Observation 83113: Gymnopilus luteofolius (Peck) Singer

When: 2011-11-23

Collection location: Waterloo County Park, Waterloo, Linn Co., Oregon, USA [Click for map]

Who: maynardjameskeenan

Specimen available


Sorry but it was bug eaten. I would call the stipe color a dirty yellow green.

Proposed Names

-2% (4)
Recognized by sight: Based on the red caps of the immature species I would rule out gymnopilus luteofolius. Mushrooms show no signs of ever being purple.
42% (3)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Try to get them
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-25 16:47:24 CST (-0500)

in all stages of development and from all angles.

new pictures
By: maynardjameskeenan
2011-11-25 16:44:55 CST (-0500)

I am going to go out today to the spot where I found these the other day to see if any of the pins have grown. I plan on taking some new photos is there anything in particular that I should photograph? I will bring my tripod this time so that the picture turn out clearer.

Looks like luteofolius
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-25 12:37:04 CST (-0500)

Thanks for the reference, that is a good description. Did Stuntz publish a similar one for G. luteofolius? I notice that Hesler’s monograph lists pleurocystidia as ventricose and rare, while Stuntz’s lists it as absent. Hesler’s monograph describes the pleurocystidia differently in the two species, but goes on to say that “a study of the type shows that its microscopic characters are basically similar to those of G. luteofolius”.

After reading the descriptions thoroughly this collection clearly fits better with G. luteofolius. Aeruginosus is supposed to be much more evenly green, with blotches of red and orange, while luteofolius is more red/orange with little blotches of green.

Gymnopilus luteofolius
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2011-11-25 11:46:19 CST (-0500)

This is from the same pile of chips in my backyard as all the other Sebastopol postings of this species. It has some green in the cap, but it’s due to the weather, not genetics.


By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-11-25 11:41:05 CST (-0500)

Well as both these species are rare in my neck of the woods,and I have found each of them only once, I probably should have refrained from voting. After checking my copy of Hesler and some internet pictures I would lean toward G. luteofolius. This observation shows wet fruitings which I did not examine closely enough.
My very old photo of G. aeruginosus did not show the slight green staining that was there. http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/show_observation/34999?q=9hfy
But from the descriptions of that species I would have expected more prominent staining.

Gymnopilus aeruginosus
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2011-11-25 11:26:09 CST (-0500)

Excellent description by Stuntz that goes for four pages:


There are none
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-25 03:27:51 CST (-0500)

See North American Species of Gymnopilus page 71.

The differences are macroscopic. Microscopy might reveal that it is neither species though so don’t tell them not to bother.

By: maynardjameskeenan
2011-11-25 02:05:04 CST (-0500)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have sent off a few gill samples along with a spore print to someone who knows better than me and will be able to give me a better identification. Is there anything in specific I should tell him to look for? What are the microscopic differences between the two?

Hi Walt -
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-25 01:42:12 CST (-0500)

Why did you vote doubtful on both G. luteofolius and G. aeruginosus? In my opinion it is one of the two. We don’t have any other representatives from the aeruginosus-luteofolius clade in the west. The greening in Gymnopilus is intermittent so I wouldn’t expect all (or even most) of G. aeruginosus to have a green context. G. luteofolius has pins that start out very purple and fade as they age, and apparently G. aeruginosus has reddish pins which then fade. Since the pins in this collection were not purple it seems like it might be G. aeruginosus. I could also see it being G. luteofolius. Those two species might be conspecific. I am not aware of any other species it could be.

By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2011-11-25 01:20:08 CST (-0500)

According to Hesler’s monograph G. aeruginosus should have greenish tones in both the cap and the context of the flesh. This looks like G. luteofolius that has been water logged.

Thanks for adding
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-23 21:37:01 CST (-0500)

I always suspected this species grows on the west coast because of herbarium collections, but this is the first west coast collection with pictures that I have seen. According to Hesler’s monograph this is probably G. aeruginosus because it isn’t purple and the context lacks lavender shades.

Created: 2011-11-23 18:38:04 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2013-10-29 15:30:41 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 169 times, last viewed: 2018-05-07 21:43:58 CDT (-0400)
Show Log