Polypore ???

[cybershot]

Found this spongy (once defrosted) bracket growing on sleepers (oak/pine??) surrounding a rose bed in my garden and at first thought it to be Phaeolus schweinitzii - Dyer's Mazegill, but the size and pore appearance (Lenzite-like) didn't seem to fit. Abortiporus biennis - Blushing Rosette was my next choice, but colouration not consistent. So help needed to identify please.

TIA

David

[Leif]

I can see why you considered Phaeolus schweinitzii as it does bear a definite resemblance. As you surely know Phaeolus schweinitzii is not uncommon near the base of Pines. However, the colours do not look right. It starts a bright sulphur yellow with a felty texture, then darkens. Also the pores are quite wrong. So I agree with you, close but no cigar.

I have seen Abortiporus biennis a few times, and I agree that the colouration is wrong.

Anyway, how's about Gloeophyllum sepiarium? It is not a species I know, but from Phillips it looks a good candidate. And you should also check out Gloeophyllum abietinum, which is very similar. They can apparently be separated by the number of 'gills' per cm as well as microscopic characteristics.

[Leif]

By the way, according to an online source (1):

"most reclaimed sleepers are pine, with one in 10 made from hardwoods such as oak and even mahogany. "

The web site dedicated to railway sleepers (I kid you not) is here:

Deadly railway sleepers ? Myths about railway sleepers


(1) So it must be a fact.

[cybershot]

Good call thank you Leif; the specimen did have a definite yet indistinct mushroomy smell though I have not managed to obtain a spore print yet.

David

[Fungus Ken]

I think we can all agree it is not Abortiporus biennis.

I must admit that on first sight I would have assumed it was Phaeolus schweinitzii from seeing the habitat and the upper surface. However, the structure of the hymenium is clearly not right.

With the colouration and texture of the sterile surface and the gill-like plates of the hymenium I would agree with Leif that the only candidate seems to be Gloeophyllum sepiarium. It seems to be quite variable in appearance. I found some last year at Ainsdale National Nature Reserve growing on hardwood which had everyone fooled for quite some time. In the end we sent it to Kew for their records because they did not have a genuine specimen growing on hardwood.

I think you can probably rule out Gloeophyllum abietinum. The illustrations show a species with much more widely spaced "gills" and here is what the Basidiomycota Checklist has to say about it:

"Notes: Not authentically British. Most of the records are doubtful, unsubstantiated with voucher material, and probably refer to G. sepiarium. Those with voucher material need re-assessment."

Ken

[cybershot]

Thanks Ken; that more or less nails it for me

[Fungus Ken]

Here are Mykonik's comments on this one:

"Hmmm.....on second thoughts I may well have to partially concur, having had another long look at the image, its not really the correct colour (not olivaceous enough) on the underside for Phaeolus and the hymenial surface is all wrong!

But it still doesn't look really typical for any of the more often recorded Gloeophyllums [including G. sepiarium, Ken], especially with that scrupose (coarsely matted and agglutinatedly hairy) surface to the cap and the lack of the bright yellow edge that G. sepiarium has !!

Also, the underside does not have the typical 'lamellate' hymenophore of Gloeophyllum sepiarium - those 'ridged structures' look almost abortive to me !

The only other thing it could then possibly be is the very rarely recorded Gloeophyllum trabeum of which the cap surface features would fit and also the colour (however, I have to say that on the very rare occasions I've found this species, the colours were a bit more greyish-brown !) BUT the hymenophore of G. trabeum is more like a partial mixture of small circular to slightly angular pores mixed with poorly formed lamellar like elongated pores - whatever this is has only these thin, semi-formed 'partial lamellae' !"

It will be interesting to see if Cybershot can get any further with an identification of this one from his specimen.

The specimen we found in April last year at Ainsdale was old, dried up and wizened, but it had a scrupose sterile surface similar to that in Cybershot's photo above and it had everyone mystified. (Tony from the North West Fungus Group has written an article about it in the NWFG's January 2008 newsletter.)

Based on the lamellate hymenium, I came to the conclusion that the only possibility on the British list was Gloeophyllum sepiarium. As Mykonik suggests, Gloeophyllum trabeum does not have such a distinctively lamellate fertile surface. Our recorder was not convinced that it could be G. sepiarium, because of the atypical appearance and particularly since the substrate was clearly hardwood - later determined as willow.

Tony went back to the same site in July. He says in the article:

"This time we were in luck. There were lots of perfect fruiting bodies that looked just like the pictures in the books. I had no problem identifying them as our target."

A specimen with wood attached was dried and sent off to Kew. Tony received the following response:

"Specimens received OK. I have added Gloeophyllum sepiarium to the herbarium... and will amend the on-line version of the Checklist to include Salix. The species is known to grow on a range of decidious trees in Europe... but it just seems we had no British voucher specimens proving this."

So the specimens we found in April 2007 were Gloeophyllum sepiarium, in spite of their unusual appearance and hardwood substrate. They were presumably from the previous year, which is why they were almost unrecognisable, but for the lamellate hymenium. However, the fresh specimens on the same log were immediately recognisable.

Now the specimens Cybershot found may well be something else, but it would be worth checking back at the same site later in the year to look out for evidence of fresh brackets, whose features might be more representative and which would be easier to put a name to.

Ken

[cybershot]

Ill do my best, tho' just pondering on the cost of sending the railway sleeper to Kew for ID too

David

[Fungus Ken]

You mean to tell me you don't routinely carry around a rucksack full of axes and saws to tackle railway sleepers?

Call yourself a field mycologist!

Ryvarden and Gilbertson in European Polypores recommend you should carry a sturdy knife with sheath, a hand axe and a hook with a handle for rolling logs. So you just need to add these into the rucksack with the camera, spare lenses, tripod, fungi identification keys and guides, lunch, flask of coffee, spare jacket, collecting pots...

And as for the knife, don't forget that if your equipment is longer than a certain length (3 inches?) you could be breaking the law.

Ken

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

You mean to tell me you don't routinely carry around a rucksack full of axes and saws to tackle railway sleepers?

Call yourself a field mycologist!

Ryvarden and Gilbertson in European Polypores recommend you should carry a sturdy knife with sheath, a hand axe and a hook with a handle for rolling logs. So you just need to add these into the rucksack with the camera, spare lenses, tripod, fungi identification keys and guides, lunch, flask of coffee, spare jacket, collecting pots...

And as for the knife, don't forget that if your equipment is longer than a certain length (3 inches?) you could be breaking the law.

Ken

Guess I'll have to fold it a couple of times