User talk:M.E.Nuhn

Welcome!

Hello, M.E.Nuhn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell, this whole joint is a Work in Progress - I love boleti but as an aussie in Sydney I see few described species (though have a crop of Phlebopus marginatus which crops up a few km from my house!) apart from dried porcini and Suillus under introduced conifers - any corrections much appreciated! Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with some Australian boletoid mushrooms...

I saw on your bio page you'd had some experience with Aussie boletes (it'd be great if you had a photo of Boletus barragensis to upload!) and had some photos I'd love some help with (knowing as I'm in Australia there is a low chance of ID to species level....) but here goes......

I found this one in sandy soil under myrtaceae (Corymbia gummifera and Leptospermum) in sydney's eastern suburbs banksia scrub. Never seen this one before, essentially an all cream-colored bolete which stained blue....no particular odour (click on pix for a larger view)

was very pale so not overexposed too much....

This one was on heavier soil in sydney's southwest, and it had a hollow stalk:

under turpentine (*Syncarpia glomulifera*) - more clayey soil

this was a mossy spring in a reserve of native remnant on clay soil with abundant myrtaceae trees in Sydney - found the following two boletoid things....

This first one was extremely soft and squishy (maybe 7 or 8 cm diameter cap) - pale pinkish-white gills and no discoloration on bruising nor smell

this one was nearby

Anyway, sorry to bombard with photos - Roy Watling was recovering and Neal Bougher never got back to me :(

All help appreciated, cheers Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only see dried hebarium specimens from Australia so it is somewhat difficult. But here is what I think:

First bolete, something similar to Boletus pallidus. It looks a little heavier than what I see of B. pallidus fruiting bodies around here. That pore sufrace color is a pretty good mark of a "xerocomoid" bolete in my opinion.

Second bolete, I think it is definitely aligned with Gyroporus castaneus, so Gyroporus aff castaneus. It would be considered Gyroporus castaneus but I am very cautious when saying that a European/North American species is the same as an Aussie species. The hollow stipe though makes it a Gyroporus for sure.

Third bolete, I would put it in Singers Tylopilus section 2, Oxydabiles. Something Similart to T. indecisus, T. tabicinus, or T. ferrugineus.

Last bolete Gyroporus cf purpinus. That pore surface looks like Gyroporus but as far I had heard only G. cyanescens and G. castaneus are supposed to be in Australia.

If the stipes and overall fruiting body of the things that I think look like Gyroporus are "chalky" and crumble I would say they are definitely Gyroporus species.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mushroom with the brown stem which was hollow was definitely quite brittle and crumbly compared with any other bolete I have handled, and the one which you think is a tylopilus was very soft. The last one I don't recall. That place is near my work so I will keep a lookout for more.....thanks for the IDs, much appreciated!Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. I really think the last photo is a Gyroporus. That color of pore surface (which I think of as being more a translucent color than a true white color, like how polar bear hairs are clear but look white when in a mass) and the texture of it, bumpy and and the like, look most like Gyroporus. Definitely worth checking for a hollow stipe and the "brittle and crumbly" fruiting body.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have Watling and Li Tai Hui's Preliminary Survey of Australian Boletes - a specimen they keyed out as Tylopilus indecisus was collected not too far (Wollemi NP) which would be ~100 km NW of where I took the photo of the Tylopilus above...now to check on Gyroporus accumulated knowledge. They also have listed something which they have listed as Boletus glabellus the description of which seems to match fairly closely the cf pallidus....need to look at some photos to familiarise myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I dug up some more pics - see

,

,

Gyroporus sp. broken to show hollow stem and cross section of pores

Could be B. glabellus. I, myself, don't have any real experience with it. What kind of equipment to you have access to for identifying purposes? I guess I should write up a section in the Boletaceae (Boletineae) on "tools of the trade" when identifying specimens. I'll look into where B. glabellus was described from, what I have on it, and what your specimen could be. Just googling B. glabellus it could be, or it could be something along the B. pallidus. A quick look in my giant, 370 nuc-large subunit database puts B. glabellus in the same clade as B. pallidus.

If you get anything that might be aligned to Boletellus, Heimioporus, or Austroboletus I would be pretty interested in that. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - moving into late autumn here - will keep an eye out though....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised, I've seen Boletellus obscurecoccineus occasionally - I will definitely keep an eye out for any boletes with pitted stalks and find out anywhere I can get specimens or even buy a microscope myself. If you can add some ID notes to the genera you're interested in that would be great! Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Boletellus obscurecoccineus is a very nice looking mushroom. I also like Boletus frostiiM.E.Nuhn (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.Nuhn, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi M.E.Nuhn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To do or inform others of information to do

~~Xerocomellus~~

Add a table that summarizes Sutara 2008 descriptions for differentiating the xerocomoid boletes.

Table finished

Boletaceae and Paxillaceae

Reformat Tables 1 and 2 from Nuhn et al. (2013). Phylogenetic Overview of the Boletineae. and provide for appropriate usage.

Boletus hortonii

Not a Boletus, but actually a member of the genus Xerocomus sensu sricto. This needs to be added the the wiki page, additionally the very unique morphologies of the species should be added.

What is so interesting about it? We are happy to expand it. And looks like another one to send emails to mycobank and index fungorum.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cap is unique, barring deformations, you will not find another species like it. Also, the stipe is very distinctive. It has bumps on it, but is unlike Leccinum and is not reticulated. See my photos:

:

:

M.E.Nuhn (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, interesting photos. YEs Sasata and I can expand that article. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User_talk:Sasata#Shroom_ID cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Xerocomus subtomentosus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

group and the ''[[Royoungia]]'' clade is sister to the clade comprised of the anaxoboletus group (containing the genera ''[[Tylopilus]]'' [[Sensu#Common qualifiers|sensu stricto]], ''[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help ID shroom

Can you help ID two photos here: User_talk:Sasata#Shroom_ID Thank you!PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Either Boletus sensibilis or, more likely for a few reasons (see Satasa's page), Boletus pseudosensibilis M.E.Nuhn (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More details and a new pic there of another fungus.PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalciporus piperatus

Hi again, Sasata and I are improving Chalciporus piperatus now - I was wondering about how strong the evidence is that it is parasitic, and how best to word it for lay readers - also can you think of any studies or information we may have missed...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a bit hard to quantify. Of the several studies that have tried to grow Chalciporus piperatus with trees to form ECM, only one (of at least 4) reported success, but in the review of fungal and plant associations by Tedersoo et al. (2010 or 2011) urges caution and does not think that the photos in the publication show ECM. More importantly, the isotopic evidence (which is extremely strong evidence for provable, verifialbe reasons based in the laws of physics and chemistry) places C. piperatus as a saprobe, which is what other known/suspected mycoparasites are shown to be.

I wrote much of the section on its ecological status, so I think I have pretty much hit all the citations. In the sentence about the ECM and isotope studies there are 5 or 6 citations. I think what should be done is this: a new article on the foundations, principle, and use of carbon and nitrogen isotopes and isotopic fractionization methods needs to be written and it should be linked to in the C. piperatus article. I think the subject it important enough and broad enough to warrent its own page and that C. piperatus is not the place to fully discuss the method. Additionally, if you provide me an email I can send some papers to you, including my own recent one, just email me. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I hadn't realised you were Obfuscateme (talk · contribs) - makes sense now. What you recommend sounds like a good idea. Would it be something that would go in an investigation section on the Mycorrhiza article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worked into the bit on sugars and the like. Afterall, what the fractionization is all about is this: heavier isotopes are used in chemical reacions (in biological systems) faster than light isotopes. This is due to the laws of physics and chemistry. So, how this works with nutritional modes is this: the source of carbon for fungi depends on its lifestyle and the this lifestyle affects the "type" of carbon that is its main source, the more biological systems you go through the more concentrated the heavy isotopes will be. Like a filter that removes particles with less than 100% effeciency that is refiltering things over and over again. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrya chromapes

Hi, please have a look when you have a moment and make sure I haven't messed up too much with this new article. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it over and make comments in the talk section. Not sure what should go in and what should be left out. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. I'm all ears for suggestions to improve the article! Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any news?

Ahoy....please let us know of consensus for new genera - we have written up Butyriboletus...and noted the calopus clade has a new name...is it generally accepted? Happy to update when we see 'em! Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy and out of it for a bit. Never noticed the emails from wiki. Butyriboletus seems fine for now. I would not be surprised if we have to change it later, but I would also not be surprised if we don't. I think we need a lot more sampling in these residual boletus (as I have called them) before we can be sure about anything. As for the calopus, where is the discussion on this?M.E.Nuhn (talk)

I have found a second paper citing it at here Just a bit of trouble locating the original Vizzini paper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vizzini paper is in a very out of the way place to publish it. As originally described, the genus is not monophyletic.M.E.Nuhn (talk)

Agree on that (being out of the way)! But is the second paper helpful in fine-tuning that? Question is, is there some utility in defining or resurrecting genus names when there is a fair idea of a clade that will warrant recognition and add other species later I guess...or do you feel it isn't at that stage yet? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The linked paper leaves out the species (singular for now) in conflict. There are no formal guidelines that force monophyly of genera, though most journals will not publish a new genus that is not a clade. It is up to the researcher, but most of us try to make sure that the odds of a clade staying a clade as new species are added are as good as possible. In my personal opinion, the genus in question is not supported now, and will not be supported. The species are separated by enough distance in the tree and in morphologies that it would be better to make a new genus (or two) for the clades outside the type species of Cyanoboletus.M.E.Nuhn (talk)

And Sasata just alerted me to the publication of two more bolete genera Exsudoporus and Suillellus. Looks like they're the same author. Would all the mycologists working on boletes try to have some world congress/communication to get a consensus? It would seem to be a good idea but I've seen other fields (mainly proteaceae and myrtaceae Australian plant genera) just ignore each others' findings or "agree to disagree" ...which I found sad. I don't know if you heard about dramas in Acacia, a gigantic plant genus where once it looked like it was going to be split, the Australians successfully pushed for a new type species so that the bulk of the genus would remain Acacia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if the genus is validly published, how can one go about not accepting it? Doesn't it just "anchor" to the type species (in this case B. calopus) and get grown/shrunk as more work is done? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing forces us to use a name, even if it is validly published. In my future works I will simply state that the genus is not monophyltic and I will not use it. I can make a new genus if I want, but it will need a different name. They will not be synonymous because I would not have the same species in it. Actually, we do talk quite a bit. I am a little surprised to see the genus Cyanoboletus because we have clearly shown, in multiple data sets, that the genus as described is not a clade. The issue is the difference between systematics and taxonomy. I would argue, and I think most others would as well, that it is best two have the two be mirror images. This is not necessary though and is was confuses many not involved with the two. Taxonomy is interested in identifying and classifying species. Truthfully, that is frequently easier if you ignore systematics; classification of organisms that reflects evolutionary relationships. Example, if I put Phylloboletus in Boletaceae in a key, it is going to take a bit to get the person there. Now, if I make a key and ignore evolutionary relationships and just put Phylloboletus in with other gilled species, we can immediately start looking at gilled species with yellow gills. There have been a few emails with 20 or so Boletologists discussing issues among the 250 or so "Boletus" species that are not Boletus s.s. and putting together a game plan on sorting through them.M.E.Nuhn (talk)

Aaah, well you'll have me and Sasata cheering from the sidelines - I hate non-monophyletic taxa. There are always some characteristics that will unite/distinguish them, though can be quite obscure. Please keep us informed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Crocinoboletus to the expanding list of new Boletaceae genera... Sasata (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! there's more ... Pseudoaustroboletus ... Sasata (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which genera are monophyletic?

Hi, we are all trying to get our heads around all the new bolete genera still....and were wondering which of the genera at Boletaceae#Genera are monophyletic and which aren't? For those that aren't, can you point us in the direction of the articles that show up the problems? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on boletus phylogeny

Hi - how are things in the boletus world. I was heartened to see above that boletologists are emailing each other and (hopefully) gaining a consensus on clades and genera and stuff. Any backtracking or revision of new genera in the last few years or are they all sinking into general use?

PS: Know anything about Phebopus marginatus and P. portentosus and the status of their splitting/lumping? Have seen the latter name pop up in use again...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]