Search on : Taxa descriptions

 


 
 Add this item to the list   Cantharellus lateritius Figs. 2, 3, 6-8
   
Literature:
 
Page number:202 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:Cantharellus lateritius Figs. 2, 3, 6-8
This is the common "gill-less" cantharelle of eastern North America. Based on the type specimen and many others, the following species circumscription is offered.
Cantharellus lateritius (BERKELEY) SINGER 1951. - Lilloa 22: 729
--- Craterellus lateritius BERKELEY apud BERKELEY & CURTIS 1856. - Journ. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci. 11 3: 218.
--- Trombetta lateritia (BERK.) O. KUNTZE 1891. - Rev. Gen. Plant. 1: 873.
Thelephora cantharella SCHWEINITZ 1822. - Schr. Naturf. Gesell. Leipzig 1: 105.
Craterellus odoratus auct. non (SCHWEINITZ) FRIES: Burt. Ann. Missouri Rot. Gard. 1: 331. 1914.
Holotype: PH - herb. SCHWEINITZ, sub Thelephora cantharella, Salem [N. C.], no date, s. n.
Fruitbodies up to 12 cm high, up to 9 cm broad, most often simple or with 2-3 stipes joined at base, but only rarely multipileate and then with no more than 3 pilei; pileus plane When very young, soon recurving downward at margin, and becoming crenate and/or lobed, later everting somewhat and by maturity deeply infundibuliform or lax trumpet-shaped and then often lacerate-torn by inability to bear its own Weight; disc bright orange to slightly pinkish orange ("capucine orange", "capucine yellow", "orange", "orange buff", "mikado orange"); margin somewhat lighter, especially when young ("pale orange yellow", "capucine buff") to nearly concolorous With disc. Pileus surface smooth to very minutely radially fibrillose. Hymenial surface virtually smooth when very young, later developing shallow radial wrinkles or subrugose ridges, and by maturity often With clearly discernable but very irregular radial ridges, irregularities sometimes in the form of pleats, decurrent, buffy orange to slightly pinkish or salmon buff ("light salmon buff", "orange buff", "capucine orange", capucine buff") often somewhat brighter orange toward margin ("light orange yellow") and lighter when very young ("pale orange yellow"). Stipe up to 4 em long, up to 6 mm thick, generally equal or sometimes slightly swollen at base, stuffed to almost solid, never perforate, smooth, white or whitish Where protected, pale buffy orange above ("pale yellow orange", "pale orange yellow", "light orange yellow") with very common areas of pinkish orange ("mikado orange", "salmon orange", "bittersweet pink"), easily but slowly staining citron yellow where handled ("ochraceous buff", "citron yellow"), then slowly and reluctantly rust color.
Odor moderately to faintly of fruit, like C. cibarius; taste slowly moderately to faintly acrid.
Macrochemical reaction: FSW on stipe section instantly vinaceous, then quickly (2-3 sees) grey, and finally (30 sees) returning to White or off-white.
Hyphae of pileus surface and flesh thin-walled, hardly inflated, routinely clamped. Basidia cylindrical to narrowly clavate, (3)-4-5 sterigmate.
Spores 7.5-9.5 x 4.8-6.0 µm, ellipsoid, flattened adaxially, smooth, thin-walled, occasionally With 1-several guttulae, pale pinkish yellow in prints ("orange pink").
Observations: I Was obviously but regretably led astray in a former paper (PETERSEN, 1979) by the report of BURT (1914), Who had examined type specimens of "Craterellus cantharellus ScHw. ex FR.", "C. lateritius BERK." and "C. odoratus SCHW. ex FRIES". The reader is referred to my paper (PETERSEN, 1979) for a fuller amplification of diagnostic characters and literature on these taxa.
The following concordance must be offered in order to make correct the concepts in that paper
1) Cantharellus odoratus sensu PETERSEN (that paper, figs. 5, 6) is really Cantharellus lateritius;
2) Cantharellus lateritius sensu PETERSEN (that paper, figs. 7, 8) is really Cantharellus confluens ;
3) the true Craterellus odoratus was not included in that paper under any name.
Cantharellus lateritius is by far the most common cantharelloid With suppressed hymenial folds in eastern North America. It may be found as far north as Michigan (cf. SMITH, 1968) and New England (BIGELOW, 1978).
Based on their specimens, Cantharellus lateritius and Craterellus odoratus are not congeneric, much less conspecific as suggested by CORNER (1966) and BIGELOW (1978). They may Well have been misled by BURT'S (1914) interpretation, as was I. There is a distinct possibility, however, that C. lateritius may represent yet another tropical element in the flora of eastern North America, with a range extending into many Pacific Ocean landmasses. This would parallel almost exactly the situation With the carotene-bearing, clamped taxa of Clavaria (- Clavulinopsis, pro parte).
Figures 3 and 4 show the organism. In Figure 3 the mature hymenial surface can be seen as irregular folds, While in Figure 4 this surface is more pleat-like. The fungus shown by SMITH (1968: fig. 11) is probably C. lateritius, if the "pinkish tint of the hymenophore in older specimens" can be taken as diagnostic. The fruitbodies shown are complex, and it is difficult to ascertain Whether they are branched or merely lobed, crenate and lacerate. The figure by BIGELOW (1978: fig. 10) is surely C. lateritius.
Typification of C. lateritius is somewhat complex. BURT (1914) accepted two different types, one for Thelephora cantharella ScHw. and one for Craterellus lateritius BERK. DONK (personal notes) Was convinced that the latter represented merely a new name, not a new taxon, and therefore must be based on the SCHWEINITZ type. BERKELEY'S first mention of the organism came in his analysis of SOHWEINITZ specimens (sub BERKELEY & CURTIS, 1856). There the full mention reads: "605. THELEPHORA CANTHARELLA SCHWEIN. ! A Craterellus. It Was gathered in Ohio by LEA, and is Craterellus lateritius BERK. in herb." From this it is obvious that BERKELEY considered the specimens contaxic, but was apparently reluctant to surrender his own name for the organism. That he foresaw a tautonym, and therefore retained his own name, is outside the reference itself, for he believed it belonged in Craterellus, a combination under Which Would not have been tautonymic.
Even stranger, however, was his eventual conversion of names (BERKELEY, 1873: 147). There, omitting only the Latin and English descriptions, the text reads: "215. Craterellus lateritius. B. - No. 4539. Alabama, PETERS. ... This is Thelephora Craterellus, SCHWEIN. Fine specimens were gathered in Ohio by F. G. LEA." First: BERKELEY explicitly names a specimen to represent his name, and that specimen could surely be interpreted as a type, especially as it did not come from Ohio, as mentioned in both citations. Second: BERKELEY suffered a lapsus ca1ami in his citation of SCHWEINITZ's name. Here (not in his earlier mention of the taxon) he could have foreseen a tautonym in Craterellus, but only by misciting the original name. Third: his statement of synonymy is steadfast - the two names represent the same taxon.
If the selection of specimens is taken as an indication of BERKELEY'S sentiments, there is room to accept two types. I am persuaded by his unequivocal statement of synonymy, however, and accept his name as only a nomen novum, not a species novum, in which case the type for both names is the SCHWEINITZ specimen.
Where is this specimen? I do not know. Some of SCHWEINITZ'S specimens (or portions of specimens) came to Sir William HOOKER from John TORREY, and were available to BERKELEY. Others came to BERKELEY from CURTIS, Who was permitted to split many of SCHWEINITZ's collections. BERKELEY returned these specimens to CURTIS, but often kept a bit for his own herbarium. Still other specimens (or portions thereof) remained constantly in herb. SCHWEINITZ at PH (it is this specimen Which I have selected as the type). So the whereabouts of the SCHWEINITZ specimen which warrented the"!" in BERKELEY'S Commentary (BERKELEY & CURTIS, 1856) is unclear to me.

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: