Search on : Taxa descriptions

 


   
Literature:
 
Page number:98 
Remarks (internal):Time and again the species around Hydnellum velutinum have created confusion and disharmony. I deeply regret that in trying to solve the problems connected with these species (1957: 61-70) I myself committed two errors which may have made a steady nomenclature seem as remote as ever. It is clear, however, that these mistakes cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected, and the best way to erase them is first to relate how they came about.
One error concerns the word "fasciato" in Persoon's diagnosis of Hydnum concrescens which I did not look up in the dictionary and assumed to mean "bundled." This, in my eyes, left the pileus surface undescribed, but the supposed omission was made good in the subsequent description where the pileus is stated to be "striis vero & sulcis rugosus". Since there seemed no particular reason to assume that these elements of the pileus were concentrically arranged, it was taken for granted they were meant as being radiately aligned. This conclusion automatically brought Hydnum concrescens in connection with Hydnum scrobiculatum. It is true that Persoon referred to Bulliard's Plate 156 (which clearly represents the species Fries called Hydnum zonatum), but that indication was counterbalanced by his simultaneous reference to Batsch's Plate 221 (which I then was prepared to recognize as H. scrobiculatum). Obviously, Persoon was very uncertain himself as to the delimitation of his species, as is evidenced by his query "[Batsch] Fig. 224 revera specie diversum?" and by the heterogeneity of his own material (see MAAS GEESTERANUS, 1957:67). As regards this material, here is where I committed the second error, as No. L 910. 262-598 should have been called a neotype, not lectotype. Persoon, on the label with his material, referred to the Synopsis, not to the Observationes. In the light of the following considerations, however, it may be questioned whether there is any sense in maintaining the qualification neotype for the material cited.
To return to the root of the trouble, the word "fasciato", this should be read to mean "girdled", by which Persoon wanted to indicate the concentric arrangement of the surface elements of the pileus. This, of course, links Hydnum concrescens with H. zonatum, a name with which mycologists have been familiar since the time of Fries. The epithet cannot be retained, however, since Hydnum zonatum was coined by Fries long after Hydnum concrescens had become a valid name.
The material Persoon left under the name H. concrescens consists of several specimens glued to three separate sheets of paper. As pointed out earlier, one of these, annotated "Prope Parisios", can be ruled out for consideration of typification. Nevertheless it is of interest in connection with the foregoing discussion, because it contains both H. scrobiculatum and H. concrescens. The second sheet, containing the so-called lectotype, consists of two specimens. The right hand specimen, showing the upper surface of the pileus, had formerly already been identified as H. scrobiculatum, and I still adhere to that view, although the hymenial side is so firmly glued to the paper that the spines and their adhering spores remain well out of reach. The left hand specimen very much against expectation yields spores of the H. concrescens kind but, unfortunately, the upper surface of the pileus is mutilated beyond recognition. The third sheet, finally, may or may not contain a specimen of genuine H. concrescens, but here again spores are not accessible to prove the point. Under these circumstances I prefer to refrain from selecting a neotype from among the material available. The necessity of indicating a neotype is fully admitted, but the material should come up to certain requirements.
PERSOON (1801: xxx) in a corrective note stated that "Hydni suberosi var. µm cinerea varietas vetusta nostri H. concrescentis est, et Hydn. zonatum Batsch p. 111. f. 229. nostram speciem bene exprimit". He was in error with regard to the first half of his statement, but I fully agree with the illustration mentioned in the latter part, with the proviso that Hydnum zonatum was depicted in Fig. 224, not 229.
It is curious to note that Lloyd when confusing Hydnum scrobiculatum and H. zonatum always mistook the former for the latter. Probably he was not alone, the general idea being that concentric zones are the exclusive character of H. zonatum, hence the name. In view of uncertain identifications it seems wise to disregard earlier reports (e.g. BERKELEY, 1854:167; CLELAND & CREEL, 1919: 304; IMAZEKI & HONGO, 1968: pl. 49 fig. 278; PATOUILLARD, 1893: 343 and 1928: 18) as long as the spores of these collections have not been checked. The same applies to the name Hydnellum zonatum f. vespertilio recorded by BALFOUR BROWNE (1968: 122).
The specimens Junghuhn collected on Mt. Malabar, Java, had been sent to Bresadola, in 1909, who thought they represented Hydnum ferrugineum, the usual error among European mycologists in those days. The material is so young, however, that the error is excusable.
 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:HYDNELLUM CONCRESCENS (Pers. ex Schw.) Banker-Figs. 130-140
Basidiomes simple to concrescent. Pileus up to some 50 mm across, umbilicate to infundibuliform, thin, tough-pliant; originally velutinous to thinly felted, with age becoming radiately fibrillose, in addition adorned with raised scale-like fibrils or ridges, the tomentum behind the margin collapsed to form concentric zones, these zones sometimes corrugating the surface, the surface otherwise even (except in the centre which may be pitted to lamellate), on drying becoming shiny and liberally sprinkled with minute, whitish pustules of excreted matter; yellowish brown to pinkish brown in the youngest parts, dingy yellowish fulvous or orangebrownish to dull brown towards the centre, sometimes darkened by leaden grey hues, the concentric zones with alternating bands of yellowish brown and tawny or fuscous, the very centre sometimes very dark. Stipe 10-30 x 2-5 mm, simple or connate, flaring upward into the pileus, terete to flattened in the middle, enlarged below to form a more or less conspicuously bulbous base, originally plushy, then matted, often with a somewhat shiny surface, concolorous with the pileus. Spines up to 2 mm long, decurrent, crowded, subulate, purplish brown. Context of the pileus up to about 1 mm thick in the centre, very soon thinning out, not duplex, obscurely zoned, lighter or darker purplish brown, over the spines sometimes with leaden grey or slate grey streaks. Context of the stipe duplex at least in the lower portion, with less or no grey at all. A thin slice of the context immediately staining dark violet in KOH solution, discolouring to olive green equally quickly.
Context of the pileus monomitic. Generative hyphae 3-6 µm wide, not inflating, thin-walled to moderately thick-walled, branched, septate, without clamp-connections. Context of the spines similar, hyphae somewhat narrower. Basidia 27-36 x 5.5-6.5 µm, clavate, without basal clamp, 4-spored. Sterigmata 3.6-4.5 µm long. Spores 5.2-6.3 x 3.6-4.3 µm, of irregular outline, tubercular (tubercles fairly numerous, prominent, very coarse, often in the shape of angular crests, more or less exsculpate), brownish, with oblique apiculus.
 
Taxon name: