Polyporus Varius / Leptocephalus Query

[Lancashire Lad]

The first lot of images below are ones I have identified (or have been identified for me) as Blackfoot Polypore - Polyporus Leptocephalus, and I'm confident and happy that the ID's are correct.





This second lot of images (below) I'd identified as Elegant Polypore - Polyporus varius, and again, I'm confident and happy that the ID's are correct.





I am somewhat surprised (and not a little confused) to now learn that P.varius is just a synonym for P.leptocephalus, and that the fungus in question is one and the same.

Now, I know I am only a fungi novice, but even I can see that there are definite distinctions in the physical appearance between the fruitbodies shown in the two sets of photos above.

Group one consists of small caps on top of distinct stipe, whereas group two consist of larger bracket shaped caps, with a very short lateral stipes.

Fungi are routinely separated into different genus/species when the actual differences can only be determined at microscopic or dna levels, whereas here we have two distinct and differently shaped sets of fungi that are supposedly all of exactly the same species.

I presume that dna testing will have been done to establish that P.leptocephalus and P.varius are genetically one and the same, but if ever a fungus cried out to be left alone with two distinct names for the two distinctly different fruitbody forms, then this must surely be it.

Regards
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

according to Index Fungorum they are not synonymous Mike . . . . - ultimately it's a matter of opinion - what do you want? certainty?

Count Arthur Strong puts it so well: "Animals - dogs, cats, horses - they're all the same aren't they? - just different shapes!"

leptocephalus has among its synonyms according to IF

Polyporus elegans Fr.
Polyporus elegans Bull.
Polyporus leptocephalus f. nummularius (Bull.) Courtec.
Polyporus varius f. nummularius (Bull.) Courtec.
Polyporus varius subsp. elegans (Bull.) Donk
Polyporus varius var. elegans (Bull.) Gillot & Lucand
Polyporus varius var. nummularius (Bull.) Fr.
Polyporus varius ß nummularius Bull.


your images show how variable these things can be in their gross morphology - this is why microscopy is so often invoked on this site - you need to see the structures involved in reproduction - basidia, asci, spores, cystidia etc to be sure (and even then . . . )

this is (as have said before, I know) why I like the micro's - they're smaller and therefore have less chance of being annoyingly variable! and despite their size they so often have characters

the most wonderful of all fungi if you want consistency are the Laboulbeniales: those tiny, inoffensive 'parasites' of certain insects . . . . as they develop every cell is formed to a consistent pattern - two individuals will, once developed look like identical twins cell for cell - plus they look suitably strange:


but as Tom Waits once put it (in a very different context) " . . . not for everybody, for those that like a little action maybe"

cheers

Chris

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

according to Index Fungorum they are not synonymous Mike . . . . - ultimately it's a matter of opinion - what do you want? certainty?......

Sorry Chris - you lost me with the science.

Both Jordan & Phillips refer to Polyporus leptocephalus (syn. Polyporus varius).

The BMS FRDBI Checklist shows: -
Polyporus leptocephalus (Jacq.) Fr., Syst. mycol. 1: 349 (1821)

Boletus calceolus sensu Withering [Arr. Brit. pl. ed. 3, 4: 389 (1801)]
Melanopus nummularius (Bull.) anon. ined.
Boletus nigripes With., Bot. arr. Brit. pl. 4: 438 (1776)
Boletus leptocephalus Jacq., Misc. Austriaca Bot. 1: tab. 12 (1778)
Boletus elegans Bull., Herb. France: pl. 46 (1780)
Boletus nummularius Bull., Herb. France 3: pl. 124 (1783)
Boletus lateralis Bolton, Hist. fung. Halifax 2: 83 (1788)
Boletus varius Pers., Syn. meth. fung. 1: 85 (1801)
Coltricia leptocephala (Jacq.) Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 1: 645 (1821)
Coltricia nummularia (Bull.) Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 1: 644 (1821)
Grifola varia (Pers.) Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 1: 644 (1821)
Polyporus elegans var. nummularius (Bull.) Fr., Syst. mycol. 1: 381 (1821)
Polyporus varius (Pers.) Fr., Syst. mycol. 1: 352 (1821)
Polyporus varius var. nummularius (Bull.) Fr., Syst. mycol. 1: 353 (1821)
Polyporus nummularius (Bull.) Pers., Mycol. eur. 2: 44 (1825)
Polyporus elegans (Bull.) Trog., Verzeich. Geg v. Thun vor Schwämme: 593 (1832)
Polyporus varius var. elegans (Bull.) Gillot & Lucand, Cat. Champ. Marn.: 327 (1891)
Polyporus varius f. nummularius (Bull.) Fr., Doc. Mycol. 18(no. 72): 50 (1988)

BioImages site says of Polyporus leptocephalus - "A very common and widespread small bracket fungus that grows on dead and decayed wood of frondose trees, especially Beech (*Fagus*). Previously known as Polyporus varius".

I am taking these references to mean that P.leptocephalus & P.varius are synonymous.

I recall a recent thread on WAB where the identification was given as Polyporus leptocephalus, and someone responded saying "also called P.varius".

I readily accept that any given species of fungus might have degrees of variation in respect of the shape & size of fruitbody, but it seems strange that there appears to be two widespread but very distinct forms involved here, which macroscopically at least "appear" to be two different types of fungus.

What I'm trying to get at is this, If these are one and the same, why do they grow in one or other of two distinct forms? - It cannot just be by chance. There must be something that makes the fruitbody take on either the bracket or the upright shape, and to my way of thinking that suggests some fundamental difference between the two types.

Regards,
Mike.

[cybershot]

I was very tempted to reply to Mike via PM for fear of misconstrueing or over simplifying my take on his dilemma and making a complete prat of myself. But what the heck, here goes:

More especially, when dealing macroscopically, with those non gilled fungi we broadly refer to as Brackets which "range from small encrusting forms to massive projecting structures", we have to accept that they do not have a uniform shape or growth pattern. Naturally descriptions in references will bear out what we actually find out in the field depending on habitat, substrate and age of fruitbody. With regard to Polyporous leptocephalus syn. Polyporus varius the description of its macroscopic features in one reference reads "Fruiting body divided into pileus and stipe, pileus rounded to flabellate, convex when young, then plane to infundibuliform or turbinate". The permutations of how the combinations of pileus and stipe form up under different prevailing circumstances gives rise to those morphological variations within a given species which contrive to confuse.

From personal experience I have noticed this: Not so much with the polypore in question but with finds of Phaeolus schweinitzii which can appear, depending on stage of develpment, as the 'typical' semicircular shelf-like bracket when growing some way up a trunk or as a more or less round stacked-plate-like floret when at ground level on a buried root. But the basic components of pileus and stipe, varying greatly in their respective appearances, are still evident in whichever form. (Changes - Wild About The World)

Sometimes it is so very difficult, for those of us without the means of scientific analysis, to believe what we see even despite the evidence presented and confirmed by the references which, moreover, we are constantly reminded are trickily fallible and outdated. Still, are we deterred in our quest to make sense of it all? I think not judging by the endeavours of Wabbers.

Wishing everyone a successful season.

David

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi David,

I concur with what you are saying, and indeed, concur with what Chris said above.

I fully agree with what you say about P.schweinitzii's and other fungi, with regards to the marked changes of appearance from newly emerged to fully mature fruitbody, but all of these seem to follow a similar pattern. i.e. from a small, sometimes almost globose shape, to the plate-like "bracket" shape - i.e. they always becomes bracket shaped. Albeit that the bracket may be single sided, or more of a full plate-like shape dependent upon the substrate & growing position of the fungus. (i.e. you would never find a mature P.schweinitzii, or T.gibbosa, or S.hirsutum, or any other "bracket" I can think of, maturing as a typical "mushroom" like shape.

With P.leptocephalus/varius, however, the fungus does not always grow from newly emergent, to a bracket/plate-like shape, but sometimes grows to maturity as a distinctly more "mushroom" like shape

I am perhaps fortunate in seeing lots of these in my area, and have been able to casually monitor their progress when out and about. and there are undoubtedly just two forms of growth pattern going on - the one's that always grow to maturity as "mushroom" shaped, and the ones that grow to maturity as "bracket/rosette" shaped. (Which is exactly why, being aware of P.leptocephalus, and P.varius, and before I recently discovered the synonym situation, I just assumed they were two different fungi).

Perhaps I'm labouring the point but (taking a hypothetical case) suppose you kept finding fully mature, tall thin stiped mushrooms with smallish circular caps, and were subsequently told these were P.schweinitzii. (Backed up by all the scientific proof that they were indeed biologically the same). Would you still not feel that there must be something different in the make up of these that was different to the normal P.schweinitzii that would account for such a marked difference in growth structure.

To some extent, I'm just playing Devil's advocate, in as much as yes, I can accept that P.leptocephalus and P.varius are both the same thing. The expert mycologists and scientists have stated this, and who am I to argue. I don't have the wherewithal to be able to confirm this for myself (i.e by microscopy etc. etc.), so I must accept current best thinking.

Nevertheless, I have the curiosity, and still retain a respectful "waryness" of some of the things that "experts" sometimes say.

I just find it strange that in the case of P.leptocephalus and P.varius, more than any other fungus I have yet encountered, physical appearances alone would "suggest" two distinctly different types of fungus.

Oh, and as for perhaps making one's-self look a pratt by posting in open forum, well, you will see from this reply that I couldn't give two hoots. I have always been of the belief that If I have a question, then there will probably be a few more people with the same question who might not have got around to asking, or might feel embarrassed doing so. Well, If my foot goes directly into my mouth occasionally - so be it.

Regards,
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

this is potentially an important thread . . . . check out also:

a problem with Pyrenopeziza

which does get very technical (as Andreas and I started riffing on some technical stuff which most people wouldn't want to get too engulfed by . . .)

basically I found a fungus - call it Mickey mouse L. identified from using a couple of books - on checking the name on the BMSFRD database I saw that it had been synonymised with (called the same as) Bugs bunny Fr. and this was also true for Index Fungorum

Now the Mickey mouse fungus was reported to occur on dead stems of umbellifers (mine was on hogweed) the Bugs bunny fungus occurs on dead stems of campions (I knew that fungus well and it wasn't the same thing at all!). To compound the problem Mickey mouse was the type name for all the fungi (a lot of them!) in this spoof genus "Mickey" - so if the synonymy was correct then all the Mickeys might have to become Bugses - lots of mycologists would have to address the problem (and Toni Basil - if she's still gigging - would have to sing "Hey Bugs you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind - hey Bugs" - just doesn't work does it?

A quick contact with Paul Kirk and it was all resolved, the two cartoon fungi still have their distinct identities. But now the serious part - if you go to the last post on the above-quoted thread Melanie hits on the key issue:
if I hadn't known that this was a mistake, and if my record hadn't mentioned a host/substrate then it would now be a record of Bugs bunny and it would be wrong - plain wrong and irretrievable

so if Mike feels - with justification (this is clearly not some fit of pique) that something he finds should be called Polyporus varius then he should call it that - and it should go into databases with that name (note that to its credit BMSFRD does indicate the name used originally by the creator of the record). I was involved in the original setting up of the RECORDER database and we used to discuss/argue long and hard over lots of these issues

to conclude this is from an email from a fungal informatics friend (whom I shall keep anonymous) which sums up the situation nicely - he was commenting on my gripe re Pyrenopeziza chailletii (aka Mickey mouse):

"But then you hit on an issue I have with the way [some databases] use names against collection/observation records. People should always use what they think is an appropriate name - perhaps the name they came to as a result of using a key. They should not blindly use the checklist 'current name' if it's different. The current name is just an opinion and may change and may be wrong. It is vital the recorder's opinion is recorded 'verbatim' and then 'interpreted' later as required. I suspect many users of those systems come up with a name, see that its current name is different, and then slavishly use that name instead, because to do otherwise would be seen as being out of date. Of course if the name change is nomenclatural (e.g. a recombination in a different genus) then it doesn't matter because the both names are tied to the same type concept. But if the change is due to a change in priority within a new heterotypic synonymy then there is the potential for irretrievable lumping - as your example demonstrates."

well done if you have got this far but, trust me, this is a fundamental aspect of what we are trying to do here - get a handle on these wonderful organisms, and then communicate with others who understand what we mean when we use a name

oh and lets give some (but only some) fungi additional English names just to simplify matters purleeeease!

cheers

Chris

[flaxton]

When a couple of species are lumped together and you slavishly record your finds under the currently accepted name your information is lost in the system. If at some future date the two species are then re-split there is no way of restoring your finds under the original name. If you are "forced" into recording a find under a name different from the one you want, make sure you log your preferred name in the notes along with the title of the book used in coming up with that name.
Not sure that is very well explained but basically just agreeing with Chris that the information should be held somewhere on the Database.

Mal

[Lancashire Lad]

Good grief Chris, when I first read this, I thought this was a Yorkshireman taking the Mickey (mouse) out of a Lancastrian.

But having now read through it a couple of times, the penny has finally dropped, and I understand and agree with what you are saying.

As for my specific case in question, regards my thoughts of differences between P.leptocephalus and P.varius, I could easily be wrong, but regardless of what the science says, all I know, is that when I'm out and about finding these things, I'm finding two distinctly different shapes of the mature fungus.

It is therefore somewhat heartening to learn that rather than dismissing such thoughts as the rantings of a delerious novice (ie. me ), some people at the sharp end of mycology have had such experiences and are similarly prepared to voice a challenge of accepted opinions.

Regards,
Mike.