Boletes and others

[flaxton]

I found a good mixture of Boletes (Xerocomus) today. A very early badius, porosporus, communis and cisalpinus. I also came across these the first with a bulbous base I think might be Conocybe apala


The next might just be Lepiota cristata but I couldn't get the usual smell



And the final one was just a nice Russula parazurea



Thanks

Mal

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by flaxton

I found a good mixture of Boletes (Xerocomus) today. A very early badius, porosporus, communis and cisalpinus.

Did you take any photographs of the B. communis or B. cisalpinus, Mal?

As Alan Hills' new key is now available I'd welcome sight of any of these species to get my eye in.

Ken

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

Did you take any photographs of the B. communis or B. cisalpinus, Mal?

As Alan Hills' new key is now available I'd welcome sight of any of these species to get my eye in.

Ken

Try these Ken

Communis



the red/carmine in the base



And cisalpinus



That is of course until Nick has a look

Mal

[mykonik]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Try these Ken

Communis



the red/carmine in the base



And cisalpinus



That is of course until Nick has a look

Mal

I have had a look -------- the BOLETUS cisalpinus looks OK to me but what is this BOLETUS (Xerocomus) communis - I seem to remember having vartious discissions with Alan Hills et. al about this when doing the checklist we came to the conclusion that (in the sense of Bulliard, who coined the name) was nothing more than a rather red form of B. chrysenteron - hence the name is synonymised with BOLETUS chrysenteron sensu stricto in the Checklist.

Unless of course it's been resurrected and I don't know about it - always a possiblilty !!!

Having said all of that, the first two pictures show a bolete with carrot coloured 'dots' in the flesh of the stipe base (not a block of flame red / carrot coloured tissue) - hence it should thus be BOLETUS ripariellus surely ? (if Mr. Hills' notes to me are correct !)

Nick

PS Despite recent publications under the genus name, Xerocomus is defunct !! Until someone formally (if ever) resurrects it, which has not been done yet !!!

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by mykonik

I have had a look -------- the BOLETUS cisalpinus looks OK to me but what is this BOLETUS (Xerocomus) communis - I seem to remember having vartious discissions with Alan Hills et. al about this when doing the checklist we came to the conclusion that (in the sense of Bulliard, who coined the name) was nothing more than a rather red form of B. chrysenteron - hence the name is synonymised with BOLETUS chrysenteron sensu stricto in the Checklist.

Unless of course it's been resurrected and I don't know about it - always a possiblilty !!!

Having said all of that, the first two pictures show a bolete with carrot coloured 'dots' in the flesh of the stipe base (not a block of flame red / carrot coloured tissue) - hence it should thus be BOLETUS ripariellus surely ? (if Mr. Hills' notes to me are correct !)

Nick

PS Despite recent publications under the genus name, Xerocomus is defunct !! Until someone formally (if ever) resurrects it, which has not been done yet !!!

Nick

How are we mere mortals supposed to come up with any identifications if when using the latest key for Xerocomus from Alan Hills in this quarters issue of the Field Mycologist it tells me I have Xerocomus communis and yet you who are second only to God on this forum tells me I am talking RUBBISH

I know there is still a disagreement over any use of Xerocomus but Alan still classifies communis as a good species. I emailed the photos to him and he told me it shows all the features that would lead him to call it communis.

Where does this leave us?

Mal

[mykonik]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Nick

How are we mere mortals supposed to come up with any identifications if when using the latest key for Xerocomus from Alan Hills in this quarters issue of the Field Mycologist it tells me I have Xerocomus communis and yet you who are second only to God on this forum tells me I am talking RUBBISH

I know there is still a disagreement over any use of Xerocomus but Alan still classifies communis as a good species. I emailed the photos to him and he told me it shows all the features that would lead him to call it communis.

Where does this leave us?

Mal

Well, it's just Mr. Hills' personal opinion Mal - he can call Xerocomus' exactly that BUT the current name is still (at this moment in time) Boletus and Mr. Hills is going against the flow - as he is perfectly entitled to do I might add ! AND if he wishes to regard Boletus communis as a good species he can (but as far as I am aware there is no type specimen, just a painting by Bulliard I think, so how would he be able to say for sure that it IS a good species ??)

And I say that with total regard for Alan's good nature and vast 'boletological' knowledge about the things, so no insult to him at all.

Nick

PS What do you mean only second to God ????????????? [I've never been so insulted !!!]

PPS I didn't say you were talking rubbish - just queried the identification !

[Leif]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Nick

How are we mere mortals supposed to come up with any identifications if when using the latest key for Xerocomus from Alan Hills in this quarters issue of the Field Mycologist it tells me I have Xerocomus communis and yet you who are second only to God on this forum tells me I am talking RUBBISH

I long ago assigned deity status to Nick.

I know what you mean. When the great and the good can't agree amongst themselves, what hope do those of us who do not live on Mount Olympus have?

It is tempting to restrict ones id to "a red fungus" or "a brown fungus" as that way one is correct.

Interestingly some years back there was a learned article on Leccinum in FM, which was overthrown a few years later when DNA studies were done. Maybe when we assign an id we should include the year e.g. Entoloma bloxamii 2005, to allow for the species changing in 2006+.

[CloudedYellow]

So what actually defines the group of boletes that Alan Hill calls Xerocomus please?

Under that umbrella he includes all Boletes that, if cut in half, can have individual tubes removed by fine tweezers. I am not sure how that works in practice but I tried using tweezers to remove a tube from a section of B. luridus this afternoon and couldn't. So that fits the theory. Unfortunately the porosporus from earleir in the week which is a Xerocomus is now too far gone to try this out.

Thanks

Richard

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by mykonik

Having said all of that, the first two pictures show a bolete with carrot coloured 'dots' in the flesh of the stipe base (not a block of flame red / carrot coloured tissue) - hence it should thus be BOLETUS ripariellus surely ? (if Mr. Hills' notes to me are correct !)

Nick

Far be it from me to go against the grain and disagree with Mykonik... but no it shouldn't be Boletus ripariellus.

Mal has it quite right in terms of Alan Hills' key that this would key out to Boletus communis. But since this is not a valid name you have only two choices for a specimen which so clearly shows the carrot coloured dots in the stipe base:

Ladurner and Simonini (Fungi Europaei 8) lump these all into Boletus rubellus so if you follow their lead you should call Mal's specimen Boletus rubellus.

However, the latest thinking in this country - and also according to the Checklist - is that Mal's species should be called Boletus declivitatum. According to Geoffrey Kibby this is a very common species in the south of the country. My suspicion is that, like Boletus rubellus, it is much less common further north. Whether that is set to change with increasing temperatures remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by mykonik

PS Despite recent publications under the genus name, Xerocomus is defunct !! Until someone formally (if ever) resurrects it, which has not been done yet !!!

But when the leading authorities on these species, such as Ladurner and Simonini, and in this country Alan Hills, are all still using Xerocomus you are on a hiding to nothing in trying to get field mycologists to toe the line.

As far as I am concerned, this is one discussion that has a long way to go and in the meantime I don't think anyone is going to be too confused whether we are using Xerocomus or Boletus as the genus, because it's not the genus that's the big issue for field mycologists. It's how many species there really are... and how the heck you tell them apart reliably.

Ken

[flaxton]

Thanks Ken

When we are presented with an "hot off the press" key by the BMS in Field Mycology, being naive there are quite a number who think it is now what we should be using at least until the next revision

Mal