Search on : Taxa descriptions


Description type:Original description 
Description:Fruit bodies (Fig. 21) up to 12 x 10 cm, broadly obovate in outline. Stipe single, large to massive, up to 6 x 6 cm, broadly obconical to stout-cylindrical (and then often irregularly shaped), beset with numerous abortive branchlets in clusters or individual, smooth but not glabrous, often felted or tomentose below between bits of substrate, white or off-white below where protected, changing to pallid watery brownish where handled or bruised, upward concolorous with branches; flesh solid, white, dry, drying hard but easily pierced; abortive branchlets off-white where protected. Major branches 3-5, ascending but not erect, more or less terete; branches in 4-6 ranks, pastel buffy yellow when young ("capucine buff'), slowly fading by maturity ("light ochraceous buff'), brittle when fresh, very fragile when dry; axils narrowly rounded; all branches short and crowded like cauliflower when young, stretching acripetally; internode ratio diminishing gradually at maturity; apices crowded, double-dichotomous or clustered when young, later minutely lobed to molarlike, bright pastel golden yellow when young ("deep chrome"), fading through pale yellow ("pale orange yellow") to concolorous with branches; small areas around soil particles weakly vinescent. Odor faintly musty or earthy, mildly unpleasant; taste negligible or faintly fabaceous.
Macrochemical reactions: FSW, FCL: slate green (mildly positive); PYR: positive; GUA: negative on branch sections, positive on stipe surface; NOH, KOH, IKI: negative.
Tnamal hyphae of stipe flesh up to 10 µm diam, hyaline, clamped, thick-walled (wall up to 0.5 µm thick), tortuous, tightly interwoven; ornamented septal regions hardly inflated, locally thick-walled (wall up to 1 µm thick), very delicately ornamented; gloeoplerous hyphae occasional, 3-5 µm diam, yellow-refringent, sometimes with tibiiform septa, often inflated up to 10 µm broad, strongly cyanophilous. Tramal hyphae of upper branches up to 14 µm diam, thin-walled, clamped, hyaline, strictly parallel, free; ampulliform inflations not observed; gloeoplerous hyphae common, 1.5-2.5 µm diam, as undelimited refringent segments, often tortuous. Subhymenium extensive, tightly interwoven. Hymenium thickening; basidia 60-65 x 11-12 µm, clavate to broadly clavate, conspicuously clamped; contents homogeneous to one- to several-vacuolate; sterigmata 4, apical, more or less lyriform, slender.
Spores (Fig. 22) 10.4 - 12.6 x 3.6-4.3 µm (E = 2.25-3.40; Em = 2.76; Lm = 11.19 µm; W„, = 4.06 µm), cylindrical, minutely roughened in profile; contents with one to several obscure, dark, nonrefringent inclusions; hilar appendix conspicuous, almost perpendicular; ornamentation of delicate short ridges and isolated small warts with no discernible orientation; struma flat, cyanophilous.
Diagnostic features are (i) stout stipe and aborted branchlets; (ii) pastel yellow branches and golden yellow apices; (iii) weak brunnescence; (iv) clamp connections, and (v) long, delicately ornamented spores. Confusing is the rusty, ruddy appearance of heavily handled areas on the stipe when dry (neither notes nor photos testify to red stains when fresh). Thus, although attractive, Ramaria eosanguinea Pet. must be rejected as a possible identification.
Under the discussion of that taxon, however (Petersen 1976), two other specimens were cited. Reference to them in my notes reveals that reddish areas on the stipe were seen in dried material only, but that weak brunnescent color changes were included in the original notes accompanying the fruit bodies. One of these specimens formed spores too small to be considered further, but the other, from Norway, cannot be separated from the Nova Scotian collections. Indeed, that specimen produced nearly identical spores (10.4-12.6 x 4.1-4.8 µm; E = 2.09-2.83; Em = 2.54; Lm = 11.40 µm; Wm = 4.41 µm), even to the delicate ornamentation. Only slightly wider spores seems to separate them, but that specimen also is without a name.
Just as similar, however, is R. flavescens (cf. Petersen 1974), sharing large stipe, abortive branchlets, clamp connections, pallid yellow-salmon coloration, and long spores. Comparison of colors noted above with those from Seguy (1936, used by me for the redescription of R. flavescens) show branch color almost identical, while color of apices is slightly yellower ("light cadmium," "apricot yellow") for the latter. Spores of R. flavescens were measured as 11-12.5 x 4.8-5.6 µm (E = 2.00-2.38; Em = 2.21; Lm = 11.5 µm). Thus, while spores were about the same length as those of the Nova Scotian specimens, they were considerably wider, reflected in the lower Em value.
The watery brunnescent reactions of the stipe surface should act as a clue to identity, but the color change was not strong enough to attract attention by less experienced collectors. An immediately attractive name, R. flavobrunnescens (Atk.) Corner, must be dismissed. Its spores are significantly smaller (type specimen, CUP: 9.6-10.7 x 4.4-5.6 µm; E = 1.86-2.29; Em = 2.06; Lm = 10.08 µm), and more coarsely ornamented. Concomitantly, R. cystidiophora (Kauff.) Corner
fruit bodies also produce yellow branches and brunnescent stipes, but stipes are narrow and fasciculate, and dendrophysoid hyphae are present in the stipe cortex.
Another candidate, based on color and stature, is Ramaria lutea (Vitt.) Schild. Vittadini's original illustration showed a massive-stemmed, yellow fruit body, but his description did not, of course, include microscopic data. Schild's (1977) neotypification served a fine purpose, therefore. At the same time, Schild seems to have overlooked the oversized stipe as a significant character. For fruit bodies 7-11 cm high, stipe size was given as 10-15 mm thick, sometimes as much as 20-35 mm, not really massive; these measurements were confirmed by his illustrations. Nonetheless, it is impossible to argue with this neotypification on any other basis. As such, stature does not match the Nova Scotian specimens, spores of R. lutea are shorter (5.5 -10.8 x 3.2 -5.5 µm), and basidia are unclamped.
In summary, then, while several names represent similar taxa, none is suitable for the Nova Scotian material. For this reason, it is necessary to propose a new name, and I take pride in dedicating this species epithet to Dr. K. A. Harrison of Kentville, long a pioneer in the taxonomy of fleshy fungi from Nova Scotia, and coordinator of several fieldtrips for me and my students.
SPECIMENS EXAMINED: CANADA: NOVA SCOTIA: Kings Co., Melanson, near Wolfville, Lix.73, Nos. 38120-38123 (holotype, 38120; TENN); Annapolis Co., Malvern Square Vault, vic. Kingston, 3.ix.73, No. 38152 (TENN); Inverness Co., Cape Breton Highlands Natl. Park, McIntosh River Trail, 8.ix.73, No. 38214 (TENN); Annapolis Co., Kejimkujik Natl. Park, ILix.73, No. 38245 (TENN).
Taxon name: