25-03-2024 13:41
B Shelbourne• Hyaloscyphaceae (no VBs), Hyaloscypha: Macro a
25-03-2024 21:27
Riet van OostenHello, Found by Laurens van der Linde, March 2024
24-03-2024 08:27
Thierry BlondelleHiOn Hedera helix fallen branchEcological habitat:
26-03-2024 11:06
michel bertrandBonjour, Malgré de nombreuses recherches, je n'a
25-03-2024 03:56
B Shelbourne• Scuttelinia: Macro and habitat.• S. scutella
Spores smooth, inequilateral, 10.5 – 13 × 5 – 6.5 µm, with 1 or 2 oil droplets per spore. 8 spores per ascus. Asci walls invisible in KOH.
Spore measurements:
10.6 [11.4 ; 12] 12.8 × 4.8 [5.5 ; 6] 6.6 µm
Q = 1.7 [2 ; 2.2] 2.4 ; N = 15 ; C = 95%
Me = 11.7 × 5.7 µm ; Qe = 2.1
Any help with identification would be appreciated!
Really beautyfull, never seen something like this before. Some Xylariaceae I would say with this germ-split. There are people who know them.
cheers,
Stip
cheers
Thomas
It should be cultured because the anamorph is required to assess whether it is a Podosordaria or most likely a Poronia. Sequencing would be rewarding too.
Alan, I suggest you send your fungus (gently dried!) to Yu-Ming Ju in Taiwan, sure he will be highly interested.
Cheers,
Jacques
http://mushroomobserver.org/116012?
P. entosulphurea and P. elephanti were considered given their yellow pigmentation, but too many characters do not match the species seen here.
thanks for your identification, it's always good to have the opinion of the inventor of the species. We all learnt something here.
Cheers,
Jacques
Would you please test the yellow pigment of pic #5 with UV-light(@365nm). It might be fluorescent (->orange).
Thanks a lot.
Cheers,
Guy
In your description of P. entosulphurea as Xylaria entosulphurea in Rogers et al. 1996, you indicate that the stipes are "ribbed" and 1mm in diameter. Those of Alan's observation appear to be smooth and thicker than 1mm.
If you described the sp. from dry material, perhaps the striations are a feature that only appear in age?
With regard to the stipe width, 1cm would seem more appropriate, even just judging by the photos in the Mycotaxon paper (Rogers et al. 1998, pg. 484 fig. 1), as well as for Alan's specimen. Could this be a typo?
Also, in the NOTES section of the description of P. elephantii in Rogers et al. 1998, X./P. entosulphurea is said to be differentiated from P. elephantii by having smaller spores and occurring on dung. This conflicts with the lignicolous habit described in Rogers et al. 1996.
References:
Rogers, J.D.; San Martin, F.; Ju, Y.-m. "Mexican fungi: _Xylaria entosulphurea_ sp.nov. and neotypification of _Entonaema globosum_." Mycotaxon 58 (1996), 483-487. [http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59575/0058/0483.htm]
Rogers, J.D.; Ju, Y.-m.; San Martín, F. "_Podosordaria_: a redefinition based on cultural studies of the type species, _P. mexicana_, and two new species." Mycotaxon 67 (1998), 61-72. [http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59575/0067/0061.htm]?
One cm or more of the stipes width makes type material of P. entosulphurea a wimpy collection compared with material from Jalisco. I do not know the significance of that solo character because the very distinctive yellow granules just beneath ectostroma, habitat, and ascospore features are strictly the same in both the fungus collected in Jalisco and type material of P. entosulphurea.
I do not understand what you meant when you ask: Could this be a typo?
Finally, we separate P. elephantii from P. entosulphurea because the type of substrate (elephant dung), smaller ascospores and distribution. P. entosulphurea has been collected (in Mexico so far) in cloud forests or plant communities with elements of cloud forests, and growing on plant remains (never on dung).
Best regards!
Also, in the NOTES section of the description of P. elephantii in Rogers et al. 1998, X./P. entosulphurea is said to be differentiated from P. elephantii by having smaller spores and occurring on dung. This conflicts with the lignicolous habit described in Rogers et al. 1996.
Thanks for the clarification. I asked if 1mm was a typo because both the images of P. entosulphurea in the Mycotaxon article and Alan's images appear to show a stipe which is considerably larger than 1mm. One thought I had was that the figure should have been 1cm, and 1mm was simply a printing error.
I did notice the list of woody substrates given in the description of P. entosulphurea in Rogers et al. 1996. The possible contradiction exists in Rogers et al. 1998, though it could just be unclearly worded:
NOTES: This fungus resembles X. entosulphurea J. D. Rogers, F. San Martin, & Y.-M Ju (Rogers et al., 1996) in gross morphology, in the yellow subsurface granules, and i producing both conidium-bearing structures and aconidial (probably teleomorphic) structures in culture. That fungus is transferred to Podosordaria elsewhere herein. It differs in occuring on dung, in its smaller ascospores, and in its distribution as presently understood.?
The way it's written, it sounds like X. entosulphurea differs from X. elephantii by occurring on dung. Upon further reading and receiving your comment, I see that the opposite is true.
I'll check the dried collection under a black light when I go to Mexico this summer.