Search on : Taxa descriptions

 


 
 Add this item to the list  Phellinus gilvus (Schw.) Pat.
   
Literature:
 
Page number:89 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:Phellinus gilvus (Schw.) Pat.
Ess. Tax. (1900) 97; Fidalgo and K. Fidalgo, Arqu. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro 43 (1957) 171; Chaves Batista, Inst. Mycol. Recife n. 294 (1960) 15; Cunningham (1965) 231; Ryvarden and Johansen (1980) 166; Gilbertson and Ryvarden (1987) 571; Imazeki and Hongo (1989) f. 854; Yokoyama (1989) 495; Larsen and Cobb-Pulle (1990) 68. Polyporus gilvus Schw.; Corner, Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 17 (1932) 78; Bakshi (1971) 105. Fomes gilvus (Schw.) C.G. Lloyd; Thind and Chatrath, Res. Bull. Panjab Univ. n. 125 (1957) 439.
The exact historic identity of the Malaysian fungus which I describe below as var. licnoides is uncertain to me. Ph. gilvus is described as cosmopolitan and in temperate countries is said to have perennial fruit-bodies with stratified tubes up to 10 mm long and flesh 2-20 mm thick. In contrast, the Malaysian fungus has seasonal fruit-bodies, short tubes and thin flesh. In 1932 I followed the remarks of Murrill and Lloyd and described it as var. licnoides. However, when I was subsequently able to study the collections of Polyporus licnoides at Kew, namely ex herb. Montagne, Guiana (? part of the type) and Bahia, I found them to be a different species close to what I had described in 1932 as Fomes levigatus, which name I here change to Ph. leiomitus (p. 108); that is their hyphal construction was d4 and the surface of the pileus was thinly levigate. Moreover, both collections had shorter, stouter, and very thick-walled setae 11-28 x 6-10 µm, not 4-6 µm wide as in var. licnoides, though Gilbertson and Ryvarden give the setae of Ph. gilvus as 6-1 I µm wide. Cunningham seems to have had a rather different idea of Ph. gilvus in ascribing to it a pileus that was generally tomentose. Bakshi describes the species as commonly parasitic, which I never observed in Malaya.
In 1932, I described also P. gilvus var. scruposus on the evidence of Lloyd that the collection which I cited, namely Sing. F.N. 5772 (Singapore, Keppel Harbour), was P. scruposus Fr. It was distinguished by the thick flesh (7-17 mm at the base of the pileus, 3-6 mm at 5 mm from the margin) and the strigose fibrillose surface of the pileus, the fibrils being more or less discrete fascicles of skeletal hyphae excrescent from the pile of skeletal ends such as occurs in Ph. senex, and not comparable with the excrescences of Ph. gilvus. This is clearly what Cunningham described as Ph. scruposus (Fr.) G.H. Cunn. (1965), though Ryvarden treats P. scruposus as a synonym of Ph. gilvus. More investigation is required, I think, to disentangle the species which have been listed as synonyms of Ph. gilvus.
As further problems, I take Hapalopilus ramosii Murr., which Ryvarden refers to Ph. gilvus, and Coltricia benguetensis Murr., which he refers to C. vallata (Berk.) Teng. I examined fragments of the type-collections of both species which were loaned to me from the Burea of Sciene, Manila. That of H. ramosü, along with a subsidiary collection For. Bur. 1918 (leg. H.M. Curran Nov. 1909 det. Bresadola), agreed well with var. licnoides, but the pores were wider (115-140, um) than usual and so were the setae (24-40 x 6-8 µm), and the septate unbranched skeletal hyphae were narrower (3.5-5 µm wide) with scattered ends in the flesh. As for the fragment of C. benguetensis (Murrill 5003), I decided that it was almost identical with H. ramosü though the skeletal hyphae were wider (4-7.5 µm) as in var. licnoides, and the setae wider (6-l0 µm). Yet C. vallata is described as monomitic. In none of these three collections was the base of the pileus available. I conclude that C. benguetensis is either another form of Ph. gilvus or that the material sent to me was misnamed.
 
Taxon name: