V
OMPHALINISSN 1925-1858
Vol. V, No 1 Newsletter of Jan. 24, 2014
OMPHALINA OMPHALINA, newsletter of Foray Newfoundland & Labrador, has no fi xed schedule of publication, and no promise to appear again. Its primary purpose is to serve as a conduit of information to registrants of the upcoming foray and secondarily as a communications tool with members.
Issues of OMPHALINA are archived in: is an amateur, volunteer-run, community, Library and Archives Canada’s Electronic Collection
Happy 2014!
OMPHALINA V Vol. V, No 1 OMPHALIN ISSN 1925-1858 Jan. 24, 2014
CONTENT
Editor’s comments ...... Not this time! The split of Hygrocybe D. Jean Lodge ...... 2 The Bishop’s sketchbook ...... 7 The birth and fate of names Lodge and Voitk ...... 8 Return of the Vikings Andrus Voitk ...... 13 Phellinus abietis Leif Ryvarden et al...... 15 Book review: Giant polypores & stoned reindeer Robin McGrath ...... 18 Book review: Giant polypores & stoned reindeer Zoe Brake ...... 19 Mitrula borealis Gene Herzberg ...... 20 Dog poisoning Andrus Voitk ...... 22 Leucoagaricus americanus Andrus Voitk ...... 23 Mail basket ...... 24 Partners ...... inside back cover 2014 Foray Notice ...... back cover
This issue and all previous issues available for download from the Foray Newfoundland & Labrador website
OMPHALINA THHEE SSPLITTINGPLITTING
Of
Hygrocybe
D. Jean Lodge
The genus Hygrocybe probably contains more pretty mushrooms than any other. They provide an unrivalled bright, crisp and colourful delight to the eye—hands down, a photographer’s favourite, drawing amateur and professional alike with their beauty. To the inquisitive they also provide an interesting subject for investigation, because, as mentioned in a past OMPHALINA article, how they make their living has not been elucidated.1 It seems that they are not saprobes (decayers of organic material), as had long been thought, but what type of partnerships they have established, and with whom, remains unclear. Recently, with the help of many collaborators, I completed a major study of the phylogeny of the Hygrophoraceae.2 For many amateur as well as some professional mycologists the greatest changes are in several groups of species previously classifi ed in the genus Hygrocybe. All but one of these evolutionary branches had previously been named as separate genera, so most are not new. Genera made by splitting groups from existing genera, leaving some species behind in the original genus, are called segregate genera. We were able to confi rm (in many cases, reconfi rm) the phylogenetic basis for these groupings, and to defi ne their limits more accurately than has been the case before. Thus, now these groupings have a solid and well-defi ned basis, and should fi nd widespread acceptance. In this article I review the changes to the genus Hygrocybe, as they apply to its species identifi ed in Newfoundland and Labrador. 2 OMPHALINA Recognition of some of the segregate genera is optional, but recognizing one segregate and not the others in the same branch of the tree is not—you cannot pick and choose. For example, I notice that in the Foray Newfoundland & Labrador cumulative species list, you recognize Humidicutis as a good genus, separate from Hygrocybe. If you look at the phylogeny in Fig. 2, you will see that Humidicutis appears among several other branches assigned to the genera Neohygrocybe, Porpolomopsis, and Gliophorus, and the bold branch supporting this cluster indicates it is highly supported while the genus Hygrocybe in the strict sense appears on a separate, strongly supported branch. There is yet another strongly supported branch that is sister to the others corresponding to Chromosera citrinopallida and C. lilacina on one side, and species assigned to the new genus Gloioxanthomyces nitida and G. vitellina on the other side. The sister relationship of G. nitida and G. vitellina was unraveled by David Boertmann3 in a previous issue of OMPHALINA that included DNA sequences of ‘Hygrocybe’ nitida from Newfoundland. All of the species above the blue line in Fig. 2 can be referred to the genus Hygrocybe, as long as you don’t recognize X H. marginata and H. pura as belonging to Humidicutis rather than Hygrocybe. In other words, you can’t recognize a genus that is embedded within another genus—that would make it polyphyletic. Figure 1. Upper: Voucher photograph of the Humidicutis pura My solution, together with most of my collection from Cape St. Mary’s in 2006 (photo: Roger Smith). The smallest mushroom is in the herbarium of David Boertmann collaborators, is to recognize the segregate and a portion of the largest was sent to D.J. Lodge and then to genera. Recognizing one genus previously Bryn Dentinger at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew for sequenc- segregated from Hygrocybe—Cuphophyllus—is ing and deposit. The drawing in Figure 3 comes from the latter. inescapable. The molecular phylogeny in Fig. Lower: The habitat, where the collection was made (photo: Mi- 1 shows that what you’ve recorded in NL as chael Burzynski). The yellow cross marks the location, which may ‘Hygrocybe’ pratensis and ‘H.’ borealis belong explain why there is no in situ photo, just a voucher. to the genus Cuphophyllus—one of the basal, L. umbellifera, which are found in NL), species that early diverging genera in the Hygrophoraceae near form ectomycorrhizal symbioses with tree roots (e.g., the backbone of the agaric fungi, while Hygrocybe is Hygrophorus eburneus, H. pudorinus and H. russula, a later diverging group at the apex of the family. If all found in NL), species that grow on wood (e.g., one wanted to place these two groups in the same Chrysomphalina chrysophylla, found in NL) and species genus, the genus name would have to be Hygrophorus with amyloid spores (Cantharellula umbonata, which is as it is the oldest name and the basis of the family in NL, and Pseudoarmillariella ectypoides). To avoid that name, and the genus would contain species that unacceptable solution, everyone needs to recognize form lichens (e.g., Lichenomphalia hudsoniana and the genus Cuphophyllus.
OMPHALINA 3 PHYLOGENETIC GENERA WITHIN THE FORMER HYGROCYBE
Hygrocybe conica Hygrocybe singeri Hygrocybe fl avescens Hygrocybe chlorophana Hygrocybe Hygrocybe helobia Hygrocybe miniata f. longip[es Hygrocybe cantharellus Hygrocybe coccinea Neohygrocybe ovina Neohygrocybe Porpolomopsis calyptriformis Porpolomopsis Humidicutis marginata Humidicutis pura Humidicutis
Gliophorus psittacinus Gliophorus irrigatus Gliophorus Gliophorus laetus
Chromosera citrinopallida Chromosera Chromosera lilacina Gloioxanthomyces vitellinus Gloioxanthomyces nitidus Gloioxanthomyces
Cuphophyllus aff. pratensis Cuphophyllus Cuphophyllus borealis
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree including the genera previously classifi ed in the genus Hygrocybe that are found in NL rooted with the coralloid fungi Typhula phacorhiza and Macrotyphula fi stulosa. Note that Cuphophyllus is the most basal (diverged from the other agaric fungi earliest), whereas genus Hygrocybe diverged relatively late in this phylogenetic tree. The specimen of Hygrocybe pura from Cape St. Mary’s is shown in its correct position within Humidicutis, something we were unable to show at the time of our original publication. Branches that are in bold have at least 70% support.
4 OMPHALINA Hygrocybe Chromosera The genus with the most species; colourful, red orange or Subarctic/subalpine, in heath; small; glutinous; yellow, but may stain black; may be dry or viscid; may be brightly coloured; translucent; hygrophanous; conical, dome shaped or indented; cap often scaly, at colours fade (lilac to yellow and yellow to white). least minutely (loupe). Hygrocybe acutoconica Chromosera citrinopallida Hygrocybe cantharellus Chromosera lilacina Hygrocybe ceracea Cuphophyllus Hygrocybe chlorophana Very broad central umbo or bump; caps often Hygrocybe coccinea become opaque and chalky as they dry; considerable Hygrocybe coccineocrenata crossveining of gills, NL species not brightly Hygrocybe conica coloured. Hygrocybe conica var. chloroides Hygrocybe conica var. conicopalustris Cuphophyllus borealis Hygrocybe constrictospora Cuphophyllus cinerellus Hygrocybe flavescens Cuphophyllus colemannianus Hygrocybe helobia Cuphophyllus lacmus Hygrocybe insipida Cuphophyllus pratensis Hygrocybe miniata Cuphophyllus radiatus Hygrocybe miniata var. mollis Gliophorus Hygrocybe mucronella Very slimy; may have bright colours or somewhat Hygrocybe phaeococcinea muted; Some coloured green or purple, unusual for Hygrocybe punicea mushrooms; colours fade and change over time. Gill Hygrocybe reidii edge may be gelatinized; gills often become carrot Hygrocybe ruber pink-orange on drying. Hygrocybe singeri var. albifolia Hygrocybe sp. nov. Gliophorus irrigatus Hygrocybe splendissima Gliophorus laetus Hygrocybe squamulosa Gliophorus psittacinus Hygrocybe substrangulata var. rhodophylla Gloioxanthomyces Hygrocybe turunda Gluey, brilliant yellow mushrooms with a thin, dark, Hygrocybe turunda var. sphagnophila slimy gill edge. One species only. Can be distinguished from yellow Gliophorus species by Table 1. Species formerly placed in the genus Hygrocybe swollen cells, seen microscopically in the gill flesh, that are found in Newfoundland and Labrador, assigned and does not develop carrot orange colour on drying. to their respective segregate genera, with a brief Gloioxanthomyces nitida description of each genus. The “parent” Hygrocybe on Humidicutis the left, and the segregate and subsegregate genera on the Acutely conical in youth; cap cracks radially somewhat when expanded; may be brightly right. colourful, often with pink tint or carrot pinkish- orange in colour, with or without green; moist or viscid. Humidicutis marginata Humidicutis marginata var. olivacea Humidicutis pura
Figure 3. Drawing of cross section of a gill of the Humidicutis pura specimen. The basidia are on the outsides, some with sterigmata (prongs where spores are formed), some with developing spores attached. Note especially the bases of some of the basidia – they look like bow-legged cowboys. This form of clamp connection is typical of Humidicutis, Porpolomopsis and some species of Gliophorus. This sporulating layer is supported by the gill trama (fl esh of the gill) in the middle. Characteristically, Humidicutis has very short hyphae (elongated cells, making “threads”) in the trama of the gill, as shown here, fi tting well with Humidicutis, whereas the sister genus, Porpolomopsis, has long tapered cells.
OMPHALINA 5 Review of the FNL list and that of Andrus Voitk in our manuscript were contributed by Renée Lebeuf, over the past 11 collecting seasons reveals 41 taxa one of your Faculty for several years. that a decade ago would all be considered species There is no need to be unhappy about learning new of Hygrocybe. According to the fi ndings of our names for your beautiful waxcap mushrooms, because study, these same 41 taxa are now divided among your own data contributed to the work that led to six genera: Chromosera, Cuphophyllus, Gliophorus, these discoveries! Moreover, if you study the genus Gloioxanthomyces, Humidicutis, and Hygrocybe. Table 1 descriptions and consider the listed species, you will gives a brief description of each genus and places each probably discover that you have always noted that identifi ed Newfoundland and Labrador taxon into its some Hygrocybe species differed from the majority. currently correct genus. The pink tint to the orange Humidicutis marginata is Our work drew on FNL data in two areas. First, it was a good clue to differentiate it from Hygrocybe, and very helpful for us to have the relationship between it corresponds to a difference in pigment chemistry. the European Gloioxanthomyces vitellinus and the Other segregate genera can be separated by the North American G. nitius determined, as published in characters you may have noted in the past: copious OMPHALINA (under the names Hygrocybe vitellina and gluten and lamellae that dry carrot pinkish-orange in H. nitida).3 We also had a white conical Hygrocybe, Gliophorus, duller colours, or several other characters collected from Cape St. Mary’s sent for examination. that make them different from the rest. There is an It had been examined by two of us, and both agreed evolutionary basis for some these different characters, that this was Hygrocybe pura. Morphologically, this providing you with a great opportunity to check for species is very similar to Porpolomopsis calyptriformis differences with increased attention, in order to place (the old Hygrocybe calyptriformis), so that in the your fi nds into their correct genus. I hope that this manuscript we assigned it to the genus Porpolomopsis, short explanation has given you an understanding why based on its looks. The sequencing results have since you will soon fi nd some old friends with new names been completed, and analysis shows this specimen in your lists. instead belongs to the sister genus, Humidicutis. Figure 1 shows the specimen and its habitat, and Figure Acknowledgments 3 shows the microscopic cross section of its gill, I thank my many coauthors of the original monograph, without revealing the typical short hyphae described for this which this selected review would not have been possible. I also thank Andrus Voitk, who assisted in drafting the manuscript. I species and genus. In addition to these direct contacts thank my employer, The Center for Forest Mycology Research, with your organization, many of the photographs used USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. References 1. Voitk A: Do you ever wonder how the organisms you encounter make their living? OMPHALINA 2(9):2. 2011. 2. Lodge DJ, Padamsee M & Matheny PB, Aime MC, Cantrell SA, Boertmann D, Kovalenko A, Vizzini A, Dentinger BTM, Kirk PM, Ainsworth AM, Moncalvo J-M, Vilgalys R, Larsson E, Lü cking R, Griffi th GW, Smith ME, Norvell LL, Desjardin DE, Redhead SA, Ovrebo CL, Lickey EB, Ercole E, Hughes KW, Courtecuisse R, Young A, Binder M, Minnis AM, Lindner DL, Ortiz-Santana B, Haight J, Læssøe T, Baroni TJ, Geml J, Hattori T: Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales). Fungal diversity, DOI 10.1007/s13225-013-0259-0. 2013. 3. Boertmann D: Update on Hygrocybe nitida. OMPHALINA 3(1):12-13. 2012. Illustrations Title banner: Cuphophyllus lacmus, not a Hygrocybe, even if you do not want to accept the other splits of the genus. Left: Hygrocybe conica, beautiful and common species of such variability that its many varieties and forms should be reassessed and defi ned. 6 OMPHALINA The Bishop’s Sketchbook
16 OMPHALINA 7 THE BIRTH AND FATE OF NEW GENERIC NAMES D Jean Lodge & Andrus Voitk No student of natural history can have escaped the proliferation of new names in the last few decades, certainly evident in mycology. Of course, the most obvious need for a new name comes about when an organism is discovered whose existence was hitherto unknown, i.e. a species, genus, or larger group new to science. However, for the layman the sudden profusion of new names for seemingly old organisms or groups of organisms is causing some confusion and consternation, particularly when several names replace a former single name. In this discussion we shall use genera as an example to show how new names (new genera) come about and what happens to them after introduction. In order to understand the organisms aside). Phylogeny supported Harmaja’s one, new branches appear. Signifi cantly with which we share this world, we observations, lending more weight to divergent new branches may be have tried to classify them, putting his decision to consider them different considered separate entities and given like with like in the belief that likeness genera. Hence, it is likely that more a new genus name, or they might be indicates relatedness. It follows that taxonomists will accept the derived recognized at a lower rank such as when we fi nd consistent differences genus Cystodermella. If its use becomes subgenus or section. A prolifi c amount between organisms, in order to accepted practice, Cystodermella will be of molecular genetic investigation keep like with like we also separate considered a good genus in the sense is discovering much unsuspected out differing groups. An example that it is generally accepted as standing branching within groups, i.e. new of this process was provided in a apart from its original “parent” genus, potential derived genera. This is why so recent OMPHALINA article devoted Cystoderma. many new names are proposed. 1 to Cystoderma. Careful study of the In mycology there are no absolute Now that we know how such names genus Cystoderma led Harri Harmaja criteria that must be met to designate come about, let us see what their to conclude that it contained two a new genus. Every taxonomist is free fate is. As an example, let us consider different groups of mushrooms, to describe observed differences— the previous article, where one of us those with amyloid spores and those macroscopic, microscopic, ecological, (DJL) describes the derived genera 2 without. To him these differences were chemical or phylogenetic—and she and her coworkers supported suffi ciently signifi cant to warrant placing propose a derived genus with a with molecular phylogeny in the each in its own genus. This was done by new name. Phylogeny has, however, former genus Hygrocybe. Excluding leaving the mushrooms with amyloid certain guidelines. Since the aim is to Cuphophyllus, they supported six spores in the original genus Cystoderma, lump like with like, a genus should be derived genera of which only one was and creating a new derivative or monophyletic—that is, “pure”; it should ‘new’. Since there are no absolute segregate genus, Cystodermella, for not contain other genera within it (that criteria for naming new genera, this the species with inamyloid spores. would make it polyphyletic). Thus, new becomes an active decision of each Not all taxonomists agreed that this genera are proposed when a genus is taxonomist. As with all decisions, there difference was suffi cient to justify the found to be polyphyletic, i.e. contain is judgment and opinion involved, rank of a new genus, and therefore within it one or more other genera. both of which may vary with different some continued to use the genus At the same time, new genera cannot observers. This means that there are name Cystoderma for both groups. be created within existing genera, but choices, fi rst for the investigator and Saar studied the molecular phylogeny must stand on their own. second for the users. To explore these of these mushrooms and discovered choices, we chose Figure 1, adapted that phylogenetically the amyloid- Current taxonomy is based on phylogenetics, comparative analysis from that article, but pared of individual spored group and the inamyloid- species, and trimmed of all branches spored group have travelled along of genetic regions. The results can be illustrated by clade trees that not pertaining to Hygrocybe, as it has different evolutionary pathways from been known in its wide sense for the 3 trace the likely evolutionary path and a common progenitor. In other last few decades. The branch that leads words, the two differ genetically, as show the relation of genera to each other—snippets from the Tree of Life. us to this group is A, arising from the well as in the ability of their spores root. to react to Iodine (rare exceptions When genetic differences are found within genera previously thought to be Let us fi rst deal with the genus 8 OMPHALINA Cuphophyllus, shown on branch X. rise off the B-X axis—the others have the only reasonable option seems to Lodge mentioned that its acceptance just been removed in our illustration be to accept Cuphophyllus as a good as a good genus apart from Hygrocybe for simplicity. As mentioned, if we wish genus. was unavoidable. At one time species to consider all the illustrated genera as Now, let us turn to Branch B. It of Cuphophyllus were considered one large genus, we need to include all splits into branches C and D. To part of the larger genus Hygrocybe. the intervening genera as well and the our knowledge, there are no other However, Lodge’s article (see the name would have to be Hygrophorus intervening branches, so that one phylogeny diagram in that article) rather than Hygrocybe as it is the oldest valid option is to consider everything presents phylogenetic evidence that genus name in that group. That would on these branches as one genus. This the entire genus Hygrophorus, as well as create a very large genus, containing produces a genus not too dissimilar the smaller genera of Chrysomphalina, very many discrete groups that differ from one earlier version of Hygrocybe, Lichenomphalia, Arrhenia, Cantharellula signifi cantly in appearance, lifestyle and when most of what is now known as and Pseudoarmiraliella come between genetic make-up. For most people this Cuphophyllus was considered a separate branch X and Branch B. In other words, is not a useful grouping of like with like. genus, at that time called Camarophyllus. B and X are not the only branches that Therefore, with the current information This concept of Hygrocybe has worked
Hygrocybe Neohygrocybe
Porpolomopsis Humidicutis
Gliophorus Chromosera Gloioxanthomyces
Cuphophyllus
OMPHALINA 9 are chemically unrelated and give the species in branches E and F very different appearances. These considerations may infl uence you to separate genetically unlike groups. If you decide to separate E and F, you are automatically accepting Neohygrocybe as a valid genus. Your decision then is what to do with branch H. You may lump all into one genus (Gliophorus, named in 1958, which has priority over Humidicutis named the following year in 1959, and the limits of the Same phylogram as on the previous page, genus would have to be expanded so that you can follow the text without to absorb Gliophorus species). If not, having to fl ip pages. you automatically accept Gliophorus as valid. Your last decision is whether to lump Porpolomopsis and Humidicutis, or accept both as valid genera. Each branch is well supported but the split that separates the two branches is not statistically signifi cant, and they are morphologically similar. If you have come this far, why not go for broke and in the pastpast, and mamay contincontinue e to do a lot of value al e on ssuch ch fi ndinndings, s you o accept these as valid genera as well? so. However, Lodge and coworkers would likely support distinguishing Should you reject this split, you would have demonstrated a split of branch between the two genera. You could join several mycologists who previously B into C and D. Branch D has good summon support in the different placed species of the younger genus, statistical support (indicated by a thick habitat and looks of the two genera. Porpolomopsis, in the older of the two line), which means that the likelihood is Gloioxanthomyces has a gelatinized named genera, Humidicutis. The type over 70% that this genetic separation is gill edge, similar to Hygrocybe laeta species of Porpolomopsis (Hygrocybe a consistent or “true” fi nding. Because (Gliophorus laetus), but the cells that calyptriformis) has never been placed in we can also identify other consistent make up the fl esh are distinctive. Humidicutis but was thought to belong differences between the genera on Or you may opt to continue to Hygrocybe in branch E because it’s branch D and those on branch C, considering differences in species of conical pileus with a splitting margin you may decide to acknowledge this Gloioxanthomyces and Chromosera as resembles that of Hygrocybe conica difference, in order to keep like with minor, concluding that such differences (the type species of Hygrocybe). like. are reasonable between otherwise H./P. calyptriformis would need to be If you opt to accept the split, your similar species within one somewhat transferred to Humidicutis in order to next choice is to decide what to do diverse genus. Note that branch D is recognize the entire branch I as a single with the genera on branches C and a sister to C, containing all the other genus. genera. Therefore, you can lump D. Both are independent branches, so Among this confusing profusion of branches K and L or choose both, but that a decision on one does not affect permutations and combinations, three not select only one. the decision on the other. The choice valid choices stand out. One option is on branch D is simple: accept both If you chose to recognize branches C to lump all derived genera (excluding genera, or reject Gloioxanthomyces and D as valid splits, then regardless Cuphophyllus) into one large Hygrocybe. (which was derived from Hygrocybe on of what you chose to do with branch Another is to decide, as did Lodge and branch C—either on the Hygrocybe D, branch C presents you with her coworkers, to accept all proposed branch E or the Gliophorus branch several options. First, you may elect derived genera. A compromise is to J, depending on the author) and to lump all genera emanating from accept three bigger genera: the “parent” transfer Gloioxanthomyces species to branch C as one genus, Hygrocybe. Hygrocybe, one large genus fl owing Chromosera. Branches K and L, leading But both of its branches, E and F, from branch F (needs descriptions and to these genera, both enjoy high have high statistical support, and the naming), and the small Chromosera, statistical support, so that if you put pigments that give these branches transferring into it species of the new
10 OMPHALINA genus Gloioxanthomyces. override these What happens now? How are the considerations. decisions made? Who “accepts” or For example, “rejects” the proposed new derived there really genera? After all, if they were found is no other to exist genetically, is that not the end mushroom of the discussion: they are there and remotely like therefore must be accepted? Polyozellus multiplex, so Well, not exactly. The fate of these placing it in new genera now rests in the hands a genus by of the community of users, primarily itself will likely taxonomists and mycologists, but be accepted. also all others interested in fungi. Sometimes a Anybody wishing to talk about them new discovery with others must fi nd a common creates an language, including what to call them. epiphany: Remember, there are no fi xed rules, so “Aha! I always incorporation of new proposals is left knew there Polyozellus multiplex to usage. We already saw some of the was something decisions guiding such usage: an overly different But what about science, where is large and overly diverse genus, such about this group! Now I know.” its place in this, you ask. Surely it as the super-Hygrophoprus, containing Well, in that case the acceptance will should determine what is accepted Cuphphyllus, Hygrophorus, Arrhenia, be viewed as helpful to placing like or not. Of course, science does play basidiolichens and other genera, with like, and its acceptance likely. a role, but it is not the fi nal arbiter. If seemed to be undesirable. Why? Splitting in half a manageable genus of scientifi c evidence for a separation Well, mostly because it did not seem mushrooms that look alike and have is overwhelming, it is accepted, even helpful. It had in it so many species the same lifestyle may be far less likely when morphologically incongruous. with distinctive characters that they to gain acceptance. But if two similar For example, when Rickenella was would be diffi cult to organize in the genera are shown to have different shown to be related to Hymenochaete, mind without breaking them down into genetic make-up on two different together with genera like Phellinus, subgroups. At the same time, some of continents, the names are more likely Trichaptum and Inonotus, and far away these organisms were so different, that to be accepted. Why? Because in this from lookalikes Hygrocybe or Mycena, this large genus did not seem to lump case it is perceived to provide some this was readily accepted as an example like with like, either in appearance or insight into their evolution, once the of parallel evolution. By the way, at the ecology. Much as overly large genera opportunity of exchanging genetic same time Phellinus, Trichaptum and are not perceived to be helpful, overly material is removed. In other words, Inonotus proved to be far away from small genera are also not helpful. If the split is seen as helpful to our their lookalikes Fomitopsis or Trametes. genera become very small, they offer understanding of fungi. very little advantage to the user over These splits were very helpful to lump species, and a larger group would seem These are the main factors that genetically like with genetically like as more desirable. infl uence the usage and acceptance of an attempt to indicate relatedness. proposed names. Of course, there are This makes it clear that whether a As we see, the size of the group many others, because we human beings proposed new name is accepted or infl uences the likelihood of its are moved in many and mysterious not, the science behind its proposal acceptance. Some 50 species split off ways. For example, petty things like remains equally valid. In the absence of the large genus Cortinarius likely will pronunciation no doubt infl uence absolute criteria for designating a genus, be perceived as helpful. Small genera decisions. “Polyozellus” is a foreign proposing a new genus on the basis of one to two species split off a large word, but seems to roll off the tongue of scientifi c evidence always involves genus like Entoloma will not be equally smoothly, with an appealing aftertaste some degree of judgement or opinion helpful. Neither will the splitting of a of chocolate and a hint of tobacco, so it about the signifi cance of the fi ndings. small 12-species genus into ten little is likely to be used. “Gloioxanthomyces” Opinions differ, without altering the genera most with only one species, may fi nd it has a tougher row to hoe. underlying facts. even if scientifi cally correct. Of You may be surprised, but even the course, the nature of the species may tongues of scientists have limits. Just as some may accept a genus with
OMPHALINA 11 bula fi Rickenella Phellinus nigricans Fomes fomitopsis Hygrocybe cantharellus Hygrocybe Non-intuitive or incongruous groupings. The two in Hymenochateoid clade (two on the left), the Euagaric the middle are not related. The two on the edges are clade (3rd from left) and the Polyporoid clade (on the not related. The two on the left are related. The two on right) have all developed a gilled hymenium or a poroid the right are not related. Parallel evolution is the term conk fruiting body, as suited the occasion. Because this used for the ability of an evolutionary line to (re)invent discovery gave new insights into evolution, these new a shape or function when it proves advantageous. The larger groupings were readily accepted.
both slimy and viscid species while of the scientist to discover new things, deal with absolutes, but certain aspects some may prefer to place each in a including differences, and present them are democratic. It will be interesting genus of its own, so some may accept to both peers, and eventually us at to follow the fate of these segregate a genus with some phylogenetic large. It will then be up to collective genera that were supported by divergence, while others would prefer usage over time, to determine what will molecular phylogeny, ecology, pigment to place each branch in a genus of its be helpful if incorporated into the tool chemistry and morphology. As an own. Whichever decision becomes we use to understand nature. experiment, we shall adopt them all in accepted custom, the slimy ones Lodge and coworkers have done a our Foray Newfoundland & Labrador remain slimy and the ones on one large amount of work, dissecting out lists. Those of us with a distant best- evolutionary branch remain there. the phylogeny of the Hygrophoraceae before-date can then see which remain The system we have for ranking and correlating the branches with in general usage 10, 20, 25 or more organisms is a tool, designed to help previously named genera and years from now. us place like with like, in our effort subgroups within genera—all based to understand nature around us. on appearance and ecology. Most References We strive for a perfectly balanced of the work was in sifting through tool, not too bulky for use in fi ne 1. Saar I, Voitk A: Cystoderma and the multiple names that have been Cystodermella of Newfoundland and situations, not too fi ne for a bigger job, applied to each group and applying the and not too complicated to handle Labrador, OMPHALINA 4(7):6-13. 2013. rules of nomenclature to determine 2. Harmaja H: Amylolepiota, Clavicybe comfortably. Taxonomy is for us, not which were the names that could be the mushrooms. This is why the word and Cystodermella, new genera of the used (i.e., correct, validly published, Agaricales. Karstenia 42 (2):39–48. “helpful” appeared so many times and legitimate). Both the ‘lumper’ in the discussion of why some new 2002. and ‘splitter’ naming approaches 3. Saar I, Põldmaa K, Kõljalg U: The genera may be accepted or not. Not to Hygrocybe classifi cation were every perceived difference needs to be phylogeny and taxonomy of genera presented by Lodge and co-workers Cystoderma and Cystodermella named, or if named, it may not require in parallel so that users could decide incorporation into taxonomy (or it (Agaricales) based on nuclear ITS and for themselves which system is most LSU sequences. Mycological Progress 8 may be recognized at a lower rank, a useful to them. Science is perceived to subgroup within a genus). It is the job (1):59–73. 2009.
12 OMPHALINA return VIKINgs II of the
No doubt everybody remembers the visit of the two Vikings, Gro Gulden and Jon-Otto Aarnæs from Norway to our foray in 2012. No doubt you also remember that one of the dreams of Gro was to visit the Viking site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Therefore, ere Foray greeted Eos, we arranged a small trip to the Great Northern Peninsula. In keeping with our policy of transparency, the journey was documented and published in word and picture (OMPHALINA 3(11):16-23. 2012). The picture on the left comes from that report. Jon-Otto bade our Vikings partake a friendly spot of Norwegian Akvavit, after which he was consigned to the smithy bellows until the shakes wore off. What is the aftermath of letting a Norwegian Viking spur the fi re of a Newfoundland Viking smithy? Again, pictures relate the tale.
OMPHALINA 13 Scarcely had a year passed, but out of the very base of the same anvil on which a nail had been pounded from iron heated by Jon-Otto’s fi re, there arose in thickest darkness, a mass so frightful of countenance, as to quake the bravest heart to its very foundation with calamitous portent of evils imminent. The grasping, devouring, many-headed monster struck horror, terror and desolation into every being fortunate to escape its clutching grasp, It became, in the words of Lord Lyton, “res detestabilis et caduca”,* but scarce was the man to bring about the caduca part. L’Anse aux Meadows was placed under the strictest quarantine, while brave men made every effort to contain this wicked pestilence. It is writ in the sagas (Leif contemplates life, Vol III. Anno 978) that the evil that is released by Akvavit in a smithy, no man can contain. That is the curse of the Vikings, the curse that was blown by the bellows in Jon-Otto’s shaking hands. And now, dear reader, that same nefarious curse blows its contagion on Pholiota limonella. One of several larger, fl eshy, yellow Pholiota the wind, for its pernicious species that grow in the province. Pholiotas are characterized by spores are spreading their a brown sporeprint, broadly attached gills, a slimy, scaly cap and contamination to wreak scaly lower stem, often with remnants of the veil hanging from the havoc all over our Island. cap edge, or left as ring or ring zone on the stem. Some are edible, Lock up your smithies! Let no but serious poisonings and even fatalities have occurred when they man rest easy! have been confused with the deadly Galerina marginata. Pholiota aurivella looks like P. limonella and is the commoner of the two And that, folks, is how FNL in mainland mushroom books. To date, we have only collected P. solved the mystery of why the limonella in our province. The two have a readily apparent difference original Vikings left. in spore size, allowing a secure identifi cation. Wouldn’t you? Photos: Mike Sexton * A despicable thing, to be destroyed. 14 OMPHALINA PHELLINUS ABIETIS—AN OLD NEW SPECIES
FOR NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR AND NORTH AMERICA
Leif Ryvarden, Renée Lebeuf, Andrus Voitk
Phellinus abietis (P. Karst.) Jahn is a common species on different coniferous hosts, although preferably Picea, in the circumglobal boreal forests. Its brown pileate basidiocarps are perennial and occur singly, but more often in large numbers on dead but still standing trees, not uncommon also on living trees. Karsten’s type specimen came from northern Finland collected on a dead Picea abietis.1 For a long time that name was used for all specimens collected on Picea abietis, at least in Fennoscandia and Russia. However, then M. A. Donk introduced Phellinus chrysoloma (Fries) Donk for such specimens, based on Fomes chrysoloma Fries 1861,2 a name that had slept in oblivion because of uncertainty of its application. Fries collected his type specimen at Ultuna, just outside Uppsala in Sweden, an area inside the hemiboreal zone just south of “limes norrlandicus” i.e., the northern border for oak (Quercus spp) in Fennoscandia. Such was the situation until T. Niemelä and his students started to examine and measure spores of specimens from all over Europe. Their conclusion was that there are two species, one boreal for which Karsten’s
The two Phellini. Title banner and top photo: Phellinus chrysoloma in Newfoundland. Note a thicker cap that projects straight out, bending down at the very end only, thus exposing most of the hymenium (pore surface). Middle: Phelllinus abietis in Norway. Bottom (photo: Roger Smith): Phellinus abietis from Terra Nova National Park. Note the thin cap that bends downwards to almost completely cover the resupinate part of the hymenium. OMPHALINA 15 basidiocarps. Peck, unaware of the situation in Europe, named a species within this complex as Polyporus piceinus. Whether this in due time will be accepted as a species of its own, will partly be based on DNA sequencing of a large number of representative North American and European specimens, and opinions on wide or narrow species concepts. Phellinus pini is another species within this complex, but restricted, as the epithet indicates, to Pinus spp. Its basidiocarps occur often on living trees, not rarely high above the ground and it has in general larger and more irregular pores than seen in the species mentioned above. The spores are like those of P. chrysoloma, while Phellinus abietis (T. Niemelä 7399, ex H) a, hyphae from upper surface; b, the hymenial setae hyphae from dark zone; c, hyphae from context; d, section through hymenium; are similar in all three e, hymenial setae; f, basidia; g, h, basidiospores. Phellinus chrysoloma (ex O. species. The type Miettinen 14146). i, j, basidiospores. Del. I. Melo. Drawing courtesy of Ireneia specimen of P. pini Melo. came from Portugal. name should be used, and one distinctly Armed with this information AV reviewed more southern, for which Fries’s name the micromorphology of all our P. should be applied (T. Niemelä pers comm.). chrysoloma collections, both personal and The main difference lies in the spore shapes: the Foray collections. There were a total of P. abietis has ellipsoid spores, while those 15 collections identifi ed as P. chrysoloma. of P. chrysoloma are subglobose. This can Of these, 13 had the spore shape and size easily been seen in the drawing, to be characteristic for that species. Two had used in the forthcoming Poroid fungi of spore shape and size compatible with P. Europe by L. Ryvarden & I. Melo. In addition abietis. One of these, and a specimen of to differences in spore shape, there are P. chrysoloma to act as control, were then minor differences in the shape of the reviewed independently by RL, in the 16 OMPHALINA Microscopic appearance of our two species, Phellinus chrysoloma on the left and P. abietis on the right. Spores above and setae below. Note the bigger and more elliptical spores of P. abietis. The differences are not huge. We did not see any signifi cant difference in the sharpness of the setae. course of microphotography. The results The next time you collect in an old growth agreed. The mathematical average Q spruce forest and fi nd a refl exed Phellinus value (length divided by width, a value with a sharp edge, you might check the which indicates the shape of the spores) spore shape. If the Q measures 1.3-1.4 you was 1.1-1.2 for all 13 P. chrysoloma likely have the old new species, P. abietis. If specimens, and 1.3 and 1.4 for the two the Q is less, your fi nd is likely P. chrysoloma. specimens of P. abietis. We did not And if you are in charge of a fungarium, appreciate any difference in the sharpness you might want to spend a rainy Sunday of the setae. measuring spore size of your Phellinus Both the P. abietis collections come chrysoloma collections. from Terra Nova National Park, an area References of old growth spruce. Mature caps of P. 1. Karsten PA: Rysslands, Finlands och den chrysoloma tend to project straight out from Skandinaviska Halföens Hattsvampar. Bidrag the tree with the tip bent downwards. The til Kännd Finlands Land och Folk 37:1-257. two P. abietis caps were refl exed for almost 1882. the full length of the resupinate part of the 2. Fries E: Hymenomycetes novi vel minus conk, forming a dome over the hymenium. cogniti in Suecia 1852-1860 observati. Öfers. Kung. Vetensk. Akad. Forhand. 18:19-34. 1861.
OMPHALINA 17 Available only by order from the author. Download order form from
Lawrence Millman, author of quite taken with a number of the good idea. Millman clearly doesn’t GIANT POLYPORES AND STONED essays. like the trend among mycologists REINDEER: RAMBLES IN THE All Millman’s pieces relate to “to regard DNA sequencing as the KINGDOM FUNGI, and a collector of fungi in some way, but under that pinnacle of their trade,” and is not aboriginal stories, has raised the rubric he also covers subjects as fond of authority fi gures, but he ire of anthropologists, who dislike disparate as Antarctic exploration, makes mushrooming sound like a his tendency toward “readability great adventure, an exclusive club rather than word for word with an exotic language. accuracy.” They feel he Although I enjoyed the essays plays fast and loose with I have reservations about some important cultural some of the work. After material, but then he also fi nding a crust fungus not catches the scatological previously known to exist and trickster fl avour of in East Greenland, Millman many of the stories he fi nds. assumes the sod-house in Millman self-identifi es as a which it is growing is an mycologist, author, explorer ancient site. Learning it is a and ethnographer. I am only replica, he claims “a replica beginning to be interested in turf hut is no different from a mushrooms I cannot eat, so genuine one.” I can think of a this review will limit itself hundred ways replicas differ primarily to the readability from the real thing, which is rather than the accuracy of why no one gives grants to his essays. replica projects anymore. GIANT POLYPORES consists of Whether Millman’s work is 25 short pieces about “odd, of interest to mycologists will obscure or rare species” depend upon how reliable of fungi that Millman has they fi nd his mycological encountered in his travels. work, but it allows neophyte Three pieces are parodies mushroomers such as (Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Faust myself to dip a toe into the sea of and a modern-day Edmund Hillary corruption in Honduras, the knowledge that lies in wait for us. as mycologists), while the rest Tasmanian platypus, cheese and Most of the stories are accessible are stories or essays, focusing on cannibalism. I was intrigued by to the general reader, although a hunts or fi nds. More seasoned notes he made while stoned on minimal mycological background mycophiles may fi nd the parodies Amanita muscaria. Even I know helps to fully enjoy them. funnier than I did, however I was that eating fl y agaric is not really a
18 OMPHALINA Available only by order from the author. Download order form from
Never judge a book by its back a bit less author intrusion. A small irreverent, or not, such as Stalinist- cover! quibble is a wish that stories of era repeat-imbibers of A. muscaria a more even standard had been pushed out cargo doors of airborne “Millman’s a genius.” selected from his available stock planes … to really fl y high! Would So proclaims a quote strategically for inclusion in this collection. you believe that mushrooms grow chosen for the back cover of in Antarctica? Or that one Lawrence Millman’s Sami reindeer in Lapland GIANT POLYPORES AND can pull a sled faster than STONED REINDEER: a fi ve-dog team over ten- RAMBLES IN THE KINGDOM miles? Or … but you will FUNGI. Usually such have to read the book to self-promotion would be get all the stories. enough for me to avoid Along the way, almost an author. However, imperceptibly, Mr. because I found the book Millman divulges at a friend’s place, I was interesting information curious and borrowed it. about the fungi starring A few pages into the book in his stories, along with I found myself warming lots of local colour. I to my guide for whom the particularly enjoyed the excitement of the hunt is stories because I realized the raison d’être to forage that I did not have to into forests, meander memorize spore sizes, across meadows, wade gill attachments or other into wetlands and squint technical data, as this was into sands and soils … all not a textbook—it was an in search of the next new- armchair adventure with to-me-or-you fungus. a pleasant, joie-de-vivre- Many of the stories have friendly hunter-gatherer. been published before, Genius? Not truly. But his and these stories could writing entertains, amuses Mr. Millman takes the reader on certainly add spice to lighter and pleases—a valued commodity many adventures in many locales, publications, or lighten ponderous on a cold winter’s night in January each with newfound friends, with ones with their levity. Most stories in Newfoundland and Labrador. told themselves well, although enthusiasm and lightheartedness. some might have fared better with He also imparts facts, irrelevant or
OMPHALINA 19 Gene Herzberg
MORE
on MITRULA
In response to the request for addi onal Mitrula sigh ngs (OMPHALINA 4(11):16) I a ach pictures of Mitrula elegans taken below the Francophone Associa on on Ridge Road in St. John’s on June 9, 2011 (photos, this page). I took samples to Faye Murrin who iden fi ed the species microscopically by spore size and shape, using the same Redhead reference cited in the ar cle. We also saw a Mitrula species on the Ochre Hill Trail in Terra Nova Park on the wildfl ower trip on August 3, 2011 (photo, next page).
Ed comment: It is very gra fying to get a response to an appeal in an ar cle. Also rewarding, because the second sigh ng immediately doubled the number of known species in Newfoundland and Labrador. August 3 is well outside the frui ng mes of M. elegans and M. lunulatospora, and into the frui ng me of M. borealis. In the review, frui ng me turned out to be the most reliable indicator of species, so there should be li le doubt that the species on the next page is Mitrula borealis. This is also the species most o en reported to grow on submerged conifer duff , and the photo shows what appear to be needles and an end branch of balsam fi r, suppor ng the iden fi ca on made by frui ng me.
20 OMPHALINA OMPHALINA 21 POOISONISON CCONTROLONTROL NNOTESOTES — DDOGOG PPOISONINGSOISONINGS Andrus Voitk Have you followed the annual North American Mycological Association’s toxicology reports? If not, you may want to download the report for 2012 at
22 OMPHALINA Dog 2 This morning my 20 pound King Charles Spaniel ate 1/2 of a mushroom head in the backyard. Can you please help me with this so I know whether or not he needs to see his vet. Thank you very much! JT, Ontario This looks like Leucoagaricus americanus, an edible and non-poisonous mushroom. It resembles a lethal Amanita in many ways, but my guess is that your dog is fi ne. It should grow on woody debris and stain yellow when rubbed, and red on injury. If that’s so, you can relax. Thank you! I appreciate your time. Dog Fine. JT, Ontario Ed notes: Sometimes even poor pictures have some clues. You do the best you can with what you have. And sometimes you get good pictures with many useful characters illustrated. This gives us an oppor- tunity to introduce Leucoagaricus americanus.
Leucoagaricus americanus darkens with age and may split as in JT’s upper picture. The picture also shows the is an uncommon, large, fl eshy, white-spored red staining (gills of second mushrooms mushroom with free gills and a ring that from the right), a feature it shares with disappears in age. The cap has concentric Chlorophyllum rhacodes. Also like the latter, rings of scales, much like Chlorophyllum it is a good edible. However, note that white rhacodes or the small and lethal Lepiota spores, fl akes on the cap, free gills and a cristata, both of which it resembles. ring are also characters of lethal Amanita It grows on woody debris, often in multiple species, so unless you know this is neither small cespitose clusters. The whitish stem Amanita nor Lepiota, forego the meal! OMPHALINA 23 the mail bag or why the passenger pigeons assigned to serve the lavish Corporate and Editorial offices of OMPHALINA get hernias
The stuff on the caribou lichens was great. I had no idea there were so many kinds. I’ll be paying much closer att enti on to them once the snow is gone. Robin McGrath
Thank you for the wonderful most recent issue of OMPHALINA The guide to the reindeer lichens is outstanding and will get much use by us. Gene Herzberg
Happy new year! I like the way you often introduce Thought you’d be interested: I found Fomitopsis ochracea the interdependence of other beings in both Alaska and the PNW—I tired the match test and it and fungi. The focus on caribou to worked—the F. pinicola melted and F. ochracea gave off black talk about reindeer lichens is a good smoke. I also found some F. ochracea while going through example. It helps us see the role of my F. pinicola slide collection, and that of Kit Skates Barnhart. these lichens as food for caribou, Here is a beautiful picture of F. ochracea by Kit from the Pacifi c possibly its only food in the winter. Northwest, which at the time we thought was F. pinicola. I noticed caramelized reindeer moss used to add “local” fl avour to menus Michael Beug in Fogo. Is this really necessary? Most of these lichens do not provide Since writing our Report on lichenized ascomycetes found food value or signifi cant fl avour for at the 2013 Foray [OMPHALINA 4(10):50], John McCarthy was us, and are just an affectation on the good enough to tell us that a more updated version of the plate. unpublished checklist of NL lichens by Ahti, Clayden and The Fogo caribou herd depends on McCarthy, not available to us at the time, revealed some lichens to survive. When you collect changes. According to current information, the following fi nds lichens, you are competing with the are new to the province: Diplotomma nivalis, Menegazzia caribou. In the case of lichens you terebrata, Polysporina simplex, Rhizocarpon hochstetteri, are removing entire organisms, not Rinodina tephraspis, Xanthoparmelia hypofusca and X. just fruiting bodies, as is the case viriduloumbrina. The following provisionally identifi ed with mushrooms. As your article species are also new, if further work confi rms our provisional explained, many are very slow to identifi cations: Caloplaca arenaria and Sarcosagium regenerate. Do we need this? Can we campestre. justify it? JMW Chris Deduke Michele Piercey-Normore
24 OMPHALINA OOURUR PPARTNERARTNER OORGANIZATIONSRGANIZATIONS
People of Newfoundland and Labrador, through Department of Environment and Conservation Parks and Natural Areas Division Wildlife Division Department of Natural Resources Center for Forest Science and Innovation People of Canada, through Parks Canada Terra Nova National Park Gros Morne National Park Model Forest of Newfoundland and Labrador Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s Campus Grenfell Campus Tuckamore Lodge Quidi Vidi Brewing Company Rodrigues Winery Shorefast Foundation
OMPHALINA 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 e 2014 2014 2014d ca 2014 2014de 2014 2014d decade 2014 2014on 2014 ec 2014 ssecond 2014 2014 he TThe GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK A UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE Headquarters: Killdevil Camp, Lomond, NL September 12-14, 2014
Get to know our MUSHROOMS & LICHENS!
GGUESTUEST FFACULTY*ACULTY*
JJoeoe AmmiratiAmmirati JJeremyeremy HaywardHayward RRenéeenée LebeufLebeuf MMicheleichele Piercey-NormorePiercey-Normore AAndréndré PaulPaul LLookook oonn oourur wwebsiteebsite iinn SScottcott RRedheadedhead RRogeroger SmithSmith tthehe sspringpring ofof 22014014 fforor GGregreg ThornThorn JJukkaukka VaurasVauras RRegistrationegistration FFormsorms & IInformation:nformation: *ttentativeentative atat thethe ttimeime ofof ppublicationublication <