs who actually care about taxonomy would probably take it.

Certainly most of the ‘Top Five’ slots in North America would go to amateurs, hands down.

That said, they need to be empowered to describe and document without ‘professional’ intervention.

Mushroom identification (not phylogeny, mind you) is advanced stamp collecting. You don’t need a PhD to do it, and it may actually get in the way.

AOC
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-02-04 21:01:24 CST (-0600)

The point system is flawed, but the equating of points awarded/obtained with “authority” on the site is not a mandatory perspective, nor is it even necessarily an implied one. I have just shot to the number three position in that list, quite arbitrarily, by bulk adding a sh*t ton of new names to the database. I hardly think that makes me more (or less) qualified to comment on one observation or another. Anyone that uses the site long enough and gets to know some of its membership will agree. That one’s “score” impacts the weight of their votes does, in fact, give the opposite impression — namely that high-ranking contributors know more of what they’re talking about — but in practice we all trust and revere Else way, way more than her “ranking” might imply.

I resent your comment that this site ignores “professional” mycologists. If you mean to say it ignores experts, paid or unpaid, you are sorely mistaken. The regular membership here have a keen eye for people who know what they’re talking about. I suspect I speak for more than myself when I say that we develop our own kind of “ranking” system which has everything to do with the quality of another user’s contributions over sheer quantity. A certain self-proclaimed “European Coprinologist” makes infrequent appearances here. His scorecard puts him way, way down on the list, but he quite obviously knows his deliquescent fungi better than just about anyone else on the site. Paying enough attention to the site’s activity makes that clear.

If there’s anything I see Mushroom Observer striving for, it’s egalitarianism and accessibility. That includes a sometimes frustratingly democratic system of consensus based voting, which is also not without flaws. It also includes a debate platform which does not vary it’s soapbox size to accommodate the “experience” of the speaker, nor should it. If you would prefer that your (or your friends’) IDs not be contested, right or wrong, a public website is hardly the place to expect passive acquiescence.

NA polypores
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 20:28:54 CST (-0600)

This is NOT your mushroom…

Well said Adolf
By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2013-02-04 18:24:49 CST (-0600)

By your own accounts " Professional mycologists can lurk behind the scenes, but they have to keep quiet"
Since you have not kept quiet, it shows that not only are you NOT a professional, but can’t have rational professional conduct on this “Monopoly” game site.
If you don’t want a comment on the picture, easy enough not to put one up.

I agree with Noah
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-02-04 16:47:41 CST (-0600)
I strongly disagree
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 16:40:38 CST (-0600)

with Jim Ginns’ assessment that P. brumalis is the best name to apply to it. It doesn’t match it at all…

Small pores
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2013-02-04 14:45:48 CST (-0600)

fit some Albatrellus species. If there was yellow staining, this would be a possibility.
http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/256181?q=12FuS&size=huge
This does not look like any Polyporus brumalis I have ever seen and the collection date would be unusual for immature fruitings. Like so many fungi, it is much easier to say what it is not rather than what it is.

-
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-02-04 14:10:01 CST (-0600)

What I know as P. brumalis is a slender, centrally stiped, dark capped polypore that doesn’t look like this…

By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2013-02-04 12:18:45 CST (-0600)

Which macro characteristics speak to brumalis for this ob? Maybe it was labeled incorrectly. I cant find one OB on MO that resembles this. I know nothing about the micro characteristics so that may be enough to go upon…

Created: 2011-05-23 00:59:00 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2018-11-09 08:41:29 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 607 times, last viewed: 2019-01-16 16:41:08 CST (-0600)
Show Log