Observation 81210: Suillus brunnescens A.H. Sm. & Thiers

When: 2011-10-28

Collection location: Yosemite National Park, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)

No specimen available

Species Lists



Proposed Names

49% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: dark brown cap with purplish veil remnants at its edge; stipe w/glandular dots, yellow at apex, vinaceous at base where cut. under sugar pine (probably).
Based on microscopic features: spores hyaline, a few yellowish in KOH, somewhat subcylindrical, a bit lumpy looking, 8.5 × 3, 9 × 3, 9 × 3, 9 × 4, 9.5 × 3 microns. somewhat larger than recorded in Thiers’ Boletes of California.
-61% (2)
Recognized by sight
Based on chemical features: context turned gray in KOH.
14% (2)
Used references: Molecular data matches Thiers’ type collection

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
no one here has a species concept for this Suillus…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-06 12:12:35 EST (-0500)

since it was only recently collected by us, in ones and twos.

you are the one who chose to post only one photo, and an ambiguous one at that.
you set your own “trap,” although only you think of it as that. I thought of it as insufficient data.

that’s why it would be ever so useful if you would post your gallery of photos right here, for all to see, as part of the Yosemite postings.

that’s just logic and cooperative taxonomy, Dimi. Obviously, you have the TIME

I’ll wait for the DNA on the Suillus that we recently collected to see where they fall out. After all, ya can’t tell these things in hand, or so they say.

The species concept.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2011-11-06 11:35:07 EST (-0500)

I will not fall in the trap of arguing single photos here with folks, but species concepts – in this case I do have it for this species in your photo. You may not recognize it, but I do. Yes, pinkish discoloration is present at the base of the stipe, like in a number of other slippery jacks. This one has a strong tendency to turn greenish too (likely during cold weather). Those who respect my information will make a note. That’s all I have to add at this point.


so close to civil, and yet…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-06 11:21:08 EST (-0500)

what you show in your photo is NOT what I (and perhaps not what Bruns et al ) collected. YOUR mushroom shows a clear annulus as well as a white rather than yellow apex to the stipe.

did it show a vinaeous staining at the base when cut? mine did.

The factual part
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2011-11-06 11:15:59 EST (-0500)

Just to wrap up the factual/scientific part here. Attached is the photo from Prof. Mike Davis, which he sequenced and it matches S. volcanalis type collection 100%. He will send me a larger photo if needed. The collection was from Yosemite.

I recognize this species as one of the prominent species, the one with an evanescent veil from Sierra Nevada. More cryptic species may emerge after extensive molecular data gathering, but so far this is the species I know. I am relieved that it was matched to S. vulcanalis.

I did not see sequence data for S. brunnescens (on a very quick scan). Bruns also states that no molecular data is available yet (Bruns et al, 2010). Moreover, S. brunnescens even according to Thiers has not been collected in California, but that doesn’t mean of course that it is not here. At this point we do not know what S. brunnescens is – on one hand, I suspect it may be the same as S. vulcanalis, but on the other hand it is perfectly conceivable to something different. Therefore, so far taxonomically I know that the evanescent veiled species matches S. volcanalis.

I have many collections of this material and will organize them at some point into a neat summary page. I must apologize that I cannot accomplish this task immediately. If there are any interested parties, I will release all of my photographs privately.


P.S. There has got to be some spray against forum gadflies.

how is this about taxonomy?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-06 10:41:09 EST (-0500)

perhaps you shouldn’t make those blanket statements on MO and not expect a challenge. or just wait to post your remarks until you get back from the field, and you can do the job up properly?

different forum mate, and one that, thankfully to all, YOU don’t control.

how funny that YOU don’t like to be lectured, since YOU do it all the time to others.

but as I said, shall we take this ridiculous back and forth off-line, where other don’t have to suffer, too? That’s MY vote.

By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2011-11-05 15:09:09 EDT (-0400)

I am in the field collecting with a few folks — that lecturing tone and pestering are a real turnoff. Seriuosly! Obviously, I have lacked the ti¤e to update this or my site, but will do. You have to be moderated on this forum too.


why not post your photos of what you are calling S. volcanalis to MO?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-05 13:00:21 EDT (-0400)

that way, we can all see what you are talking about, rather than have to guess.
there are no photos of any purported S. volcanalis up on your Mushroomhobby site, either.

C’mon Dimi, share. No telling us that you “don’t have the time,” either, considering the amount of mail that you sent out yesterday, just to me personally! ;)

um, perhaps YOUR molecular data matches “volcanalis”…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-05 11:35:15 EDT (-0400)

but sequences for THIS specimen (and the several others collected last weekend) have not yet been run.

and as you suggested, the description in Thiers for volcanalis bears no resemblance to this fruit body. For one thing, it DOES have glandular dots on the stipe. There are many other discrepancies too.

Since the description vs the fruit body is so off-base, maybe that type specimen is not what it appears to be?

was brunnescens also sequenced and NOT a match with YOUR similar Suillus?

Yup… I know this species all too well.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2011-11-05 00:55:14 EDT (-0400)

I know this species all too well. I thought for years that it may be what has been referred to as Suillus brunnescens, but as I was telling Else and Christian on a recent trip that I have very low confidence in Smith & Thier’s Suillus work and that the only way to proceed is to sequence all type collections. Luckily, Tom Bruns did just that for a portion of them recently. Just to confirm my suspicions, Mike Davis recently sequenced this very species with the evanescent veil, similar to S. pseudobrevipes. And amazingly it is 100% match for the S. volcanalis type collection nrITS. The original description is again based on a single collection and is wrong on many accounts, so that this species cannot be reliably identified based on that description. Just as I suspected… But no, it is not a new species as I also suspected. Will discuss at greater length on MT when I have time.


will post micrographs soon.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-11-03 21:05:32 EDT (-0400)

Created: 2011-11-01 12:59:48 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-12-03 13:25:25 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 339 times, last viewed: 2018-08-02 14:22:29 EDT (-0400)
Show Log