Search on : Taxa descriptions


 Add this item to the list  Cantharellus confluens Figs. 1, 4, 5
Page number:201 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:Cantharellus confluens Figs. 1, 4, 5
Having examined the type specimen of this name, it is now clear that the following commentary on the taxon can be given. Cantharellus confluens (BERKELEY & CURTIS) PETERSEN, comb. nov.
Basionym: Craterellus confluens BERKELEY & CURTIS in BERKELEY. Jour. Linnaean Soc. 9: 423. 1867.
Trombetta confluens (B. & C.) KUNTZE. Rev. Gen. Plant. 1: 873. 1891. Holotype: MEXICO: vic. Orizaba, Botteri no. 6, K. [isotype presumably in herb. CURTIS, FH].
Fruitbodies up to 13 em high, up to 8 cm broad, occasionally simple, usually multipileate and/or with united stipes. Pileus surface smooth, bright orange ("cadmium orange", "orange", "capucine yellow") ; margin not appreciably paler, irregularly lobed to crenulate, 1 mm thick or thicker, erect to everted early, then recurving downward, finally irregularly everted at maturity. Hymenium buffy orange ("capucine buff", "light ochraceous buff", "orange buff"), staining yellowish where bruised; hymenial surface smooth when very young or rarely in limited areas when mature, most often rugulose in a generally radial pattern, irregularly forking and anastomosing to give a weakly merulioid configuration (see fig. 1, right). Stipe up to 4 cm long, up to 2.5 cm thick, tapering downward, stuffed to almost solid, but not hollow, smooth, more or less clearly delimited from fertile area by texture and color, rounded at base and not involving significant soil, pale yellow to yellow-orange ("antimony yellow", "pale orange yellow", "pale yellow orange", "apricot yellow"), staining where bruised to rusty orange („raw sienna", "Mars yellow").
Hyphae of pileus surface a repent, irregular trichodermium, uninflated to slightly inflated, thin-walled, clamped; hyphae of pileus flesh similar, tightly interwoven. Basidia cylindrical to narrowly clavate, (3)-4-(5)-sterigmate.
Spores 7-10 x 5-6.3 µm, ovate to ellipsoid, somewhat flattened adaxially, smooth, pale yellow in prints ("capucine buff"). Observations: This taxon can be identified only with difficulty even when fresh. The colors of pileus and stipe are brighter than those of C. lateritius, and with virtually no pinkish component. Microscopic characters vary little in the two taxa.
PETERSEN's (1979) analysis of this taxon was under the name "Cantharellus lateritius sensu SMITH." The comparison of it to the true Cantharellus lateritius (treated there under C. odoratus) included several differences, and the reader is referred there for further comments on diagnostic characters.
Cantharellus confluens is much less common in the flora of the southern Appalachian Mountains than C. lateritius. While in herb. TENN there are several score of specimens of the latter, I can identify only four of the former. Perhaps the taxon is more common further south, as suggested by its type locality in Mexico.
The type specimen (figs. 4, 5) is represented by a single fruitbody. All macroscopic characters are typical (thickish margin, irregular hymenium surface, stout tapering stipe). The spores are at the lower end of the range for the taxon (6.7-8.9 x 4.8-5.9 µm; E = 1.29-1.54; Em = 1.39; Lm = 7.53 µm). In all probability, the fruitbody is very young, and many spores may be immature. The type was probably treated ("poisoned") to inhibit insects, and all hyphae (including basidia) are collapsed, and could not be reinflated.
Specimens examined: MEXICO: vic. Orizaba, s. n. (holotype, K). - UNITED STATES: North Carolina: Macon Co., Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 11. vii. 67, no. 32623 (TENN); Macon Co., vie. Highlands, Horse Cove, 8. viii. 71, no. 36105 (TENN). -Tennessee: Blount Co., GSMNP, Cades Cove, 2. vii. 34, coll. HESLER, no. 3650 (TENN); same location, 15. viii. 63, no. 25783 (TENN).

Added: Petersen 1979 (Nova Hedw. 31: 4)
Cantharellus odoratus (Schweinitz) Fries. 1828. Elenchus Fung. 1:51. [Figs. 5, 6] and Cantharellus lateritius (Berkeley) Smith. 1968. Michigan Bot. 7: 159, fig. 11 [Figs. 7, 8]
Figures 5 and 6 are, without a doubt, Cantharellus odoratus (cf. Corner, 1966, for a modern description of the fungus, with some caution as to geographic distribution). Of the several authors who have treated this taxon, Burt (1914) was the only one to seek out type material and even then only two characters separated what he called Craterellus cantharellus Schw. ex Fr. and C. odoratus Schw. ex Fr. The latter, he said, exhibited a hollow stipe and somewhat more membranous consistency than the former. Fruitbody colors and spore characters, however, were virtually identical.
Burt (1914) referred to several illustrations, of which Marshall's (1902) is perhaps the best (but compare it to fig. 10 of Smith, 1968, under Cantharellus lutescens). Peck's (1897, 1900) illustrations were clearly inadequate in color and even in form - so much so as to cause suspicion that another taxon is involved.
Smith (1968) described and illustrated what he called Cantharellus lateritius. This, he said, was the correct name for Craterellus cantharellus when that organism is considered a Cantharellus. Smith cited Burt's observations on stipe flesh, and described the odor of C. lateritius as ". . . mild when fresh, after drying resembling that of Cantharellus cibarius . . . " With very little doubt, it is this organism which is shown here in figures 7 and 8, and Smith's description is excellent for it.
Having not examined type material, I cannot end here the historical confusion over the names of these fungi. That there are at least two taxa involved is certain, but after drying, they are virtually indistinguishable. Even the solid vs. hollow stipe does not hold true invariably. Instead, the following characters can be used to separate the two fungi, albeit only in the fresh state. First; C. odoratus (fig. 5, 6) produces a pronounced sweet or fruity odor, varying from mild to very strong, while the other taxon produces virtually no odor when fresh. Second; C. odoratus almost always exhibits some pinkish tints on the hymenium, often as small patches on the upper stipe. Colors of the stipe and hymenium of the other fungus range from egg yellow to buff yellow, but not pink. Third; the flesh at the pileus margin in C. odoratus is very thin (not more than 1.5 mm thick) and rather brittle. In C. lateritius ss. Smith, the margin flesh is somewhat thicker and decidedly softer. Fourth; although the pileus margin in C. odoratus is usually lobed to crenate-lobed and often lacerate, only luxuriant forms could be construed as multipileate. The multipileate condition is much more common in C. lateritius ss. Smith. Fifth; when handled, the stipe (and other parts to a lesser extent) of C. odoratus strains citron ("lemon chrome", see illustrations) and then slowly and reluctantly rusty ("Mars yellow"). In C. lateritius ss. Smith, rusty-orange ("xanthine orange", see illustrations) staining is quick (within 15 minutes) and copious, without the preceding citron reaction.
Compounding the complexity of the situation, there occurs a third taxon in the southeastern United States, very similar to the two above. Because Schweinitz's material came from that geographical area, his Craterellus cantharellus could be this fungus. Moreover, the true identity of Craterellus confluens Berkeley & Curtis is yet unknown to me. Because of all this, I prefer to use the names Cantharellus odoratus (the identity of which I am sure - figs. 5, 6) and "C. lateritius ss. Smith" (figs. 7, 8) for the fungi illustrated here.
Taxon name: