Search on : Taxa descriptions


Page number:184 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:Clavaria conjunctipes var. odora COKER (1923). Clav. U. S. & Can., p. 132, pls. 53, 86, fig. 3.
= Ramaria conjunctipes var. odora (COKER) CORNER (1950). Ann. Bot. Mom. I : 567.
HOLOTYPE : NCU - herb. COKER, Battle's Park, Chapel Hill, NC, 5. vii. 17, coll. COKER & NEELY, no. 2595. Isotype : NCU.
Fruitbodies two, attached, aggregate 4.5x2.4 cm, flattened, somewhat poorly dried; stipe up to 2.3 x 0.7 cm, single, tapering downward, minutely appressed-felty toward base, smooth above, white downward, cream-color upward. Major branches 2-4, ascending, terete, light pinkish cream (COKER) ; secondary branches in two ranks, numerous, concolorous to major branches below, yellowish above; apices minute, cusped, light clear yellow (COKER) ; axils narrowly rounded; internodes diminishing gradually. Taste mild; odor when fresh "faintly fragrant, medicinal, something like an old mowing machine (rancid oil) but more aromatic (lost in drying)" (COKER). On soil and humus, mixed deciduous and coniferous woods.
Hyphae os stipe trama 3-8.5 µm broad, hyaline, thin-walled, without clamp connections, tightly interwoven; gloeoplerous hyphae occasional, as lengths not bounded by septa, often swollen into ampulli form shapes in juxtaposition to septa. Tramal hyphae of upper branches 2.5-8 [.m thick, thin-walled, without clamp connections, copiously branched, generally parallel; gloeoplerous hyphae common, uniflated, gnarled and abruptly swollen, without clamp connections, of indefinite lengths not always delimited by septa. Hymen ium unthickened in type specimen; Basidia 36-40 x 8-9 µm, clavate to superficially podobasidioid, without clamp connections, refringent when young, becoming non-refringent by maturity, moderately cyanophilous; sterigmata (1-2-3)-4, often misplaced or abortive.
Spores (Fig. 5) (7.0) 7.4-8.5 x 4.4-5.2(5.9) µm (E = 1.261.77; Em = 1.56; Lm = 7.87 µm ), broadly ellipsoid, to ovate, flattened adaxially, virtually smooth in profile; contents homogeneous or with a single vacuole or dark body; wall up to 0.1 [.m thick; hilar appendix eccentric, with a discernable throat, truncate-papillate, less than 1 µm long; ornamentation not observable to clearly visible in cotton blue, of mostly discrete small, low warts, occasionally coalescing into short ridges, moderately cyanophilous.
Observations. - CORNER, retaining the variety under the epithet conjunctipes, which he transferred from Clavaria to Ramaria, obviously intended also to transfer the variety. He omitted his customary "comb. nov.", however, and did not state the basionym, a practice he otherwise religiously observed. Instead of correcting these nomenclatural oversights and claiming the transfer for myself, it would seems wiser to recognize CORNER's intent, and use the name as he wished it.
The gloeoplerous hyphae of the branch trama appears somewhat unique in the genus. Refringent lengths of tramal hyphae are not bounded by septa, although septa are included within gloeoplerous areas, and appear to end in the subhymenium. Young basidia are also refringent under phase contrast microscopy, and may comprise the same contents as hyphae of the gloeoplerous system.
The type specimen is apparently quite juvenile, based on at least two points. First, the hymenium is not thickened, as would be characteristic for more mature specimens. Second, the Basidia are often podobasidioid, with sterigmata not regulated in number or placement, all characteristic of very young specimens.
The conspecificity of the two varieties of R. conjunctipes must be questioned. In twenty years of collecting ramarias in eastern North America, I find fruitbodies fulfilling COKER's description and my observations of the type specimens to be quite common, perhaps one of the most common taxa of all. Fruitbody color and spore, measurements and statistics are crucial to an interpretation. COKER described the colors of fruitbodies of the typical variety as quite vivid ("saffron" to "yellow salmon" branches; apices "light clear yellow"). One concludes that the apices of both varieties are very close in color, but that branches are not.
Spores of var. odora show a considerable lower Em (1.56) than var. conjunctipes (1.80), reflecting some differences in Lm but very little in mean width. My experience shows the taxon (var. odora) with light pinkish cream branches and lower spore Em to be common, the other (var. conjunctipes) as quite rare.
Two other characters are worthy of comment. First, the stipes of var. odors are fasciculate but relatively stout and fleshy, again a trait exhibited by a taxon commonly collected here. Those of var conjunctipes are very slender and occur in groups often exceeding 10 in number. Second, in all the collections which match the colors and measurements of var. odors, odor is very variable, from absent to quite strong and fragrant, but all other characters are quite stable.
All in all, I conclude that R. conjunctipes (var. conjunctipes) as represented by its type and COKER's description, is a rare fruiter, known to me only from its type. Ramaria conjunctipes var. odora, conversely, is a very common fruiter in its range, but is not conspecific with R. conjunctipes. Two consequences appear inevitable. First, var. odora must be proposed at the species rank. Second, because odor is so variable over many collections, the epithet odora would be inappropriate, and a new name efficacious. This is in accord with Art. 60 of the ICBN, when no prior epithet is available when the rank of a taxon is changed. At the same time, all the nomenclatural requirements for this proposal were fulfilled in the original publication (which appeared before 1935, and therefore required no Latin description). I propose the following
Ramaria fasciculata COKER apud PETERSEN. nom., stat. et comb. nov. Clavaria conjunctipes var. odora Coker (1923). Clav. U. S. & Can., p. 132.
Ramaria conjunctipes var. odora COKER apud CORNER (1950). Ann. Bot. Mem. 1: 567.
Type: as listed above.
It should be noted that my own concept of these taxa has been forced to change, and that specimens annotated as R. conjunctipes by me in the past, and mentions of that taxon in my previous publications must be taken as R. fasciculata.
Taxon name: