When: 2008-09-18
Collection location: Eastern Long Island, New York, USA [Click for map]
Who: Douglas Smith (douglas)
No herbarium specimen

Species Lists:
Species of New York State (49)

Notes: Found under pine, some oaks were near enough. I’m never sure what to do with Hydnellum… Tom Volk has promised some hope in the future? I also wonder sometimes what are the significant characters that I should look for here.

Proposed Names:   Propose Another Name

Proposed Name		User		Community Vote
Hydnellum sp. P. Karst.		douglas		28% (1)
Recognized by sight
Hydnellum scrobiculatum (Fr.) P. Karst.		TomVolk		50% (1)
Recognized by sight: From my student Sean Westmoreland’s thesis: Hydnellum concrescens can be separated from H. scrobiculatum in that the former has tubercles that appear worn down, whereas the later has the prominent spore tubercles. Also, in our study, we noted a difference in spore size between the two species. The spores of H. scrobiculatum were on average (n=60) 5.26 X 4.83 µm, whereas the spores on average (n=60) for H. concrescens were 4.3 X 3.68 µm. Also, H. scrobiculatum has a larger fruiting body, up to 9 cm wide, whereas H. concrescens has a pileus width of 2.5—4.4 cm wide individually, up to 7 cm wide when fused. The presence of pileal zone lines to distinguish these two species is of little value since there is a range in number of zone lines in each collection of each species. There has been quite some confusion in the literature (Maas Geesteranus 1957) about which fungi belong to H. concrescens or H. scrobiculatum. There are two varieties that I have examined (Fig. 9), one that is small, thin fleshed, and has spores with processes that appear as if they are almost eroded away. It grows more scattered but may exist in concrescent patches. The other form is larger, more concrescent, and with thicker flesh and has spores with prominent tubercles. Because of this uncertainty in which specimen to assign what name, the naming of these species may be reversed. Hydnellum concrescens can be separated from H. scrobiculatum in that the former has tubercles that appear worn down, whereas the later has the prominent spore tubercles. Also, in our study, we noted a difference in spore size between the two species. The spores of H. scrobiculatum were on average (n=60) 5.26 X 4.83 µm, whereas the spores on average (n=60) for H. concrescens were 4.3 X 3.68 µm. Also, H. scrobiculatum has a larger fruiting body, up to 9 cm wide, whereas H. concrescens has a pileus width of 2.5—4.4 cm wide individually, up to 7 cm wide when fused. The presence of pileal zone lines to distinguish these two species is of little value since there is a range in number of zone lines in each collection of each species. There has been quite some confusion in the literature (Maas Geesteranus 1957) about which fungi belong to H. concrescens or H. scrobiculatum. There are two varieties that I have examined (Fig. 9), one that is small, thin fleshed, and has spores with processes that appear as if they are almost eroded away. It grows more scattered but may exist in concrescent patches. The other form is larger, more concrescent, and with thicker flesh and has spores with prominent tubercles. Because of this uncertainty in which specimen to assign what name, the naming of these species may be reversed.

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

= Observer’s choice

= Current consensus

Observation Created: Thu Sep 25 12:22:04 -0700 2008
Last Modified: Thu Sep 25 12:22:25 -0700 2008 by Douglas Smith (douglas)
Viewed: 8 times, last viewed: Tue Nov 18 06:59:01 -0800 2008
Show Log