cvms : Messages : 928-957 of 2888

Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date

#928 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 1:28 am
Subject: What microscope & power is needed to see spores? laurigorham...
Send Email

Hi All,
I borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but
it is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think it
could go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were
visible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have
one of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)

I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough to
see spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope.
Then after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope
workshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope
correctly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all
for what other info might be useful.

Thanks in advance!
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#929 From: John Plischke <Fungi01@...>
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 6:45 am
Subject: Re: What microscope & power is needed to see spores? fungi020
Send Email

600 -800X should be enough to see most spores fairly well. I prefer 1000X for some things but the most important thing would be a a reticule in the eyepiece to measure the spores. Prehaps this link may be helpful

Hi All,
I borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but it is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think it could go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were visible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have one of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)
I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough to see spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope. Then after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope workshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope correctly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all for what other info might be useful.
Thanks in advance!
Laurie

-----Original Message-----
From: laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...>
To: cvms <cvms@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 8:28 pm
Subject: [cvms] What microscope & power is needed to see spores?

Hi All,
I borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but it is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think it could go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were visible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have one of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)
I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough to see spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope. Then after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope workshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope correctly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all for what other info might be useful.
Thanks in advance!
Laurie ------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvms/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvms/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
cvms-digest@yahoogroups.com cvms-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cvms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#930 From: John Plischke <Fungi01@...>
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 6:46 am
Subject: Re: What microscope & power is needed to see spores? fungi020
Send Email

Sorry forgot the link on microscopy http://www.fungi4schools.org/Microscopy_page.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...>
To: cvms <cvms@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 8:28 pm
Subject: [cvms] What microscope & power is needed to see spores?

Hi All,
I borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but it is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think it could go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were visible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have one of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)
I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough to see spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope. Then after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope workshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope correctly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all for what other info might be useful.
Thanks in advance!
Laurie ------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvms/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvms/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
cvms-digest@yahoogroups.com cvms-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cvms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#931 From: DSPAHR3D@...
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 7:16 am
Subject: Re: What microscope & power is needed to see spores? stereoviews_com
Send Email

600-800 should be enough to see spores passably well. 1000-2000 is better.

David

In a message dated 12/6/2010 1:46:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Fungi01@... writes:

Sorry forgot the link on microscopy http://www.fungi4schools.org/Microscopy_page.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...>
To: cvms <cvms@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 8:28 pm
Subject: [cvms] What microscope & power is needed to see spores?

Hi All,
I borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but it is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think it could go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were visible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have one of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)
I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough to see spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope. Then after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope workshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope correctly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all for what other info might be useful.
Thanks in advance!
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#932 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 8:17 pm
Subject: Re: What microscope & power is needed to see spores? laurigorham...
Send Email

Hi John,
Thank you so much. That is exactly what I needed!
Cheers,
Laurie


--- In cvms@yahoogroups.com, John Plischke <Fungi01@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry forgot the link on microscopy
http://www.fungi4schools.org/Microscopy_page.htm
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...>
> To: cvms <cvms@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 8:28 pm
> Subject: [cvms] What microscope & power is needed to see spores?
>
>
> Hi All,
>  borrowed a friend's microscope, don't remember the brand name or anything but
> t is binocular. Between the eye pieces and the magnification lenses, I think
it
> ould go up to x600-x800. I could see spores but not up close. The spores were
> isible as tiny specks in the drop of water I had on the slide. (I didn't have
> ne of those little rectangles so I just used two slides.)
> I brought back the microscope today and told my friend it wasn't good enough
to
> ee spores up close. He said maybe I needed a phase or immersion microscope.
> hen after some more questions, during which I told him about the microscope
> orkshop we had in Jan, he said I must not have been using his microscope
> orrectly. I am sure he's probably correct but thought i'd check with you all
> or what other info might be useful.
> Thanks in advance!
> aurie
>
> ------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#933 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:58 pm
Subject: Time Lapse Video laurigorham...
Send Email

In case you haven't already seen this, from the BBC Earth series -- some amazing
footage of mushrooms growing, including several species or cordyceps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scPOQC_Lpgo

Enjoy!
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#934 From: "ewikfors@..." <ewikfors@...>
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: Time Lapse Video ewikfors...
Send Email

In cvms@yahoogroups.com, "laurigorham@..." wrote:  some amazing footage of
mushrooms growing ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scPOQC_Lpgo

      **********************

Laurie,

Thank you for posting the link to that astonishing video!

~~ Woozie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#935 From: "TERRY" <fungaloony@...>
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:37 am
Subject: Re: Time Lapse Video stolesont
Send Email

Absolutely amazing! Thanks for sharing that.

Terry

In case you haven't already seen this, from the BBC Earth series -- some amazing footage of mushrooms growing, including several species or cordyceps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scPOQC_Lpgo

Enjoy!
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#936 From: henningersh@...
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:55 pm
Subject: PEACE and LOVE for this season....LOVE Sharon and Mom Babe.... :) sharon_h_06513
Send Email

1 of 1 Photo(s)

Elf_reading_list_background_for_HOLIDAY_emails.JPG

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#937 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2011 5:10 pm
Subject: a 2010 mostly mushrooms slideshow laurigorham...
Send Email

Happy New Year all!

I made a slideshow of photographs I had taken over the past year and uploaded it
as a movie to YouTube. I'm sure I've made some mistakes in identification, so
please make corrections in the comments section!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHL73OUeYk4

Cheers,
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#938 From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2011 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: a 2010 mostly mushrooms slideshow boletebill
Send Email

Nice job Laurie that was fun.

If you want to edit the vid here's a few tips.

The crabs are Horseshoe crabs not Hermits.

Whenever you use a Latin name capitalize the first name (genus) but don't capitalize the second name (species). Like this: Boletus edulis.

Some spelling: Amanita rubescens. Lactarius corrugis. Sparassis. Hypomyces chrysospermus.

Thanks for doing that. That's the kind of thing I hope this site gets more of to help us through the winter.

Happy New Year everybody.

Bill Yule

"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Sun, 1/2/11, laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...> wrote:

From: laurigorham@... <lpaigeg@...>
Subject: [cvms] a 2010 mostly mushrooms slideshow
To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 12:10 PM

Happy New Year all!

I made a slideshow of photographs I had taken over the past year and uploaded it as a movie to YouTube. I'm sure I've made some mistakes in identification, so please make corrections in the comments section!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHL73OUeYk4

Cheers,
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#939 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Mon Jan 3, 2011 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: a 2010 mostly mushrooms slideshow laurigorham...
Send Email

Thank you, Bill! Your corrections give me an excuse to fix the silly "credits"
at the end (part of the program template I used) Does anyone use YouTube out
there and know if you can change your video and upload it to the same address?
If so let me know, but I'll check their FAQ as well.
Cheers,
Laurie

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#940 From: "dinah" <dinahwells@...>
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2011 8:43 pm
Subject: Just found a wonderful mushroom website/blog dinahpinah
Send Email

Madaboutmushrooms.com (celebrating wild mushrooming on the southern Oregon coast
and beyond) is full of fun stuff.  Not so scientific, more skewed to the
pot-hunter, but beautifully organized and presented with loads of tips from this
pair of clearly experienced West Coast hunters.  They also have a little online
gift shop with stuff I've never seen before including hand and body lotion with
a mix of 7 different mushroom powders! (Who knew you could even do that?) Also,
fabrics, adorable little mushroom earrings, canning jar lids with mushroom
designs on them, and way above average mushroom tchotchkes (yes, I looked up the
spelling). Worth a visit to this blog.  Dinah

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#941 From: "TERRY" <fungaloony@...>
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2011 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: Just found a wonderful mushroom website/blog stolesont
Send Email

What a wonderful 'shroomy site to visit during this fungi hunting deprivation.

Thanks for posting this info, Dinah.

Happily, the days are getting longer and I'm thinking Morels.

Terry

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#942 From: "laurigorham@..." <lpaigeg@...>
Date: Sun Jan 9, 2011 3:10 pm
Subject: My mushroom growing experiment laurigorham...
Send Email

Hi All,
Hope you are all enjoying the snow! I have posted some pictures in Laurie's
Album of my latest experiment trying to grow out winter oyster mushrooms. I'm
curious what anyone might think the fruiting structure is. Please read the
comments below the photos for explanation. --Laurie

Pics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvms/photos/album/703268264/pic/868704520/view?pic\
mode=large&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=asc

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#943 From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Date: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:05 pm
Subject: Fw: Bolete Phylogenetics: Winter reading for some. boletebill
Send Email

Hi all.

This group has become winter-quiet so I thought I'd pass this along. Ron Pastorino was a CVMS member but has since moved to CA and become very active in west coast mycology. He sent me this attachment which is a technical paper about the taxonomy of King boletes but very interesting once you get through the tech talk. I encourage our "old timers" to read the original paper attached above here but for our beginners I'm going to summarize some of the high points.

Here goes: This is about how mycologists use DNA molecules to study how different species of mushrooms are related. The focus is the many boletes that we call "Kings" or Boletus edulis and in this paper they use the Italian word Porcini. Porcini is "the little pig" and delicious little piggies they are. Anyone who has collected Kings (Porcini) knows that they come in many forms, are found with different trees and have different and confusing scientific names. In general they share common physical traits that we can recognise. They are big, chunky boletes with a stem that is usually enlarged toward the base and tapers toward the top. The upper stem has a netlike pattern called a reticulum. These are raised ridges in a fishnet pattern that are lighter than the background color of the stem. The Porcini usually have white or cream-colored flesh that does not blue. The cap of Porcini is big and soft looking and resembles a Hard roll (or as the Brits say a Penny Bun). They have tiny pores that ARE STUFFED when the mushroom is young (they aren't really stuffed but they look that way and if you read the paper they have a complex description). In Porcini the spores are yellow-brown or olive-brown. All Porcini are ecomycorrhizal, that is they form a beneficial relationship with trees, usually conifers but sometimes hardwoods. There are about 25 species worldwide with most diversity in eastern North America. In the northeast the boletes that we call Porcini are Boletus edulis, B. nobilis, B. nobilissimus, B. gertrudiae, B. variipes, B. variipes var. fagicola, B. clavipes. B. caereulescens, B. edulis var. aurantio-ruber and sometime Xanthoconium seperans.

What the study found: By analyzing the DNA the researchers found that all 25 Porcini have a common ancestor that dates back at least 25 million years. (The exception is Xanthoconium seperans, not a Porcini and probably unique)). When a group of mushrooms all have a single common ancestor the group can be called a clade. The Porcini are a clade. The Porcini are a clade within the genus Boletus. Another way to describe this is to say that the Porcini group is monophyletic (which means one lineage).

Why should we care about this? Knowing that all these are related at the DNA level AND that they share similar physical traits helps us resolve that they are all "good" species for the often confusing genus Boletus. It use to be that any bolete that didn't fit anywhere else (Suillus, Tylopilus, Leccinum) was a Boletus, a so-called dust-bin genus. This is still true to an extent but knowing that we have a basis of 25 Porcini that comprise a core of one section of Boletus is a good place to start cleaning up this genus and make it mean something useful. Boletus edulis is the "type" species for the genus Boletus so these mushrooms should be the model for all members of the genus. But that's another story for another day. One more thought here. Xanthoconium seperans looks a lot like Porcini but isn't. That one way that DNA studies help us figure out which mushrooms belong together.

What else we can learn from the study: Biological clocks. The DNA work is telling us that what we now think of as the families Agaricales/ Boletales split sometime about 160 million years ago with a group of mushrooms close to Hygrophoropsis aurantiacum (the False Chanterelle!) leading to the bolete line. 150 MYA Suillus was formed. 90 MYA the Ash tree bolete came around. It seems that the Russula family is even older than these going back 180 MYA. And the 25 Porcini came about between 42-25 MYA.

here's a few other interesting times for mushroom beginnings.

550 MYA- Ascomycetes

450 MYA- Basidiomycetes in the form of Rusts.

400 MYA Tremellas.

300 MYA Dacrymyces.

180 MYA Hymenochaetes like Coltrica.

That's all for today. It's a good paper and if anyone has comments that's good. If anyone here likes this kind of DNA mycology demystified speak up and I'll do some more of this. Winter is long, there's much to learn. If you read the paper you'll see that I've grossy simplified the scientific jargon and methodology for clarity to give us all at least a thumbnail sketch of what all the hub-bub is about with name changes and DNA. If I missed an important idea or you think I misrepresented something speak up and we'll clear it up.

Bill Yule

"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, Ron Pastorino <ronpast@...> wrote:

From: Ron Pastorino <ronpast@...>
Subject: Bolete Phylogenetics
To: boletebill@...
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 3:45 PM

Hi Bill.
Don't know if you've seen this yet, but it looks pretty interesting.
Something to read on those cold, snowy, Ct. nights.
Ron Pastorino

1 of 1 File(s)

dentinger_etal_2010_boletusedulisgroup.pdf

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#944 From: "Boletebill" <boletebill@...>
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:04 pm
Subject: More bolete talk boletebill
Send Email

Yesterday I posted a link to a DNA study of the Porcini type boletes.  I hope
some of you had a chance to look that over. If you missed it it was actually at
the very bottom of the post not at the top as I had indicated.

This post is short.  I'd mentioned yesterday that the genus Boletus is a mess
because there's many boletes in there that don't really belong because Boletus
is a dustbin genus; one where bolete orphans end up if they don't have a true
home. Many Boletus mushrooms are being moved to other genera where they make
more sense if you think about the fact that Boletus edulis is supposed to be the
model for all the members of that genus. I'm going to mention a few of these and
they involve name changes that you can ignore or you can investigate to see why
it makes sense that they go to another genus. I'm not going to explain why these
names have been changed. if you're interested google the names and without much
trouble you can find some information.

Boletus ornatipes and Boletus griseus. These have both been moved to a genus
called Retriboletus. These are both common in oak/beech woods in CT.

Boletus parasiticus.  This one is now called Pseudoboletus parasiticus. This is
the one that grows out of the Common Earthball, Scleroderma species.

Suillus castanellus or Boletinellus castanellus..  This one is unique and named
after our old friend Ernst Both and the new genus is Bothia.

Boletellus mushrooms have pitts or ridges on the spores. The ones we know are
Boletellus chrysenteroides, B. russellii and B. betula. B. betula is the most
uncommon of the three here in CT because its a southern mushroom but we do find
it and it now has its own genus, Heimioporus. This has to do with the particular
kind of decorations on the spores.

Two more: Xerocomus is used by Europeans and west coast mycologists for all the
Boletus mushrooms that have large angular pores, usually a small size and a dark
fuzzy cap. Some of these are X. badius, X. campestris, X. spadaceus, X.
chrysenteron, X. rubellus, X. illudens and some others.

  Last: Xanthoconium. We know X. affine, X purpureum and X. seperans. These are
unique because they have yellowish spores that are slightly cone shaped rather
than sausage shaped and they have a chemical that has a peculiar smell when it
dries.  There's some evidence that X. seperans is unlike the other two and it
fact unlike any other bolete and we may soon see another new genus to accomadate
Xanthoconium seperans.

That's all today.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#945 From: DSPAHR3D@...
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: More bolete talk stereoviews_com
Send Email

Bill,

I read through that and it was dense reading with conclusions that seemed, well, inconclusive or at least complicated.

Reviewing the pictures, I noted that B. pinophilus looked almost nothing like what I have found under pines here in Maine. In fact most of what I find looks like Boletus edulis var. clavipes regardless of the tree or B. variipes found with oak in the earlier summer.

Boletus edulis var. clavipes and a slightly darker version I have found under many trees. I remember you saying that if it is under oak it is B. variipes. I have found what I perceive to be Boletus edulis var. clavipes under a whole variety of trees with spruce, hemlock and oak being most common but also pine, birch, mixed and other. I found one under a lone apple tree in the middle of a field one time.

Anyway, remember the kings that Peter Smith posted this year found under oaks in Camden Maine? Keeps you guessing....

David Spahr

In a message dated 1/20/2011 5:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, boletebill@... writes:

Yesterday I posted a link to a DNA study of the Porcini type boletes. I hope some of you had a chance to look that over. If you missed it it was actually at the very bottom of the post not at the top as I had indicated.

This post is short. I'd mentioned yesterday that the genus Boletus is a mess because there's many boletes in there that don't really belong because Boletus is a dustbin genus; one where bolete orphans end up if they don't have a true home. Many Boletus mushrooms are being moved to other genera where they make more sense if you think about the fact that Boletus edulis is supposed to be the model for all the members of that genus. I'm going to mention a few of these and they involve name changes that you can ignore or you can investigate to see why it makes sense that they go to another genus. I'm not going to explain why these names have been changed. if you're interested google the names and without much trouble you can find some information.

Boletus ornatipes and Boletus griseus. These have both been moved to a genus called Retriboletus. These are both common in oak/beech woods in CT.

Boletus parasiticus. This one is now called Pseudoboletus parasiticus. This is the one that grows out of the Common Earthball, Scleroderma species.

Suillus castanellus or Boletinellus castanellus.. This one is unique and named after our old friend Ernst Both and the new genus is Bothia.

Boletellus mushrooms have pitts or ridges on the spores. The ones we know are Boletellus chrysenteroides, B. russellii and B. betula. B. betula is the most uncommon of the three here in CT because its a southern mushroom but we do find it and it now has its own genus, Heimioporus. This has to do with the particular kind of decorations on the spores.

Two more: Xerocomus is used by Europeans and west coast mycologists for all the Boletus mushrooms that have large angular pores, usually a small size and a dark fuzzy cap. Some of these are X. badius, X. campestris, X. spadaceus, X. chrysenteron, X. rubellus, X. illudens and some others.

Last: Xanthoconium. We know X. affine, X purpureum and X. seperans. These are unique because they have yellowish spores that are slightly cone shaped rather than sausage shaped and they have a chemical that has a peculiar smell when it dries. There's some evidence that X. seperans is unlike the other two and it fact unlike any other bolete and we may soon see another new genus to accomadate Xanthoconium seperans.

That's all today.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#946 From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: More bolete talk boletebill
Send Email

Thanks for some feedback David.

I suspect we are just beginning to get a concept of what the different versions of Boletus edulis are around the northeast. I agree that the pics in that report don't correspond to some of my concepts of edulis type boletes. What they labeled B. reticulatus is something I'd call B. variipes. In CT the B. clavipes type is probably the most common and found with White Pine and possibly Eastern Hemlock.

More snow today. Not a bolete in sight.

Bill Yule

"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, DSPAHR3D@... <DSPAHR3D@...> wrote:

From: DSPAHR3D@... <DSPAHR3D@...>
Subject: Re: [cvms] More bolete talk
To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:25 PM

Bill,

I read through that and it was dense reading with conclusions that seemed, well, inconclusive or at least complicated.

Reviewing the pictures, I noted that B. pinophilus looked almost nothing like what I have found under pines here in Maine. In fact most of what I find looks like Boletus edulis var. clavipes regardless of the tree or B. variipes found with oak in the earlier summer.

Boletus edulis var. clavipes and a slightly darker version I have found under many trees. I remember you saying that if it is under oak it is B. variipes. I have found what I perceive to be Boletus edulis var. clavipes under a whole variety of trees with spruce, hemlock and oak being most common but also pine, birch, mixed and other. I found one under a lone apple tree in the middle of a field one time.

Anyway, remember the kings that Peter Smith posted this year found under oaks in Camden Maine? Keeps you guessing....

David Spahr

In a message dated 1/20/2011 5:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, boletebill@... writes:

Yesterday I posted a link to a DNA study of the Porcini type boletes. I hope some of you had a chance to look that over. If you missed it it was actually at the very bottom of the post not at the top as I had indicated.

This post is short. I'd mentioned yesterday that the genus Boletus is a mess because there's many boletes in there that don't really belong because Boletus is a dustbin genus; one where bolete orphans end up if they don't have a true home. Many Boletus mushrooms are being moved to other genera where they make more sense if you think about the fact that Boletus edulis is supposed to be the model for all the members of that genus. I'm going to mention a few of these and they involve name changes that you can ignore or you can investigate to see why it makes sense that they go to another genus. I'm not going to explain why these names have been changed. if you're interested google the names and without much trouble you can find some information.

Boletus ornatipes and Boletus griseus. These have both been moved to a genus called Retriboletus. These are both common in oak/beech woods in CT.

Boletus parasiticus. This one is now called Pseudoboletus parasiticus. This is the one that grows out of the Common Earthball, Scleroderma species.

Suillus castanellus or Boletinellus castanellus.. This one is unique and named after our old friend Ernst Both and the new genus is Bothia.

Boletellus mushrooms have pitts or ridges on the spores. The ones we know are Boletellus chrysenteroides, B. russellii and B. betula. B. betula is the most uncommon of the three here in CT because its a southern mushroom but we do find it and it now has its own genus, Heimioporus. This has to do with the particular kind of decorations on the spores.

Two more: Xerocomus is used by Europeans and west coast mycologists for all the Boletus mushrooms that have large angular pores, usually a small size and a dark fuzzy cap. Some of these are X. badius, X. campestris, X. spadaceus, X. chrysenteron, X. rubellus, X. illudens and some others.

Last: Xanthoconium. We know X. affine, X purpureum and X. seperans. These are unique because they have yellowish spores that are slightly cone shaped rather than sausage shaped and they have a chemical that has a peculiar smell when it dries. There's some evidence that X. seperans is unlike the other two and it fact unlike any other bolete and we may soon see another new genus to accomadate Xanthoconium seperans.

That's all today.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#947 From: "Boletebill" <boletebill@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:32 am
Subject: Last of the bolete taxonomy posts boletebill
Send Email

Just for the sake of finishing what I started I'm going to make one more post
about the taxonomy of boletes.

This post is an overview of the higher orders of bolete taxonomy because here-in
are the biggest surprises. The order Boletales.

It used to be that we thought that all the boletes that shared a common form,
i.e. fleshy, pored, terrestrial mushrooms , were the ones that were each others
closest relatives. It made sense, the ones that looked most similar probably
were each others closest relatives. Not so!!

It turns out that there are five families of boletes and each family has gone
through a process of evolutionary change where they've gone through some
progression of variations on a theme of gilled to pored to puffball to truffle
to resupinate forms. Not necessarily in that order.

Here's the 5 families: Boletineae, Sclerodermatineae, Paxillineae, Suillineae
and Conoiophorineae. There's 64 genera in the Boletales order.

The Boletinineae has most of the genera we think of as boletes: Boletus,
Tylopilus, Xanthoconium but it also has puffball like genera Gasteroboletus and
the gilled bolete Phylloporus.

Sclerodermatineae: These include our old friends the Poison Pigskin puffball,
Scleroderma citrina, the Earthstars in the genus Astraeus, the stalked puffball,
Calostoma and the dye-makers puffball Pisolithus. It also includes Russels
bolete, Boletellus rusullii and the Chestnut bolete, Gyroporus castaneus. That
means that the Chestnut bolete is much more closely related to Scleroderma than
it is to Boletus or Tylopilus.

Paxillineaea. It was long suspected that Poison Pax, Paxillus involutus was
related to the boletes. Alex Smith guessed this back in the 1960's. But as it
turns out it's not related so much to the Xerocomus tribe as it is related to
the Ash Tree bolete, Gyrodon meruloides.

Suillineae; Suillus, the Slippery caps are not really close to the other typical
boletes. They are closely (as again Alex Smith guessed) related to chroogomphus
and Gomphidius and they can often be found fruiting together under certain
pines. What was a surprise about this family is they are close to the false
truffle Rhizopogon that we commonly find with Cordyceps species and also close
to the stalked puffballs Truncocolumella. Truncocolumella is kind of half way
between an above ground puffball and a stalked false truffle.

The last family, Coniophorineae doesn't have any typical bolete forms and is
probably the beginning of boletales radiation.

I'm going to leave this fascinating subject now and I hope a couple of you may
take a closer look at the so-called "new taxonomy". It's not going away and I
know it's not everyone's cup of tea but there are good stories there and as time
marches on I'm sure those of us with the interest are in for some surprises.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#948 From: DSPAHR3D@...
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:54 am
Subject: Re: Last of the bolete taxonomy posts stereoviews_com
Send Email

Bill,

I have to throw this in. The truffle field guide has quite a few "truffles" that are actually some kind of boletes.

David

In a message dated 1/23/2011 12:32:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, boletebill@... writes:

Just for the sake of finishing what I started I'm going to make one more post about the taxonomy of boletes.

This post is an overview of the higher orders of bolete taxonomy because here-in are the biggest surprises. The order Boletales.

It used to be that we thought that all the boletes that shared a common form, i.e. fleshy, pored, terrestrial mushrooms , were the ones that were each others closest relatives. It made sense, the ones that looked most similar probably were each others closest relatives. Not so!!

It turns out that there are five families of boletes and each family has gone through a process of evolutionary change where they've gone through some progression of variations on a theme of gilled to pored to puffball to truffle to resupinate forms. Not necessarily in that order.

Here's the 5 families: Boletineae, Sclerodermatineae, Paxillineae, Suillineae and Conoiophorineae. There's 64 genera in the Boletales order.

The Boletinineae has most of the genera we think of as boletes: Boletus, Tylopilus, Xanthoconium but it also has puffball like genera Gasteroboletus and the gilled bolete Phylloporus.

Sclerodermatineae: These include our old friends the Poison Pigskin puffball, Scleroderma citrina, the Earthstars in the genus Astraeus, the stalked puffball, Calostoma and the dye-makers puffball Pisolithus. It also includes Russels bolete, Boletellus rusullii and the Chestnut bolete, Gyroporus castaneus. That means that the Chestnut bolete is much more closely related to Scleroderma than it is to Boletus or Tylopilus.

Paxillineaea. It was long suspected that Poison Pax, Paxillus involutus was related to the boletes. Alex Smith guessed this back in the 1960's. But as it turns out it's not related so much to the Xerocomus tribe as it is related to the Ash Tree bolete, Gyrodon meruloides.

Suillineae; Suillus, the Slippery caps are not really close to the other typical boletes. They are closely (as again Alex Smith guessed) related to chroogomphus and Gomphidius and they can often be found fruiting together under certain pines. What was a surprise about this family is they are close to the false truffle Rhizopogon that we commonly find with Cordyceps species and also close to the stalked puffballs Truncocolumella. Truncocolumella is kind of half way between an above ground puffball and a stalked false truffle.

The last family, Coniophorineae doesn't have any typical bolete forms and is probably the beginning of boletales radiation.

I'm going to leave this fascinating subject now and I hope a couple of you may take a closer look at the so-called "new taxonomy". It's not going away and I know it's not everyone's cup of tea but there are good stories there and as time marches on I'm sure those of us with the interest are in for some surprises.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#949 From: Nina Rose <ninarobertsrose@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: More bolete talk ninarose8888
Send Email

Dear Bill, �just a note to tell you how much I am enjoying your instruction on classification,etc. �I joined your club because I like all of you so much, starting way back with Terry, and I thought we would get to drive down to go for a walk. �Not so but I am going to join again just to hear - see - what you tell your members. �I am up here in NH running a Masters' race training program and when I have time, I tune into your lessons. �Thanks a lot!! �Nina Rose

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, <DSPAHR3D@...> wrote:

�

Bill,

�

I read through that and it was dense reading with conclusions that seemed, well, inconclusive or at least complicated.

�

Reviewing the pictures, I noted that B. pinophilus looked almost nothing like what I have found under pines here in Maine. In fact most of what I find looks like Boletus edulis var. clavipes regardless of the tree or B. variipes found with oak in the earlier summer.

�

Boletus edulis var. clavipes and a slightly darker version I have found under many trees. I remember you saying that if it is under oak it is B. variipes. I have found what I perceive to be Boletus edulis var. clavipes under a whole variety of trees with spruce, hemlock and�oak being most common but also pine, birch, mixed and other. I found one under a lone apple tree in the middle of a field one time.

�

Anyway, remember the kings that Peter Smith posted this year found under oaks in Camden Maine? Keeps you guessing....

�

David Spahr

�

In a message dated 1/20/2011 5:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, boletebill@... writes:

Yesterday I posted a link to a DNA study of the Porcini type boletes. I hope some of you had a chance to look that over. If you missed it it was actually at the very bottom of the post not at the top as I had indicated.

This post is short. I'd mentioned yesterday that the genus Boletus is a mess because there's many boletes in there that don't really belong because Boletus is a dustbin genus; one where bolete orphans end up if they don't have a true home. Many Boletus mushrooms are being moved to other genera where they make more sense if you think about the fact that Boletus edulis is supposed to be the model for all the members of that genus. I'm going to mention a few of these and they involve name changes that you can ignore or you can investigate to see why it makes sense that they go to another genus. I'm not going to explain why these names have been changed. if you're interested google the names and without much trouble you can find some information.

Boletus ornatipes and Boletus griseus. These have both been moved to a genus called Retriboletus. These are both common in oak/beech woods in CT.

Boletus parasiticus. This one is now called Pseudoboletus parasiticus. This is the one that grows out of the Common Earthball, Scleroderma species.

Suillus castanellus or Boletinellus castanellus.. This one is unique and named after our old friend Ernst Both and the new genus is Bothia.

Boletellus mushrooms have pitts or ridges on the spores. The ones we know are Boletellus chrysenteroides, B. russellii and B. betula. B. betula is the most uncommon of the three here in CT because its a southern mushroom but we do find it and it now has its own genus, Heimioporus. This has to do with the particular kind of decorations on the spores.

Two more: Xerocomus is used by Europeans and west coast mycologists for all the Boletus mushrooms that have large angular pores, usually a small size and a dark fuzzy cap. Some of these are X. badius, X. campestris, X. spadaceus, X. chrysenteron, X. rubellus, X. illudens and some others.

Last: Xanthoconium. We know X. affine, X purpureum and X. seperans. These are unique because they have yellowish spores that are slightly cone shaped rather than sausage shaped and they have a chemical that has a peculiar smell when it dries. There's some evidence that X. seperans is unlike the other two and it fact unlike any other bolete and we may soon see another new genus to accomadate Xanthoconium seperans.

That's all today.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#950 From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: Last of the bolete taxonomy posts boletebill
Send Email

Hi CVMS-ers, bolete fans and taxonomy fans(both of you [;>]...)

I have to correct an error in my last bolete post before I can leave this behind me. Bill N was kind enough to email me off line and point out that I'd mentally mistaken Rhizopogon for Elaphomyces when I wrote the post. Cordyceps do NOT associate with Rhizopogon they associate with Elaphomyces for the most part. So if you re-read the last post ignore the phrase "that we commonly associate with cordyceps" in the paragraph on the Suilliveae. That phrase is incorrect. I was thinking of Elaphomyces in my head but the subject was Rhizopogon. Mea culpa. Thanks Bill Neill.

Bill Yule
"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Boletebill <boletebill@...> wrote:

From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Subject: [cvms] Last of the bolete taxonomy posts
To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:32 AM

Just for the sake of finishing what I started I'm going to make one more post about the taxonomy of boletes.

This post is an overview of the higher orders of bolete taxonomy because here-in are the biggest surprises. The order Boletales.

It used to be that we thought that all the boletes that shared a common form, i.e. fleshy, pored, terrestrial mushrooms , were the ones that were each others closest relatives. It made sense, the ones that looked most similar probably were each others closest relatives. Not so!!

It turns out that there are five families of boletes and each family has gone through a process of evolutionary change where they've gone through some progression of variations on a theme of gilled to pored to puffball to truffle to resupinate forms. Not necessarily in that order.

Here's the 5 families: Boletineae, Sclerodermatineae, Paxillineae, Suillineae and Conoiophorineae. There's 64 genera in the Boletales order.

The Boletinineae has most of the genera we think of as boletes: Boletus, Tylopilus, Xanthoconium but it also has puffball like genera Gasteroboletus and the gilled bolete Phylloporus.

Sclerodermatineae: These include our old friends the Poison Pigskin puffball, Scleroderma citrina, the Earthstars in the genus Astraeus, the stalked puffball, Calostoma and the dye-makers puffball Pisolithus. It also includes Russels bolete, Boletellus rusullii and the Chestnut bolete, Gyroporus castaneus. That means that the Chestnut bolete is much more closely related to Scleroderma than it is to Boletus or Tylopilus.

Paxillineaea. It was long suspected that Poison Pax, Paxillus involutus was related to the boletes. Alex Smith guessed this back in the 1960's. But as it turns out it's not related so much to the Xerocomus tribe as it is related to the Ash Tree bolete, Gyrodon meruloides.

Suillineae; Suillus, the Slippery caps are not really close to the other typical boletes. They are closely (as again Alex Smith guessed) related to chroogomphus and Gomphidius and they can often be found fruiting together under certain pines. What was a surprise about this family is they are close to the false truffle Rhizopogon that we commonly find with Cordyceps species and also close to the stalked puffballs Truncocolumella. Truncocolumella is kind of half way between an above ground puffball and a stalked false truffle.

The last family, Coniophorineae doesn't have any typical bolete forms and is probably the beginning of boletales radiation.

I'm going to leave this fascinating subject now and I hope a couple of you may take a closer look at the so-called "new taxonomy". It's not going away and I know it's not everyone's cup of tea but there are good stories there and as time marches on I'm sure those of us with the interest are in for some surprises.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#951 From: "Boletebill" <boletebill@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:07 pm
Subject: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, real False truf boletebill
Send Email

Say What????

My confusion of Elaphomyces with Rhizopogon in my bolete post reminded me of how
little I really know about underground fungi (hypogeous fungi). So I'm going to
throw this out there for winter thinking because EVERYONE knows about the
expensive Truffles of Europe, famous in cooking, but what about all those other
truffle-like thingies out there?

"Real" truffles belong to the genus Tuber. The ones from Italy and France are
worth $1000's and are sought the world over.From Italy, White Truffles, Tuber
magnatum, have sold for $330,000 for one 3.3 pound specimen. From France, Black
Truffles, Tuber melanosporum are not quite as valuable but close. We have real
truffles here in North America, mostly in the PNW, and the famous one there, the
Oregon White Truffle (Tuber gibbosum) is a commercial product. We have Tuber sp.
in the east too. "Real" Truffles of the genus Tuber are ascomycetes.

There's another genus of hypogeous ascomycete called variously "False Truffle"
or "Deer Truffle".  This is Elaphomyces. This is the one we often find in
Hemlock woods with Cordyceps ophioglossoides attached. This parasite (the
Cordyceps)is also an ascomycete (and BTW the new correct name for this is
Ophiocordyceps). Elaphomycetes are not a commercial product (except in Asia) and
they don't have the powerful aroma of Tuber species, hence "false truffle".

So we have two genera of truffle-like thingies in the ascomycete group here,
"real" truffles, (Tuber sp,also Terfezia) and "false" truffles (Elaphomyces).

Here's where the "real" confusion starts:  There are a whole bunch of
truffle-like thingies in the basidiomycetes called "false truffles". Say what
again? This is where Rhizopogon and Truncocolumbella come in.
These are "false truffles" that are related to Suillus. These are "false
truffles" that are NOT ascomycetes like the other "false truffle" Elaphomyces
but these are basidomycete "false truffles".

So the ascomycete "false truffle" Elaphomyceces is in no way related to the
basidiomycete "false truffle" Rhizopogon even though they both go by the common
name "false truffle". The only thing accurate about that is that neither is a
species of Tuber (the real truffle).

Confused yet? I was. If it seems like I'm going to a lot of trouble to EXPLAIN
my BIG mistake in my bolete post that's because I AM going to a lot of trouble
to explain MY confusion. But I took my mistake as an opportunity to share
something about mushrooms and refresh my understanding about this fascinating
group. Truffles.

I'll leave you all with this: I don't like calling the ascomycete genus
Elaphomyces "False Truffles". I like calling them "Deer truffles". Supposedly
deer like them. In my book Elaphomyces are false "False Truffles". Fake False
Truffles. Not real truffles mind but just NOT truffles. So from now on, for me,
Elaphomyces are NOT FALSE TRUFFLES, they're Deer Tuffles!
I'm going to stick with Arora on this and reserve the term "false truffle" for
the Basidiomycete truffle-like thingies in Rhizopogon and the other
basidio-truffle-like non-Tuber genera and be done with it. For now...

My thanks again to Bill Neill for setting me off on this little winter myco-mind
wandering excursion.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#952 From: "henningersh" <henningersh@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, real False truf sharon_h_06513
Send Email

Liked last mail

----------
Sent from AT&T Wireless using AOL Mail

------Original Message------
From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
To: <cvms@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:07:27 PM GMT-0000
Subject: [cvms] Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles,
real False truf

Say What????

My confusion of Elaphomyces with Rhizopogon in my bolete post reminded me of how
little I really know about underground fungi (hypogeous fungi). So I'm going to
throw this out there for winter thinking because EVERYONE knows about the
expensive Truffles of Europe, famous in cooking, but what about all those other
truffle-like thingies out there?

"Real" truffles belong to the genus Tuber. The ones from Italy and France are
worth $1000's and are sought the world over.From Italy, White Truffles, Tuber
magnatum, have sold for $330,000 for one 3.3 pound specimen. From France, Black
Truffles, Tuber melanosporum are not quite as valuable but close We have real
truffles here in North America, mostly in the PNW, and the famous one there, the
Oregon White Truffle (Tuber gibbosum) is a commercial product. We have Tuber sp.
in the east too. "Real" Truffles of the genus Tuber are ascomycetes.

There's another genus of hypogeous ascomycete called variously "False Truffle"
or "Deer Truffle".  This is Elaphomyces. This is the one we often find in
Hemlock woods with Cordyceps ophioglossoides attached. This parasite (the
Cordyceps)is also an ascomycete (and BTW the new correct name for this is
Ophiocordyceps). Elaphomycetes are not a commercial product (except in Asia) and
they don't have the powerful aroma of Tuber species, hence "false truffle".

So we have two genera of truffle-like thingies in the ascomycete group here,
"real" truffles, (Tuber sp,also Terfezia) and "false" truffles (Elaphomyces).

Here's where the "real" confusion starts:  There are a whole bunch of
truffle-like thingies in the basidiomycetes called "false truffles". Say what
again? This is where Rhizopogon and Truncocolumbella come in.
These are "false truffles" that are related to Suillus. These are "false
truffles" that are NOT ascomycetes like the other "false truffle" Elaphomyces
but these are basidomycete "false truffles".

So the ascomycete "false truffle" Elaphomyceces is in no way related to the
basidiomycete "false truffle" Rhizopogon even though they both go by the common
name "false truffle". The only thing accurate about that is that neither is a
species of Tuber (the real truffle).

Confused yet? I was. If it seems like I'm going to a lot of trouble to EXPLAIN
my BIG mistake in my bolete post that's because I AM going to a lot of trouble
to explain MY confusion. But I took my mistake as an opportunity to share
something about mushrooms and refresh my understanding about this fascinating
group. Truffles.

I'll leave you all with this: I don't like calling the ascomycete genus
Elaphomyces "False Truffles". I like calling them "Deer truffles". Supposedly
deer like them. In my book Elaphomyces are false "False Truffles". Fake False
Truffles. Not real truffles mind but just NOT truffles. So from now on, for me,
Elaphomyces are NOT FALSE TRUFFLES, they're Deer Tuffles!
I'm going to stick with Arora on this and reserve the term "false truffle" for
the Basidiomycete truffle-like thingies in Rhizopogon and the other
basidio-truffle-like non-Tuber genera and be done with it. For now...

My thanks again to Bill Neill for setting me off on this little winter myco-mind
wandering excursion.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#953 From: Bill Neill <billjneill@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:47 pm
Subject: RE: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, real False truf geenuss
Send Email

Here is some more food for thought-

Just about every family of fleshy fungi have underground/hypogeous, truffle-like representatives which may have morphed into "balls" due to various environmental pressures, but may have also eventually found that enlisting animals to disperse spores by attracting them to aromas etc., is actually more successful than casting spores to the wind, much like in the plant Kingdom where Angiosperms/flowering plants have enlisted insects to put pollen exactly where it needs to go in their quest for nectar, pollen etc., vs Gymnosperms that need to produce pollen in increased amounts to do the same job randomly via the wind at a price. These differences also translate to competitive advantage for a niche over a less succesful competitor.

Some examples of terrestrial families with truffle-like representatives you might not expect are the Stinkhorns, Russula/Lactarius, Boletes, Corts, Amanita, on an on.

http://www.mykoweb.com/misc/hs_biblio.html#A

To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
From: boletebill@...
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:07:27 +0000
Subject: [cvms] Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, real False truf

Say What????

My confusion of Elaphomyces with Rhizopogon in my bolete post reminded me of how little I really know about underground fungi (hypogeous fungi). So I'm going to throw this out there for winter thinking because EVERYONE knows about the expensive Truffles of Europe, famous in cooking, but what about all those other truffle-like thingies out there?

"Real" truffles belong to the genus Tuber. The ones from Italy and France are worth $1000's and are sought the world over.From Italy, White Truffles, Tuber magnatum, have sold for $330,000 for one 3.3 pound specimen. From France, Black Truffles, Tuber melanosporum are not quite as valuable but close. We have real truffles here in North America, mostly in the PNW, and the famous one there, the Oregon White Truffle (Tuber gibbosum) is a commercial product. We have Tuber sp. in the east too. "Real" Truffles of the genus Tuber are ascomycetes.

There's another genus of hypogeous ascomycete called variously "False Truffle" or "Deer Truffle". This is Elaphomyces. This is the one we often find in Hemlock woods with Cordyceps ophioglossoides attached. This parasite (the Cordyceps)is also an ascomycete (and BTW the new correct name for this is Ophiocordyceps). Elaphomycetes are not a commercial product (except in Asia) and they don't have the powerful aroma of Tuber species, hence "false truffle".

So we have two genera of truffle-like thingies in the ascomycete group here, "real" truffles, (Tuber sp,also Terfezia) and "false" truffles (Elaphomyces).

Here's where the "real" confusion starts: There are a whole bunch of truffle-like thingies in the basidiomycetes called "false truffles". Say what again? This is where Rhizopogon and Truncocolumbella come in.
These are "false truffles" that are related to Suillus. These are "false truffles" that are NOT ascomycetes like the other "false truffle" Elaphomyces but these are basidomycete "false truffles".

So the ascomycete "false truffle" Elaphomyceces is in no way related to the basidiomycete "false truffle" Rhizopogon even though they both go by the common name "false truffle". The only thing accurate about that is that neither is a species of Tuber (the real truffle).

Confused yet? I was. If it seems like I'm going to a lot of trouble to EXPLAIN my BIG mistake in my bolete post that's because I AM going to a lot of trouble to explain MY confusion. But I took my mistake as an opportunity to share something about mushrooms and refresh my understanding about this fascinating group. Truffles.

I'll leave you all with this: I don't like calling the ascomycete genus Elaphomyces "False Truffles". I like calling them "Deer truffles". Supposedly deer like them. In my book Elaphomyces are false "False Truffles". Fake False Truffles. Not real truffles mind but just NOT truffles. So from now on, for me, Elaphomyces are NOT FALSE TRUFFLES, they're Deer Tuffles!
I'm going to stick with Arora on this and reserve the term "false truffle" for the Basidiomycete truffle-like thingies in Rhizopogon and the other basidio-truffle-like non-Tuber genera and be done with it. For now...

My thanks again to Bill Neill for setting me off on this little winter myco-mind wandering excursion.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#954 From: DSPAHR3D@...
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r... stereoviews_com
Send Email

There are several Tuber species in the NE including T. canaliculatum and T. lyonii. I'm fairly sure there are a couple of others I can't remember. No dogs are trained for these species that I am aware of but I did read that a guy in NJ trains truffle dogs. The dog of Italy is Lagatto Romagnolo. Bigs buck to buy if you can even get one. It's like a small poodle.

There are some hypogeous fungi in the Russula family and bolete family. The field guide is good but they note that they know less about eastern species and there are probably many that are as yet unknown to them.

I have been looking for animal diggings but have only found Elaphomyces so far. I found a fairy ring of animal diggings.

David

In a message dated 1/23/2011 1:07:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, boletebill@... writes:

Say What????

My confusion of Elaphomyces with Rhizopogon in my bolete post reminded me of how little I really know about underground fungi (hypogeous fungi). So I'm going to throw this out there for winter thinking because EVERYONE knows about the expensive Truffles of Europe, famous in cooking, but what about all those other truffle-like thingies out there?

"Real" truffles belong to the genus Tuber. The ones from Italy and France are worth $1000's and are sought the world over.From Italy, White Truffles, Tuber magnatum, have sold for $330,000 for one 3.3 pound specimen. From France, Black Truffles, Tuber melanosporum are not quite as valuable but close. We have real truffles here in North America, mostly in the PNW, and the famous one there, the Oregon White Truffle (Tuber gibbosum) is a commercial product. We have Tuber sp. in the east too. "Real" Truffles of the genus Tuber are ascomycetes.

There's another genus of hypogeous ascomycete called variously "False Truffle" or "Deer Truffle". This is Elaphomyces. This is the one we often find in Hemlock woods with Cordyceps ophioglossoides attached. This parasite (the Cordyceps)is also an ascomycete (and BTW the new correct name for this is Ophiocordyceps). Elaphomycetes are not a commercial product (except in Asia) and they don't have the powerful aroma of Tuber species, hence "false truffle".

So we have two genera of truffle-like thingies in the ascomycete group here, "real" truffles, (Tuber sp,also Terfezia) and "false" truffles (Elaphomyces).

Here's where the "real" confusion starts: There are a whole bunch of truffle-like thingies in the basidiomycetes called "false truffles". Say what again? This is where Rhizopogon and Truncocolumbella come in.
These are "false truffles" that are related to Suillus. These are "false truffles" that are NOT ascomycetes like the other "false truffle" Elaphomyces but these are basidomycete "false truffles".

So the ascomycete "false truffle" Elaphomyceces is in no way related to the basidiomycete "false truffle" Rhizopogon even though they both go by the common name "false truffle". The only thing accurate about that is that neither is a species of Tuber (the real truffle).

Confused yet? I was. If it seems like I'm going to a lot of trouble to EXPLAIN my BIG mistake in my bolete post that's because I AM going to a lot of trouble to explain MY confusion. But I took my mistake as an opportunity to share something about mushrooms and refresh my understanding about this fascinating group. Truffles.

I'll leave you all with this: I don't like calling the ascomycete genus Elaphomyces "False Truffles". I like calling them "Deer truffles". Supposedly deer like them. In my book Elaphomyces are false "False Truffles". Fake False Truffles. Not real truffles mind but just NOT truffles. So from now on, for me, Elaphomyces are NOT FALSE TRUFFLES, they're Deer Tuffles!
I'm going to stick with Arora on this and reserve the term "false truffle" for the Basidiomycete truffle-like thingies in Rhizopogon and the other basidio-truffle-like non-Tuber genera and be done with it. For now...

My thanks again to Bill Neill for setting me off on this little winter myco-mind wandering excursion.

Bill Yule

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

#955 From: "TERRY" <fungaloony@...>
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r... stolesont
Send Email

The only CVMS member that I've ever seen looking for truffles was Gerry Miller in the mid-80s at a foray at the Stony Creek Quarry Preserve in Branford. I remember that he forayed with a trowel and found a single marble-sized one near some hemlocks. It hardly seemed like anything worthwhile to me at the time.

I've been thinking lately about those mushroom clubs that have a winter foray on skis to look for chaga. We could form a winter polypore hunting group and call ourselves the Snowshroomers. I think George should start it 'cause in his arborist business, he must have the snowshoes.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

#956 From: Boletebill <boletebill@...>
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:11 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r... boletebill
Send Email

I had read that if you find little cone-shaped depressions in pine needle or Hemlock duff that's where squirrels have been digging for truffles. I tried many times digging in these places (thinking there MUST be some truffles here) but I've never found one.

I did find a chaga driving through the State forest after a snowfall by looking through the woods for a pile of snow on the trunk of trees where the chaga "caught" the snow. But it was to high up to harvest and I didn't have a pole saw.

Bill Yule

"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Wed, 1/26/11, TERRY <fungaloony@...> wrote:

From: TERRY <fungaloony@...>
Subject: Re: [cvms] Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r...
To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 4:17 PM

The only CVMS member that I've ever seen looking for truffles was Gerry Miller in the mid-80s at a foray at the Stony Creek Quarry Preserve in Branford. I remember that he forayed with a trowel and found a single marble-sized one near some hemlocks. It hardly seemed like anything worthwhile to me at the time.

I've been thinking lately about those mushroom clubs that have a winter foray on skis to look for chaga. We could form a winter polypore hunting group and call ourselves the Snowshroomers. I think George should start it 'cause in his arborist business, he must have the snowshoes.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

#957 From: Bill Neill <billjneill@...>
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:29 pm
Subject: RE: Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r... geenuss
Send Email

Hi Bill,

What I look for is a mini mining operation, tailings and all. Imagine a dog digging a hole and sending the contents of the hole off in one direction forming a pile of tailings. This is pretty distinctive and instructive on where to probe further. Animals can smell ripe ones and go after these and unripe ones in the vicinity are there for you to find blindly, generally.

To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
From: boletebill@...
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:11:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [cvms] Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r...

Bill Yule

"For those who hunger after the earthly excrescences called mushrooms."

--- On Wed, 1/26/11, TERRY <fungaloony@...> wrote:

From: TERRY <fungaloony@...>
Subject: Re: [cvms] Evolution of confusion: Truffles, False Truffles, real Truffles, r...
To: cvms@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 4:17 PM

The only CVMS member that I've ever seen looking for truffles was Gerry Miller in the mid-80s at a foray at the Stony Creek Quarry Preserve in Branford. I remember that he forayed with a trowel and found a single marble-sized one near some hemlocks. It hardly seemed like anything worthwhile to me at the time.

I've been thinking lately about those mushroom clubs that have a winter foray on skis to look for chaga. We could form a winter polypore hunting group and call ourselves the Snowshroomers. I think George should start it 'cause in his arborist business, he must have the snowshoes.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

Yahoo! Groups

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages