Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1952-08-01 A study of the fleshy fungi of Utah Kent Howell McKnight Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation McKnight, Kent Howell, "A study of the fleshy fungi of Utah" (1952). Theses and Dissertations. 8090. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8090 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. I', l " A STUDY OF THE FLESHY FUNGI OF UTAH A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENTOF BOTANY AND THE GRADUATESCHOOL OF BRIGHAMYOUNG UNIVERSITY IN PARTIALFULFILL~:ENT OF THE REQUIREKENTSFOR THE DEGREEOF MASTER OF SCIENCE BY KENTH. MCKNIGHT BRIGHAMYOUNG UNIVERSITY PROVO,UTAH AUGUST1952 This thesis by Kent H. McKnight is accepted in its present for by the Thesis Comittee as satisfying the thesis require­ ments for the degree of Master of Science, August, 1952. PREFACE An expression of appreciation is hereby offered to the many people and organizations who gave such generous assistance toward the completion or this project. Many of the plants reported here were identified from dried specimens by persons other than m1self. Dr. Alexander H. Smith of the University of Michigan assisted me in identification of the Agaricales and the Gaster5?!1Cetes. Dr. W. H. Snell of Brown University identified the Boletaceae and stipitate hydnums. Man1 of the Ascomzeetes were identi- fied by Dr. B. B. Kanouse of the Univer&ity of Michigan. Dr.?. F. Shope of Oklahoma A. & M. College identified the Polz:eoraceae and Mr. Travis Brooks of Kansas State College identified the Ml!:o&cetes. Thanks are offered also to Dr. Sidney Boyle of Utah State Agri- cultural College who made arrangements for me to study the specimens in the herbarium there, and to Dr. F. B. Wann, also of Utah State Agricultural College, who gave me permission to examine his collection of Mreo!lcetes. Appreciation is expressed also to the Brigham Young University faculty members and students who brought in many of the specimens reported here. Amongothers, Dr. B. F. Harrison and Dr. D. E. Beck have been especially helpful. Recognition and thanks are due also to the Veteran's Administration of the United States Government for financial assistance given through Public Law 346. iii TABLE OF C(lNTlt?lrS Page PPJJ:FAOE• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii UST OF IU11STRATION.S• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • vi Chapter I. INTROWCTION• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l II. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 III. 11m..'3ENTATIONOF DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 Myxon:iycetes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 ,'i.seomycetes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 BasidiOllzy'oates ••• •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 Y...eyto Families of Dasid1omycetes • • • • • • • • • • • 10 A.uriculariales • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ll Da.erymycetales ••••••••••••••••••••• 12 Polyporal.es • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 'l'helephoraceae ••• • •••••••••••••••• 15 Clavariaoeae ••••••••••• • •••••••• • 14 HydDQ.ceae. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 Polyporaceae ••••••••••••••• • ••••• l? Key to Genem of PolYJ;)Oraceae••••••••• •. l? Poria • •••••• •.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Ganodel"llla • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Fames • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Poly;po:rus • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 Trametes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26 Lenzites. • ••• • •••••••••••••••• 27 1-igarica.les •• • • • • ••••••••••••••••• 28 Doletaceae •••••••••••••••••••••• 28 Lecc1nium • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28 Bolet1nus ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28 Agarlcaceae • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30 Key to Genera of' ..:igaricaceae • • • • • • • • • • • 30 Russula • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :33 H;vgrophorus • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 Lentinus • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 Xeromphalina • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35 Ompil:lline. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35 Collybia • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36 11:yoena • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 Pleurotus... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 39 :t/Jara.smius • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 A:rmillaria • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 Olitocybe ••••••••• •.. • • • • • • • • • 42 Leuoopa.xillus. • •••• • ••••••• • • • • • 42 iv Page Lepista ••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • 42 LyophyllUDl • • • • • • • • " • • • • • • • • • • • 43 Melanoleuoa • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 43 Le~iota •••••• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 44 l'iitlallita ••••• •,. •., ••••••• • • •• 44 Pluteus •• , •••• • ••• • , " • • • • • • • • 45 Paxillua ............. • ••••••• • 46 'l'ubaria • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47 Oonoey'be •••••••••••• • ••••••• • 47 Agrooy'be • •••••••••••• • • • •• • •• 48 Crepidotus •• • •••••••••••••• • •• 49 Rebelo.ma. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 50 Inocybe •••• • • • ••• • ••••••• • •• o 50 Ph.oliota • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 51 Stropho.ria •••••••••••• • •••• • •• 52 J'\.garious • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 54 HYJ)holoma ••••• • •••• • • • • • • • • , • • 55 Panaeolus • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • 59 Copri:nus •••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • 59 Gasteromycetes ••••••••••• •. • ••• • ••• 63 IV, DIBCUSSIONAND SU!t,1ARY • • • • •••• • • • • • • •••• 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '10 • • • •••• • ••••• • • • • • • •••••• 80 V LIST OF IU.USTHATIOHS Pl.ate Page I. White Spored tigarics • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••• 71 II. Pink an<i Ochre S:pored J~arics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73 III. Ochre SpC>redi\garics ••••••• • •••••• • •••••• 75 IV• Dark Spored J~arics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'l'I v. Dark Spored A.gar1cs ••••••••••••••••••••• 99 vi Cl!t.PTER I Th.are have been numerous tuonwJ.c and ecolosioal reports made on various groups of vascular :plants• mosses, nnd algae in Utah• but the tleshy tungi have not been extensively studied. Garrett (8) has :published reports on the rust and anut f'>.mgi und O'Gara ( 16), (1 '7 ) , (18) has reported various other pathogenic fungi. The unpublished thesis by Knight (ll) and the brief report by Knight s.nd Cottam (12) were pioneer works in the field of :tlesb:y fungi for this region. Although isolated rer,orta of individuals or small groups of collections have appeared in the literature from. time to time• these have not been collected into a single account covering the area designated here. Taxonomy of the tungi is in many respects less advanced than that of the higher plants. Tbis is due 1n paJt to the :paucity of extensive collections from many different loca.11 ties. The recent trend in classi• fication of the il.«:§riCales which emphasizes th,e use of microscopic charac- ters is contributing greatly in the development of a more natural system of classification. This is the approach which is used in this investiga- tion. It is the purpose o:t' this study to :further the ends of Mycology by presenting the fleshy fungi which are known. to f!,rOVJ in Utah. Reports ot collections by other workers a.re included as well e.s the results of field collections made by tlle writer during parts ot three growing seasons (194g....1951). Most of these collections were made during the spring and early swmner. It ie understood that only a small fraction of the fleshy l 2 fungi of Utah can be studied in such a short period of field work. Due to the inadequacy of the readily available literature on the subject and the i.mavail.ability of various mycological. exeiocati it is quite likely that some reperts of fleshy i"ungi tram Utah have been missed. This :paper is not, therefore, intended to represent a final report in tllis area, but merely a contribution to our JnYCOlogical knowledge. The tenn fleshy tu.Dgi as used here sb8.ll include those A,sepmzcetes and Basj,d~e:Jies which _produce large or othervdse conspicuous aporocarps and their closely related f'o.l."ma. This includes portions of the sub-classes fx;u»9m,eetes and Discgeetep o:t the A@C01qleetes; and portions o:r the Haten,bag1diae and ~)J.bft§1di~eof the Paa!dt95:£Cetes (4). The sporoca:rps may 'be fleshy, woody, :papery• leathery, oarbonous o:r 1ffl.XY in texture. This would exclude the i~mnzoetes. However, s1nca there have been no extensive studies of the ~U!I of Utah they are accorded a. very brief' treatment here. Utah is a state bearing rather extreme topography varying from high plateaus and broad valleys with a general elevation of about 5•500 feet to sharply rising mountain ranges with crests well a.bove 10,000 :feet. As would be expected local climatic conditions are also highly variable. The United States De:pa.rtment of ,~r:1.culture (22} :reports that the average annual rainfall for the state from 1886 to 1938 was 12.63 inches. The driest area is the Great Salt Lake Desert with an average of' less than 5 inches annually whereas the mountain pee.ks of the ~~asatch range receive over 40 inches annually. CHAPI'ERII The only previous collection of fleshy fungi available to the wr1 ter for study was the small group