Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amanita Muscaria Store Amanita Muscaria   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES?
    #9499659 - 12/26/08 10:04 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

i will led you in the hand of many scientific that are doing are  great job at understanding mushrooms . but before i like to introduce to the subject of this thread , here i like we to dig , and try to provide more information and knowledge to the subject , many of us have step in  one of this mushrooms , and have a piece of information is valid, in mushrooms world we all all learning even the pro , so even the most humidly  hunter , can  come to great conclusions, and even  more freaky mushrooms show what they what to tell their secrets. so i know knowledge can come in many directions, to observation, study , random encounter, and even what people call luck and destiny .....

after my rare encounter with what i call at the moment a mutant psilocybe , i began intrigue about , how this happened?, why this happened?, what porpoise does it have for the mushrooms? is this a random mutation , and since then  i begging interest in the subject, then  inski  finds open more light to me , what i was looking, and since then i begging to absorb all this information, is until know that i decide to make a thread about all the sequestrate form of fungi , something is not as rare as we think  in fungi , let begging to unfold the book .



EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? PART 1
From: Dr. Bryce Kendrick (mycolog@pacificcoast.net)

[Kendrick, B. 1994.
    Evolution in action: from mushrooms to truffles. I. McIlvainea 11 (2): 34-38.]

The fungi are very old. Their history extends over hundreds of millions of years. Yet their origins, and the major evolutionary pathways they have followed, are still cloaked in mystery. This is largely because the fossil record of the fungi is fragmentary and disconnected. Organisms that live on land, and particularly such ephemera as most fungal fructifications, are much less likely to be fossilized than are marine organisms with hard parts. The paucity of fossil evidence has not deterred the cognoscenti among mycologists from a little judicious speculation, inevitably based largely on what we know about fungi that are alive today. This speculation is probably wrong in many respects and is usually heavily laced with the prejudices of its authors, but it is not necessarily a bad thing: students of the fungi need a conceptual framework on which to cut their teeth, and at which to aim their more mature criticisms. But we are still on shaky ground when we try to look into the evolutionary history of most modern fungi.

It is, then, all the more exciting to encounter an area of mycology in which not only the results of evolution, but also the starting points, and the steps in the process, can still be seen in living organisms. And all this has happened, not in obscure microscopic fungi, but in conspicuous and fairly common mushrooms that can be held in the hand and compared. We now know that some mushrooms have given rise to radically changed but still viable descendants: relatives which, although often looking very different from their forebears, clearly betray their ancestry at the microscopic and molecular level. Let us see how this has happened in the well-known and easily recognized mushroom genus Lactarius (the "milky-caps": family Russulaceae, order Agaricales).

But before I describe the exciting changes we have seen, I must establish a base-line or starting point by describing how mushrooms usually develop, and what they do: how their form and function are interrelated. First, the thread-like mycelium, which permeates the soil and is often involved in an intimate and mutually beneficial mycorrhizal association with tree roots, must accumulate considerable reserves of food energy. Then conditions of temperature and moisture must be favorable. Finally, the mushroom begins its development underground, forming a clump of mycelium which differentiates into a "button," then rapidly expands upward and emerges from the earth as a characteristic structure with a central stalk or stipe, bearing an expanding circular cap or pileus. The top of the cap is covered by a skin or cutis. The thin, plate-like gills of Lactarius normally develop in a neat radial pattern (like the spokes of a wheel) on the under side of the expanding cap. The basidiospores will form on these gills. As the cap opens out like an umbrella, the gills assume a precise vertical orientation and are now ready to make and liberate spores.

The flat surfaces of the gills are covered by a fertile layer called a hymenium. This contains huge numbers of special cells called basidia, which produce and liberate astronomical numbers of spores. Each basidium bears four spores (sometimes more, occasionally fewer). These develop asymmetrically, in an offset manner, at the tips of four sterigmata, which are tiny projections from the mother cell. When ripe, the spores are delicately but deliberately launched into the air between the gills. They float slowly and gently downward until they emerge from the gills, and are then carried away like dust by air movement. In this way the fungus broadcasts its spores far and wide. The different genera and families of agarics often follow significantly different developmental pathways, some with gills exposed from the beginning, others with gills enclosed almost until maturity, but they all eventually arrive at the same endpoint, with vertical, exposed gills dropping spores into the air.

One of the ways in which we identify agarics is by placing a cap on a piece of white paper in a draftfree place and letting it drop millions of spores onto the paper overnight. The deposit will form a visible radiating pattern, which reflects the arrangement of the gills from which the spores came. This spore print may be white, cream, pink, brown or black, according to the mushroom genus which produces it. The spore print of Lactarius is white or cream coloured.

Everything I have said so far applies not just to Lactarius, but also to many other genera of mushrooms. So how does Lactarius differ from the rest? That's easy: it has a unique combination of three features which are not found together in any other genus of agarics.

[1] The cap and gills of Lactarius contain special cells filled with a milky juice or latex (white, yellow, orange or red) that oozes out in visible drops when the tissues are cut (and sometimes change colour after exposure to air).
[2] The flesh of Lactarius contains large numbers of swollen, thin-walled cells called sphaerocysts: these make the flesh extremely and characteristically brittle and granular.
[3] The spores of Lactarius are ornamented with conspicuous warts and spines, lines and ridges, which often join up to form a network. These ornamentations are chemically different from the rest of the spore wall, because they stain darkly (grey, blue, purple or black) in iodine, while the spore wall itself remains unstained, or stains only slightly. Ornamentation that gives this colour reaction is often described as iodine-positive, or amyloid.

Even beginners can easily identify Lactarius by the milky juice it exudes when the brittle flesh is broken: no other ordinary mushroom has anything like it.

But in addition to specimens of Lactarius as I have just described it, we occasionally find extraordinary specimens. Specimens which have a few important differences from the milky caps we are used to seeing. They are similar (and theoretically could therefore be included in the genus) because they have all three characters listed above: brittle flesh full of sphaerocysts; latex exuded when the tissues are ruptured; and spores with ornamentation that is iodine-positive. Yet they are different because their cap develops in such a way as to enclose their gills, and the gills are no longer vertical plates, but have become crumpled or convoluted to form a spongy, chambered mass. Since the cap remains closed, the spores obviously cannot escape. This sounds as if it would be a serious problem for the fungus: after all, have not mushrooms evolved to be spore-making and spore-launching machines? And if the spores are not released into the atmosphere, how will they be dispersed? Yet if we remember that the lungs of land vertebrates evolved from the swim-bladders of their fish ancestors, and the wings of birds from the forearms of their earthbound reptilian ancestors, we will appreciate that evolution, guided by environmental forces, often drives organisms in unforeseen directions. Something of this kind appears to be happening to the Lactarius, and we must assume that some other way of dispersing the spores has been evolved.

If we now cut away the edge of the unopened cap which is obscuring the gills, and try to make a spore print, we will not succeed. No spores will be deposited. This is not because the mushroom is either unripe or overmature. If we examine some of the basidia under a microscope, we will see that they have produced mature basidiospores. But the basidia have subtly changed. The four spores tend to develop symmetrically (not offset) on the sterigmata, and they tend to remain attached to the sterigmata: they are never forcibly discharged, as they were in normal Lactarius fruit bodies.

These differences are important enough for taxonomists to conclude that the fungus can no longer be called a Lactarius, and it has been placed in a different genus, named Arcangeliella. This genus has sometimes been excluded from the family Russulaceae and even from the order Agaricales, and has instead been put in a separate order, the Hymenogastrales. But there is no doubt that it has evolved from Lactarius in relatively recent times, that it is still closely related to that genus, and that it should be retained in the Agaricales, and even in the Russulaceae.

Arcangeliella still looks very like a mushroom, even if its behaviour is a little strange. But we have found other specimens which have evolved even further away from Lactarius. These specimens develop, and remain, just below the surface of the ground, looking rather like truffles. They are rounded or irregular in shape. The skin that covered the Lactarius now completely surrounds the truffle-like specimens. They have no stalk. There are no gills: the hymenium lines labyrinthine chambers. And the basidiospores, now sitting straight on the sterigmata of the basidia, are not actively shot away.

Note that the outer skin and often the walls of the labyrinthine spore-bearing tissues contain sphaerocysts; latex oozes from the cut surfaces of fresh specimens; and the spores have spiny or ridged ornamentation that stains dark in iodine. Once again, the three diagnostic characters of Lactarius. A vestige of a stalk may even occur in the form of a pad of sterile tissue inside the base of the fruit body; the walls of the labyrinthine chambers could be derived from crumpled gills; and the presence of sterigmata on the basidia is a reminder that these structures were originally evolved as part of a mechanism to launch spores into the air.

Yet it would be stretching the concept of Lactarius beyond the breaking point to include these specimens in it: surely no-one would call them agarics. It is also clear that they are considerably more "reduced" even than those placed in Arcangeliella. So mycologists put them in another new genus, called Zelleromyces.

Although Zelleromyces differs from both Arcangeliella and Lactarius in important ways, the fact that it has latex, sphaerocysts and iodine-positive (amyloid) spore ornamentation is a compelling argument for keeping it in the family Russulaceae of the order Agaricales. After all, this disposition seems to best reflect its true relationships. Arcangeliella and Zelleromyces are what we now call sequestrate (see the note below) derivatives of the original agaric. The word sequestrate implies that they sequester or retain their spores, rather than broadcasting them into the air. This retentive habit, diagnosed by spores sitting symmetrically on the sterigmata of non-shooting basidia, is clearly characteristic of both genera.

Before drawing the first part of this discussion to a close, I must address one final issue. If these sequestrate genera share all the essential diagnostic features of Lactarius, how are we to distinguish the Lactarius we all know from its sequestrate derivatives? It is apparent that the three diagnostic characters I described earlier must be supplemented by three more, as follows:

[4] the cap of a true Lactarius expands at maturity and the gills are exposed.
[5] its gills are vertically oriented.
[6] its basidiospores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata and are forcibly discharged at maturity.

If the Lactarius -> Arcangeliella -> Zelleromyces sequence was the only case in which this strange evolutionary sequence had been observed, we might be able to dismiss it as a quirk of evolution, a freak. But we have evidence that similar pathways have evolved in other mushroom genera. These will be explored in the second part of this article, in the next two issues of BEN.

The term "sequestrate" has recently been introduced (Kendrick 1992) to describe all these closed or hypogeous offshoots of regular fungi. It means that the spores are sequestered or hidden away, kept from contact with the outside world, at least until the fruit body decays or is eaten. The term sequestrate appears to be a more useful and more widely applicable term than such frequently-used words as 'gastroid' (which inappropriately implies close relationship with gasteromycetes) and 'secotioid,' an arcane word suggesting similarity with the genus Secotium (which is a sequestrate derivative of Agaricus). Most amateur and many professional mycologists have never seen Secotium, so the term derived from that name conveys little or no meaning.
In the first article, I described how various members of the mushroom genus Lactarius (family Russulaceae, order Agaricales) had evolved into rather strange forms. They had kept their distinctive microscopic characters: latex-producing cells which exude a unique milky fluid when broken; thin-walled, swollen sphaerocysts which make the tissues of the mushroom characteristically brittle; and a distinctive spore ornamentation of spines and ridges which often form a network, and which stain dark blue or almost black in iodine (what we call the amyloid, I+, or starch-like reaction). But the fruit bodies had taken on a distinctive appearance and also appeared to function rather differently.

In these evolutionary offshoots, three things have changed: (1) the peridium remains attached to the stipe at maturity, so the gills are not exposed to the outside atmosphere; (2) the gills are no longer plate-like, and are not oriented in a precise vertical plane; and (3) the spores are not forcibly discharged from the sterigmata. So despite having the characters listed earlier as being diagnostic of Lactarius, these forms are put in a separate genus, Arcangeliella, because the differences, especially the loss of the spore-shooting mechanism so characteristic of most basidiomycetes, are regarded as being of some basic biological importance. They affect the reproductive strategy of the organisms and therefore need to be taken account of when the taxonomy of the group is being established.

There are also even more reduced forms, in which the fruit body develops underground, the stipe is lost, and the gill tissues have become so folded and convoluted as to assume a spongy, chambered appearance: they are no longer gills, though they still bear basidia and produce basidiospores. So although these forms still have latex, sphaerocysts and amyloid spore ornamentation, they have been segregated in a third genus, Zelleromyces.

I concluded by saying that the Lactarius - Arcangeliella - Zelleromyces evolutionary pathway is not unique. In this second article, I will describe other similar developmental phenomena that have come to light, and the way in which they are now being interpreted.

The family Russulaceae, as understood by many mycologists, contains only two genera. We have already looked at one of them, Lactarius. Now let's consider the other one, Russula. This genus is very easy to recognize in the field, and (along with Lactarius) is one of the first genera the beginning amateur mycologist learns to identify. Russula has substantial fruit bodies, often with brightly coloured caps, stout stipes, and beautifully regular, white or cream-coloured gills. The caps, stipes and gills are brittle because their tissues contain clusters of round, thin-walled, turgid sphaerocysts. And the basidiospores have spiny, ridged and often net-like ornamentation that stains blue in iodine. Russula shares these two characters with Lactarius (which is why they are in the same family: these features are not found in any other agarics). But Russula has no laticiferous cells, and so does not produce latex (milk). This immediately distinguishes it from Lactarius, the milky cap, at least in most young, fresh collections.

Specimens are sometimes found which match the genus Russula in most ways, yet the peridium remains intact, attached to the stipe, and the gills are not exposed, even at maturity. In such specimens it will be seen that the hymenium has become highly convoluted or lacunose. Microscopic examination shows that sphaerocysts are present in the tissues, and the basidiospores do have blue-staining ornamentation; but although the attachment of the spores to the sterigmata is still somewhat asymmetrical or offset, those spores are not forcibly discharged. That is enough to exclude these specimens from Russula, and they have been placed in a separate genus, Macowanites.

Other atypical russuloid fungi have been found which resemble Macowanites in many ways: they still have sphaerocysts throughout the tissues, and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But they develop underground, and do not emerge, even at maturity. The external stipe has been lost, although a stipe remnant, in the form of a vertical column of sterile tissue, may still run through the fruit body. The spores, which are not forcibly liberated, are now symmetrically attached to their sterigmata. And the hymenium is no longer on recognizable gills, but lines convoluted or labyrinthine chambers. These specimens are segregated in the truffle-like genus Gymnomyces.

But this is not all. A second line of reduced forms appears to have originated from Russula. Some of these resemble Russula in many ways, having a stalk and a cap, sphaerocysts in the outer tissues and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But the gills have entirely lost their vertical orientation and perhaps even their integrity. The fruit body is now filled with a spongy mass in which the hymenium lines finely convoluted chambers whose walls lack sphaerocysts. And although the spores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata, they are not discharged. This is the genus Elasmomyces.

Other specimens, while retaining sphaerocysts in their outer tissues and amyloid spore ornamentation, have retreated (or rather, remained) underground, have lost their stalk, and have become essentially truffle-like. Their internal arrangements are rather like those of Gymnomyces, but although they have sphaerocysts in their outer tissues, they have none in the walls of the hymenial chambers. These fungi are placed in the genus Martellia.

So, with a little imagination, we can visualize three lines of evolution, beginning with "normal" members of the family Russulaceae, mushrooms like Russula and Lactarius, and ending in truffle-like fungi which fruit underground.

Lactarius -> Arcangeliella -> Zelleromyces

Russula -> Macowanites -> Gymnomyces

Russula -> Elasmomyces -> Martellia.

Notice that the Russulaceae really contains not just two, but no fewer than eight genera, and that six of them, while microscopically "correct," do not give spore prints.

By now, you may suspect that there must be other such strange evolutionary pathways hiding among the rest of the agarics, and even in other groups of fungi. And your suspicion would be correct.

In fact, no fewer than 14 _ yes fourteen _ mushroom families have given rise to closed or underground forms which are treated as separate taxa. Let me sketch for you these lines of evolution as they are understood at present:

  1. Russulaceae - see above

  2. Cortinariaceae: the genus Cortinarius gets its name from the presence on the expanding basidioma of a special filamentous or cobwebby partial veil called a cortina (from the Italian for curtain). Many species also have brightly coloured caps. The basidiospores are rusty-brown in mass, and characteristically ornamented. Cortinarius has some species in which the partial veil does not open. But since the basidia still shoot their spores (they end up sitting on the inside of the veil), these species are retained in Cortinarius. In other Cortinarius-like specimens, the cap also remains closed, but careful examination shows that these have lost both the spore-shooting mechanism and the vertical plate-like organization of the gills: a section shows that the hymenium-bearing tissue has become convoluted and labyrinthine or spongy. These "aberrant" forms have been placed in the genus Thaxterogaster.

      Some species of Thaxterogaster seem to have lost their external stipe, but there is still a central column of white sterile tissue running up the middle of the fruit body. Other offshoots of Cortinarius have become entirely hypogeous, never emerging above the surface of the soil. These have lost all semblance of stipe and gills, look just like a truffle, and have been put in the genus Hymenogaster, although their basidiospores still closely resemble those of Cortinarius.

  3. Agaricaceae: the genus Agaricus has given rise to sequestrate forms placed in the genera Endoptychum and Longula.

  4. Lepiotaceae: Notholepiota is a sequestrate member of this family.

  5. Amanitaceae: Torrendia is a sequestrate segregate of Amanita.

  6. Bolbitiaceae: this family has given rise to a common and widespread sequestrate form called Gastrocybe. This is a strange fungus which appears in the grass during hot, humid weather. A narrowly conical, wet-looking brown cap arises on a long, narrow, delicate white stipe, which soon flops over. The spores sit squarely and persistently on the sterigmata. The whole cap soon dissolves into a slimy mass, which sticks to the grass. The spores never become airborne. We tend to assume that these spores are dispersed by grazing arthropods, although there is as yet no hard data to support that hypothesis.

  7. Coprinaceae: Coprinus has given rise to a sequestrate form which is known as the desert shaggy mane. This fungus, which is put into the genus Podaxis, looks externally very like Coprinus comatus. Yet when a mature cap is cut open, the inside is seen to be filled, not with closely-packed, upwardly deliquescing gills, but with a dry mass of black spores, which will eventually blow away like dust when the outer skin of the fruit body erodes away or breaks. I have an excellent videotape sequence of this happening to a large specimen growing out of a termite mound in Africa (the Podaxis, unlike Termitomyces, apparently does not enjoy a mutualistically symbiotic relationship with the termites). The relationship of Podaxis with Coprinus is confirmed by the fact that under wet conditions, Podaxis, too, can undergo some deliquescence or self-digestion.

  8. Strophariaceae: Stropharia is the presumed ancestor of the sequestrate genera Nivatogastrium and Weraroa.

  9. Entolomataceae: Entoloma has spawned the sequestrate Richonia, the relationship being established by the pink colour and the distinctive angular shape of Richonia spores, which are almost identical to the spores of Entoloma itself. Nolanea may have given rise to Rhodogaster.

  10. Tricholomataceae: Hydnangium appears to be a sequestrate derivative of Laccaria.

  11. Gomphidiaceae: Gomphidius has hived off the sequestrate genus Gomphigaster, and Chroogomphus has produced Brauniellula.

  12. Paxillaceae: Austrogaster and Gymnopaxillus are sequestrate derivatives.

  13. Boletaceae: Boletus, Suillus and Leccinum have spawned above-ground sequestrate forms in Gastroboletus, Gastrosuillus and Gastroleccinum. Alpova, Truncocolumella and the extremely common Rhizopogon are below-ground, sequestrate derivatives of Suillus. The techniques of molecular biology have recently shown that, at least for certain parts of its genome, Rhizopogon is very closely related to the epigeous, spore-shooting Suillus (more closely, in fact, than Suillus is related to other genera of boletes).

  14. Strobilomycetaceae: Gautieria is a fairly common hypogeous derivative, probably of Boletellus.

I have not mentioned all the sequestrate genera connected with the families listed in Part 2: many of them are rare, or are known only from the southern hemisphere. But I have given you enough information to realize that the evolution of sequestrate forms is a widespread phenomenon. And from what I have said about the Russulaceae and the Boletaceae, it will be obvious that more than one evolutionary pathway may evolve within a single family, and perhaps even within a single genus.

One or two interesting questions arise from my survey. Why have sequestrate forms evolved? The generally accepted explanation is that during dry periods of the Earth's recent history some mushrooms mutated in such a way as to remain closed, and lose their spore-shooting mechanism. This gave these lines a selective advantage over those which exposed their gills to the hot, dry air. It is easier to maintain an appropriate level of humidity for spore development inside a closed fruit body. The next step, of remaining underground, is another way of escaping drought. Of course, once the spores are retained inside the fruit body, or kept underground, the problem of dispersal arises. In many cases, this has been solved by involving small mammals as vectors. That means evolving mechanisms for attracting these mammals and getting them to dig up or eat the fruit bodies. So one kind of adaptive change is complicated by the need for other adaptations. But that is what evolution is all about, and any organism that survives and propagates itself has obviously hit on a successful, or at least a functional, combination.

It is less easy to explain the geographic distribution of these sequestrate and hypogeous forms, since they appear to be concentrated in such areas as western North America, parts of South America, New Zealand and Australia, and to be relatively few in number in other areas such as eastern North America and northern Europe.

No sequestrate fungi have yet been connected with two agaric families, the Hygrophoraceae and the Pluteaceae. Do such fungi exist, and have we simply not seen or recognized them? And although the Tricholomataceae is a very large and diverse family of agarics, a sequestrate derivative (Hydnangium) is known only for Laccaria. Why have none of the other more than 30 widely recognized and often very common genera in this family produced sequestrate offshoots? Or have we simply not yet found them, or recognized them for what they are?

In most cases, the sequestrate forms are much less common than their spore-shooting ancestors (though this is not true of Rhizopogon). Is this scarcity more apparent than real because they are more difficult to find, since many of them grow below-ground? Does it indicate that most of these fungi are no more than rather unsuccessful evolutionary experiments, on their way to extinction? Or have they arisen so recently that they have not yet had time to spread very far?

How long ago did the oldest, and the youngest, of these fungi arise? This question, at least, we may attempt to solve by means of our newly acquired molecular techniques, which can measure the amount, and the rate, of change in the genetic material. Could sequestrate forms be appearing regularly, even now? Are the changes taking place gradually, as the necessary mutations slowly accumulate in mushrooms. Or do they appear suddenly and sporadically as a result of what is called "punctuated" evolution, involving larger jumps during periods of great environmental stress?

Why has all this happened? Is it the new trend among mushrooms? Will all mushrooms eventually become sequestrate? Will our descendants have to dig if they want to see the fall flush of fleshy fungi, or fill their cooking pots with boletes and other fine edibles? Only, I suspect, if the greenhouse effect goes all the way and our climate becomes much drier and hotter than it is now. But we'll have to wait and see.

We are not yet in a position to answer all of those questions, but at least we know know that there is a wide range of such fungi out there. There is a message here for the amateur: Don't just throw away those aberrant closed or distorted or partly hypogeous agarics. Cut them open to see if their gills are normal vertical plates, and check them to see whether they can be persuaded to yield a spore print. If the answer to both of the above is no, then you may very well have a sequestrate fungus on your hands. One of the professional agaricologists in your area should be able to check this. If it is indeed one of these most recently evolved taxa, you may congratulate yourself on your sharp eyes, and science may thank you for one more piece of the evidence we need to unravel this great jigsaw puzzle.

Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge stimulating discussions with Drs. Jim Trappe, Michael Castellano, Neale Bougher and Harry Thiers.

Readers who wish to explore the "sequestrate" agarics further should consult the publications listed below.

Beaton, G., D.N. Pegler & T.W.K. Young. 1985.
    Gastroid Basidiomycota of Victoria State, Australia 5-7 Kew Bull. 40: 573-598.
Bruns, T.D., R. Fogel, T.J. White and J.D. Palmer. 1989.
    Accelerated evolution of a false-truffle from a mushroom ancestor. Nature 339: 140-142.
Dring, D.M. and D.N. Pegler. 1977.
    New and noteworthy gasteroid relatives of the Agaricales from tropical Africa. Kew Bull. 32: 563-569.
Horak, E. 1973.
    Fungi Agaricini Novazelandiae I-V. Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia, Heft 43. Cramer, Lehre.
Kendrick, B. 1992.
    The Fifth Kingdom. 2nd Edition. Mycologue Publications, 8727 Lochside Dr., Sidney, BC V8L 1M8, Canada.


if you are still here  i apreciate your enthusiasm for the subject. since my find , i knew it was a special find , a part of the puzzle only that the puzzle i was picturing is part of another bigger one puzzle and so on , for example after reading this article, we can come to some  ideas, let quote again to the great peson to made this article From: Dr. Bryce Kendrick (mycolog@pacificcoast.net)
How long ago did the oldest, and the youngest, of these fungi arise? This question, at least, we may attempt to solve by means of our newly acquired molecular techniques, which can measure the amount, and the rate, of change in the genetic material. Could sequestrate forms be appearing regularly, even now? Are the changes taking place gradually, as the necessary mutations slowly accumulate in mushrooms. Or do they appear suddenly and sporadically as a result of what is called "punctuated" evolution, involving larger jumps during periods of great environmental stress?

Why has all this happened? Is it the new trend among mushrooms? Will all mushrooms eventually become sequestrate? Will our descendants have to dig if they want to see the fall flush of fleshy fungi, or fill their cooking pots with boletes and other fine edibles? Only, I suspect, if the greenhouse effect goes all the way and our climate becomes much drier and hotter than it is now. But we'll have to wait and see.

the first question is very  good and was the same one i ask mi self the moment i see the mutant . look like we have to let that one aside  for now on until more talk make us elucidate more into this.

-the second question is this a new trend among mushrooms?
i guess not, but this also open many new field  of investigation for example is weraroa neovozelandese a some how new creation , or vice versa is and old trait that still persist in a piece of land call Australia and new Zealand , still to remember us from that beginning , or is the  secotoid form of weraroa more recent that the form of mushrooms , we See many representation in petroglyph  of mushrooms with a common shape, .

-the third question Will all mushrooms eventually become sequestrate?
it seem to be a line of progression toward that line of evolution , is like a circle . that is closing and go again , if we  for instance take the idea of this is maybe an  evolutory change due a a more  dry environment , which , make sense , mushroom use this mechanism  in dryer ages of time , that why we have mushroom even in desert habitat , which make to believe that maybe all truffles are , or are going sooner or later will be correlated with the normal partner, i bet all the truffles in the desert are just sequestrate that became hipogeous , is interesting to Start to notice, this is more common  that we believe,
apparently in the end maybe all mushrooms will become sequestrate , i don't know  but  maybe this can help to elucidate more in the subject
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio/bio335/pdf_papers/bruns_et_al.pdf



-Will our descendants have to dig if they want to see the fall flush of fleshy fungi, or fill their cooking pots with boletes and other fine edibles? Only, I suspect, if the greenhouse effect goes all the way and our climate becomes much drier and hotter than it is now. But we'll have to wait and see.

i really doubt  that is going to happen, but i can  see  that all mushroom will become sequestrate in time, but the mushrooms shape is something so perfect , that it will repeat here , and ever evolution take the spores, so i can guaranty our kids will pick  in the surface many mushrooms too. but maybe in time we can see mushrooms that use the  2 form of living for example  sclerotium should , be another , from that will produce new thing in  the future.




-Many ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi produce fruit-bodies below ground and rely on animals, especially mammals, for dispersal of spores. Mammals may therefore play an important role in the maintenance of mycorrhizal symbiosis and biodiversity of ECM fungi in many forest ecosystems. Given the pivotal role played by mycorrhizal fungi In the nutrition of their plant hosts and, possibly, in the determination of plant community structure, the ecological significance of mycophagous mammals may extend to the productivity and diversity of plant communities. Mycologists and mammalogists have been aware of the interaction between their study organisms for many years, but recent research has produced new insights Into the evolution of mammal-vectored spore dispersal among ECM fungi, the ecological importance of mycophagy to small mammals, and the effectiveness of mammals as spore-dispersal agents.

*there is the tendecy to link sequestrate fungi to animal dispersion since  spore can not longer go carry by wind , so in the position of weraroa , inski other secotoid mushroom, and my mutand psilocybe, what animal play part in the distribution of spores , maybe insects, so far my find is very isolated, but i have hear of other secotoid form of psilocybe  in psilocybe herrerae in xalapa. also from psilocybe cropophila in artificial grow, so apparently is not animal related  but in the genes ,

this thread need maybe a spell check as all my thread and more picture which i will add later on , since i got tired on the middle of the  edition of the thread:grin: but i will try to  fix all , hope some people can join in and will love the collaboration of all the secotoid finder, inski please can use your pictures or can  you provide us with more of your finds i will try to explain in this thread more of something i have been thinking for a while.

i will try to correct to update all the secotoid mushrooms  .  to make a new list please help me so , for example where are you going to put paneolopssis, iam tired.
so  the idea is to expand this list, put  good pictures of then , and make more discovery's along the way ,
:loveeyes:for the love of mushrooms please cooperate



Longula texensis is a mushroom of dry, open habitats, believed to have evolved from a moisture-loving Agaricus ancestor. Agaricus features are still apparent though modified, presumably to aid survival in an arid environment. These include a cap that no longer expands, blackish-brown, crumpled, gills that don't forcibly discharge spores, and a partial veil that remains intact even at maturity. This type of development is called secotioid or sequestrate, with examples known from a number of genera of gilled and boletaceous mushrooms. Two such fungi that resemble Longula texensis are Podaxis pistillaris and Montagnea arenaria. Both are found primarily in the desert regions of California. Podaxis pistillaris has an elongated, scaly cap, much like a shaggy mane, Coprinus comatus, but is not deliquescent and despite the similarities, probably is not closely related. Montagnea arenaria is a stalked puffball distantly allied to Coprinus. It has a woody stipe which emanates from a volva cup, and is crowned by thin umbrella of crumpled, blackish gill-like tissue.
http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Longula_texensis.html


more information
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/88/12/2168
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SB97039.htm
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/12/2168
http://www.mycologia.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/247
this one is gold
http://www.mykoweb.com/biblio/hypo_bib.pdf
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/reprint/88/12/2168.pdf
http://www.mycologia.org/cgi/content/full/95/1/148
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SB02016.htm
http://www.biology.duke.edu/fungi/mycolab/publications/peintnerAJB.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4HNSG70-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d752e7735c738a79e805b9feba44fd27
http://www.mykoweb.com/biblio/hypo_biblio.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nhn/pimj/2007/00000019/00000002/art00007
http://www.ilmyco.gen.chicago.il.us/Terms/secot208.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=224440FFEC84E13E23C1BD9A3EB87965.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=208239
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SB02017.htm
http://users.iab.uaf.edu/~jozsef_geml/AgaricusAIMH.pdf
http://users.iab.uaf.edu/~jozsef_geml/AgaricusAIMH.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMR-4RS5049-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=78f22ad7680c0691ceb1e8f6aad2b0ed
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4HNSG70-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d752e7735c738a79e805b9feba44fd27
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=249347
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMR-4MX56PS-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b424aad2d43fb11ae290dc16564262b5
http://mushroomobserver.org/15179?_js=on&_new=true&id=15179
http://www.wyki.org/Secotioid

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/mycology/survey/forms/PNW_Sequestrate_form.pdf




--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Edited by cactu (09/09/12 10:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9499756 - 12/26/08 10:23 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/Sep2003.html
Heather became interested in G. lateritia when she noticed it fruiting each morning on the lawn in front of Plant and Soil Sciences at Michigan State University, amidst the Conocybe lactea specimens she was studying.

G. lateritia is one of the common mushrooms that are found in rich, usually unpesticided and unherbicided lawns. If you are patient in studying this mushroom's development, you can observe that the immature button of this mushroom emerges around 8:00 in the evening. Overnight the mushroom expands. The basidiospores mature between 7 and 10 the following morning, and, by 10:30 or so, the fungus has dried up, effectively vanishing. The long, hollow stem often cannot bear the weight of the watery, slimy cap, and the whole thing usually topples over. Unlike most mushrooms, the basidiospores cannot be forcibly discharged-- due to the slime and the partial autodigestion of the gills-- and thus have to wait for the cap to weather or rot away to be released. Why on earth would this happen? And how could this seemingly inefficient species survive evolutionary pressures? As it turns out, G. lateritia it not alone in this dilemma.

G. lateritia has been considered a sequestrate (or secotioid) basidiomycete, that is, a mushroom that has lost the ability to forcibly discharge basidiospores and may be on its way to developing a subterranean truffle-like form



so  who will be  discover the firt psilocybe truffle like form is more naturally that emerge in australia or new zealand where it more ahead in the game.


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShockValue
Because, ShockValue.


Registered: 11/18/08
Posts: 5,097
Loc: Tipping at windmills.
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9499814 - 12/26/08 10:34 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Psilocybe Azures, Cyans, Frisco's, etc... are already evolving at a rapid pace.  Their method of reproduction is as old as there have been living things on this planet:  They have something that another species wants, and therefor get picked, transported and ingested, distributing their spores everywhere!!! :mushroom2:


--------------------
  • When we built temples to view the stars, we knew about all 2000 of them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9499843 - 12/26/08 10:39 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Genus: Weraroa
This genus of fungi are referred to as sequestrate fungi which means that they have lost there ability to forceful eject there spores. In stead they relies on insects and birds to eat and disperse them.
line
Species: Weraroa erythrocephala (Tul) Sing.&Smith.
Common Name: Red Pouch Fungus
Found: Native forest
Substrate: Forest floor
Spores: Brown
Height: 50 mm
Width: 35 mm
Season: Autumn through to spring after rain.
Edible: No
line
Species: Weraroa novaezelandiae (G. Cunn.) Singer
These fungi ofen have no external stipe, but there is still a central column of white sterile tissue running up the middle of the fruit body.
More images Weraroa novaezelandiae
Common Name: None
Found: Native forest
Substrate: Forest leaf litter
Spores: Brown
Height: 30 mm
Width: 40 mm
Season: Autumn
Edible: No
line
Species: Weraroa virescens (Massee) Sing. & Smith.
A fungi with an unexpended head but with well developed stalk and columella, gleba sometimes very gill-like.
More images Weraroa virescens
Common Name: Blue pouch fungi
Found: Native forest
Substrate: Forest leaf litter
Spores: Brown
Height: 40 mm
Width: 15 mm
Season: Autumn
Edible: No


i bet the  agaricoid form of Weraroa erythrocephala is hypholoma aurantiaca or laerytomycez ceres or what?
what psilocybe was the agaricoid form of Weraroa novaezelandiae psilocybe subaeruginosa?
is posible this secotoid sindrome as some say , is reversibly , will some day  some one maybe inski make a hibrid with weraroa ?

still many questions in the air, ?
the puzzle get  more wide, more structurated, but still  just a piece, of other more puzzles.?

que la vida nos lleve al conocimiento eterno , si es por la manera cientifica o filosofica, no importa lo que importa es llegar, para el que esta sediento de saber, todos los caminos son dignos de ser recorridos......


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 17 minutes, 56 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9499955 - 12/26/08 11:05 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Muy rico, Cactu,

Lots of info in your first post in this thread, can't digest it in one go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9499963 - 12/26/08 11:06 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

cactu said:

EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? PART 1
From: Dr. Bryce Kendrick (mycolog@pacificcoast.net)

[Kendrick, B. 1994.
    Evolution in action: from mushrooms to truffles. I. McIlvainea 11 (2): 34-38.]

The fungi are very old. Their history extends over hundreds of millions of years. Yet their origins, and the major evolutionary pathways they have followed, are still cloaked in mystery. This is largely because the fossil record of the fungi is fragmentary and disconnected. Organisms that live on land, and particularly such ephemera as most fungal fructifications, are much less likely to be fossilized than are marine organisms with hard parts. The paucity of fossil evidence has not deterred the cognoscenti among mycologists from a little judicious speculation, inevitably based largely on what we know about fungi that are alive today. This speculation is probably wrong in many respects and is usually heavily laced with the prejudices of its authors, but it is not necessarily a bad thing: students of the fungi need a conceptual framework on which to cut their teeth, and at which to aim their more mature criticisms. But we are still on shaky ground when we try to look into the evolutionary history of most modern fungi.






Well, I don't have time at the moment to critique the whole thing but I'll say this.  That's one helluva first paragraph!

As an aside I'll say this.  Morphology and chemical testing provide, and have provided, a conceptual framework from which to work.  Without morphology, DNA analyses are meaningless.

Nice thread.  :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9500001 - 12/26/08 11:14 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Ok, I read it.  Interesting suppositions.

On a more positive note, I think someone posted Gastrocybe lateritia recently and no one got it correct, iirc.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9501603 - 12/27/08 10:39 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Ok, let me give this a brief, fuller treatment.

Quote:

cactu said:

[Kendrick, B. 1994.
    Evolution in action: from mushrooms to truffles. I. McIlvainea 11 (2): 34-38.]

The fungi are very old. Their history extends over hundreds of millions of years. Yet their origins, and the major evolutionary pathways they have followed, are still cloaked in mystery. This is largely because the fossil record of the fungi is fragmentary and disconnected. Organisms that live on land, and particularly such ephemera as most fungal fructifications, are much less likely to be fossilized than are marine organisms with hard parts. The paucity of fossil evidence has not deterred the cognoscenti among mycologists from a little judicious speculation, inevitably based largely on what we know about fungi that are alive today. This speculation is probably wrong in many respects and is usually heavily laced with the prejudices of its authors, but it is not necessarily a bad thing: students of the fungi need a conceptual framework on which to cut their teeth, and at which to aim their more mature criticisms. But we are still on shaky ground when we try to look into the evolutionary history of most modern fungi.




As I said, that's one helluva opening paragraph--a lot of humble admission.  Morphology and chemical testing are adequate conceptual frameworks as well.

Quote:

It is, then, all the more exciting to encounter an area of mycology in which not only the results of evolution, but also the starting points, and the steps in the process, can still be seen in living organisms.




Starting out by begging the question isn't such a good beginning.

And all this has happened, not in obscure microscopic fungi, but in conspicuous and fairly common mushrooms that can be held in the hand and compared. We now know that some mushrooms have given rise to radically changed but still viable descendants: relatives which, although often looking very different from their forebears, clearly betray their ancestry at the microscopic and molecular level.

Then surely you'll share how you came by this interpretation of the facts.  "We now know" requires proof, as an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.  Be sure to include that in your paper, Dr.  The phrase belies a level of hubris/certainty rarely attained in any field, let alone one without fossil documentation.

Let us see how this has happened in the well-known and easily recognized mushroom genus Lactarius (the "milky-caps": family Russulaceae, order Agaricales).

I look forward to it.

But before I describe the exciting changes we have seen, I must establish a base-line or starting point by describing how mushrooms usually develop, and what they do: how their form and function are interrelated. First, the thread-like mycelium, which permeates the soil and is often involved in an intimate and mutually beneficial mycorrhizal association with tree roots, must accumulate considerable reserves of food energy. Then conditions of temperature and moisture must be favourable. Finally, the mushroom begins its development underground, forming a clump of mycelium which differentiates into a "button," then rapidly expands upward and emerges from the earth as a characteristic structure with a central stalk or stipe, bearing an expanding circular cap or pileus. The top of the cap is covered by a skin or cutis. The thin, plate-like gills of Lactarius normally develop in a neat radial pattern (like the spokes of a wheel) on the under side of the expanding cap. The basidiospores will form on these gills. As the cap opens out like an umbrella, the gills assume a precise vertical orientation and are now ready to make and liberate spores.

The flat surfaces of the gills are covered by a fertile layer called a hymenium. This contains huge numbers of special cells called basidia, which produce and liberate astronomical numbers of spores. Each basidium bears four spores (sometimes more, occasionally fewer). These develop asymmetrically, in an offset manner, at the tips of four sterigmata, which are tiny projections from the mother cell. When ripe, the spores are delicately but deliberately launched into the air between the gills. They float slowly and gently downward until they emerge from the gills, and are then carried away like dust by air movement. In this way the fungus broadcasts its spores far and wide. The different genera and families of agarics often follow significantly different developmental pathways, some with gills exposed from the beginning, others with gills enclosed almost until maturity, but they all eventually arrive at the same endpoint, with vertical, exposed gills dropping spores into the air.

One of the ways in which we identify agarics is by placing a cap on a piece of white paper in a draftfree place and letting it drop millions of spores onto the paper overnight. The deposit will form a visible radiating pattern, which reflects the arrangement of the gills from which the spores came. This spore print may be white, cream, pink, brown or black, according to the mushroom genus which produces it. The spore print of Lactarius is white or cream coloured.

Everything I have said so far applies not just to Lactarius, but also to many other genera of mushrooms. So how does Lactarius differ from the rest? That's easy: it has a unique combination of three features which are not found together in any other genus of agarics.

[1] The cap and gills of Lactarius contain special cells filled with a milky juice or latex (white, yellow, orange or red) that oozes out in visible drops when the tissues are cut (and sometimes change colour after exposure to air).
[2] The flesh of Lactarius contains large numbers of swollen, thin-walled cells called sphaerocysts: these make the flesh extremely and characteristically brittle and granular.
[3] The spores of Lactarius are ornamented with conspicuous warts and spines, lines and ridges, which often join up to form a network. These ornamentations are chemically different from the rest of the spore wall, because they stain darkly (grey, blue, purple or black) in iodine, while the spore wall itself remains unstained, or stains only slightly. Ornamentation that gives this colour reaction is often described as iodine-positive, or amyloid.

Even beginners can easily identify Lactarius by the milky juice it exudes when the brittle flesh is broken: no other ordinary mushroom has anything like it.


Establishing a base-line is a wonderful idea if your target audience is a group of neophytes.  So far what you have described is pure science.  I like it; it gives the paper an air of credibility, especially if you are talking to easily-led believers.  There are some in the audience--I am one--that are a little beyond that.  I'm a skeptic of the highest order when it comes to hypothetical lineages invented to turn myco-taxonomy on its head.  Science needs to proceed slowly.  Old ideas are hard to kill, especially when they have yielded such great understanding.

But in addition to specimens of Lactarius as I have just described it, we occasionally find extraordinary specimens. Specimens which have a few important differences from the milky caps we are used to seeing. They are similar (and theoretically could therefore be included in the genus) because they have all three characters listed above: brittle flesh full of sphaerocysts; latex exuded when the tissues are ruptured; and spores with ornamentation that is iodine-positive. Yet they are different because their cap develops in such a way as to enclose their gills, and the gills are no longer vertical plates, but have become crumpled or convoluted to form a spongy, chambered mass. Since the cap remains closed, the spores obviously cannot escape. This sounds as if it would be a serious problem for the fungus: after all, have not mushrooms evolved to be spore-making and spore-launching machines? And if the spores are not released into the atmosphere, how will they be dispersed?

You've discovered new morphology.  That's wonderful!  Glad to hear it.


Yet if we remember that the lungs of land vertebrates evolved from the swim-bladders of their fish ancestors, and the wings of birds from the forearms of their earthbound reptilian ancestors, we will appreciate that evolution, guided by environmental forces, often drives organisms in unforeseen directions. Something of this kind appears to be happening to the Lactarius, and we must assume that some other way of dispersing the spores has been evolved.

I remember that story too.  But let's not get ahead of ourselves and confuse the neophytes.  Some of them probably want real answers, not speculation built upon speculation.  The last time I checked fungi weren't fish, birds or reptiles.  What you are describing is history, albeit natural history--an arena ripe with speculation sans necessary empirical truth.

If we now cut away the edge of the unopened cap which is obscuring the gills, and try to make a spore print, we will not succeed. No spores will be deposited. This is not because the mushroom is either unripe or overmature. If we examine some of the basidia under a microscope, we will see that they have produced mature basidiospores. But the basidia have subtly changed. The four spores tend to develop symmetrically (not offset) on the sterigmata, and they tend to remain attached to the sterigmata: they are never forcibly discharged, as they were in normal Lactarius fruit bodies.

More science and morphologically based.  Cool beans!  :cool:

These differences are important enough for taxonomists to conclude that the fungus can no longer be called a Lactarius, and it has been placed in a different genus, named Arcangeliella. This genus has sometimes been excluded from the family Russulaceae and even from the order Agaricales, and has instead been put in a separate order, the Hymenogastrales.

I think that is wonderful and fascinating!  Of course, with morphology such as that it deserves its own classification.  Nice work.  :thumbup:

But there is no doubt that it has evolved from Lactarius in relatively recent times, that it is still closely related to that genus, and that it should be retained in the Agaricales, and even in the Russulaceae.

No doubt?  And you're talking history?  Dr., there is certainly doubt in such cases.  Perhaps you convince too easily.  Where is the requisite evidence/proof?  You know, that molecular stuff you were talking about.

Arcangeliella still looks very like a mushroom, even if its behaviour is a little strange. But we have found other specimens which have evolved even further away from Lactarius. These specimens develop, and remain, just below the surface of the ground, looking rather like truffles. They are rounded or irregular in shape. The skin that covered the Lactarius now completely surrounds the truffle-like specimens. They have no stalk. There are no gills: the hymenium lines labyrinthine chambers. And the basidiospores, now sitting straight on the sterigmata of the basidia, are not actively shot away.

Note that the outer skin and often the walls of the labyrinthine spore-bearing tissues contain sphaerocysts; latex oozes from the cut surfaces of fresh specimens; and the spores have spiny or ridged ornamentation that stains dark in iodine. Once again, the three diagnostic characters of Lactarius. A vestige of a stalk may even occur in the form of a pad of sterile tissue inside the base of the fruit body; the walls of the labyrinthine chambers could be derived from crumpled gills; and the presence of sterigmata on the basidia is a reminder that these structures were originally evolved as part of a mechanism to launch spores into the air.

Yet it would be stretching the concept of Lactarius beyond the breaking point to include these specimens in it: surely no-one would call them agarics. It is also clear that they are considerably more "reduced" even than those placed in Arcangeliella. So mycologists put them in another new genus, called Zelleromyces.

Although Zelleromyces differs from both Arcangeliella and Lactarius in important ways, the fact that it has latex, sphaerocysts and iodine-positive (amyloid) spore ornamentation is a compelling argument for keeping it in the family Russulaceae of the order Agaricales. After all, this disposition seems to best reflect its true relationships. Arcangeliella and Zelleromyces are what we now call sequestrate (see the note below) derivatives of the original agaric. The word sequestrate implies that they sequester or retain their spores, rather than broadcasting them into the air. This retentive habit, diagnosed by spores sitting symmetrically on the sterigmata of non-shooting basidia, is clearly characteristic of both genera.


New classification based on morphology as far as I can see.  I think it's :omgawesome:

Before drawing the first part of this discussion to a close, I must address one final issue. If these sequestrate genera share all the essential diagnostic features of Lactarius, how are we to distinguish the Lactarius we all know from its sequestrate derivatives? It is apparent that the three diagnostic characters I described earlier must be supplemented by three more, as follows:

[4] the cap of a true Lactarius expands at maturity and the gills are exposed.
[5] its gills are vertically oriented.
[6] its basidiospores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata and are forcibly discharged at maturity.

If the Lactarius -> Arcangeliella -> Zelleromyces sequence was the only case in which this strange evolutionary sequence had been observed, we might be able to dismiss it as a quirk of evolution, a freak. But we have evidence that similar pathways have evolved in other mushroom genera. These will be explored in the second part of this article, in the next two issues of BEN.


1)  Evidence is what you failed to provide, Dr.  You have described some transitions that appear as if they are a logical sequence.  They might be, they might not.

The term "sequestrate" has recently been introduced (Kendrick 1992) to describe all these closed or hypogeous offshoots of regular fungi. It means that the spores are sequestered or hidden away, kept from contact with the outside world, at least until the fruit body decays or is eaten. The term sequestrate appears to be a more useful and more widely applicable term than such frequently-used words as 'gastroid' (which inappropriately implies close relationship with gasteromycetes) and 'secotioid,' an arcane word suggesting similarity with the genus Secotium (which is a sequestrate derivative of Agaricus). Most amateur and many professional mycologists have never seen Secotium, so the term derived from that name conveys little or no meaning.
In the first article, I described how various members of the mushroom genus Lactarius (family Russulaceae, order Agaricales) had evolved into rather strange forms. They had kept their distinctive microscopic characters: latex-producing cells which exude a unique milky fluid when broken; thin-walled, swollen sphaerocysts which make the tissues of the mushroom characteristically brittle; and a distinctive spore ornamentation of spines and ridges which often form a network, and which stain dark blue or almost black in iodine (what we call the amyloid, I , or starch-like reaction). But the fruit bodies had taken on a distinctive appearance and also appeared to function rather differently.


All science, all good.  (minus the putative evolution of Lactarius, of course)

In these evolutionary offshoots

Supposition and will remain so until the required extraordinary evidence is provided.  We have been shown a logical sequence based on morphology.  We can be content to leave it there.  Let's build science on what we know, not what we think we know.

, three things have changed: (1) the peridium remains attached to the stipe at maturity, so the gills are not exposed to the outside atmosphere; (2) the gills are no longer plate-like, and are not oriented in a precise vertical plane; and (3) the spores are not forcibly discharged from the sterigmata. So despite having the characters listed earlier as being diagnostic of Lactarius, these forms are put in a separate genus, Arcangeliella, because the differences, especially the loss of the spore-shooting mechanism so characteristic of most basidiomycetes, are regarded as being of some basic biological importance. They affect the reproductive strategy of the organisms and therefore need to be taken account of when the taxonomy of the group is being established.

Whether a loss is the case is a matter of speculation.  Nevertheless, the facts are fascinating.

There are also even more reduced forms, in which the fruit body develops underground, the stipe is lost, and the gill tissues have become so folded and convoluted as to assume a spongy, chambered appearance: they are no longer gills, though they still bear basidia and produce basidiospores. So although these forms still have latex, sphaerocysts and amyloid spore ornamentation, they have been segregated in a third genus, Zelleromyces.

I concluded by saying that the Lactarius - Arcangeliella - Zelleromyces evolutionary pathway is not unique. In this second article, I will describe other similar developmental phenomena that have come to light, and the way in which they are now being interpreted.


At least you admit interpretation is key.  You have yours; I have mine.  I surmise the philosophical chasm between is an abyss.

The family Russulaceae, as understood by many mycologists, contains only two genera. We have already looked at one of them, Lactarius. Now let's consider the other one, Russula. This genus is very easy to recognize in the field, and (along with Lactarius) is one of the first genera the beginning amateur mycologist learns to identify. Russula has substantial fruit bodies, often with brightly coloured caps, stout stipes, and beautifully regular, white or cream-coloured gills. The caps, stipes and gills are brittle because their tissues contain clusters of round, thin-walled, turgid sphaerocysts. And the basidiospores have spiny, ridged and often net-like ornamentation that stains blue in iodine. Russula shares these two characters with Lactarius (which is why they are in the same family: these features are not found in any other agarics). But Russula has no laticiferous cells, and so does not produce latex (milk). This immediately distinguishes it from Lactarius, the milky cap, at least in most young, fresh collections.

Specimens are sometimes found which match the genus Russula in most ways, yet the peridium remains intact, attached to the stipe, and the gills are not exposed, even at maturity. In such specimens it will be seen that the hymenium has become highly convoluted or lacunose. Microscopic examination shows that sphaerocysts are present in the tissues, and the basidiospores do have blue-staining ornamentation; but although the attachment of the spores to the sterigmata is still somewhat asymmetrical or offset, those spores are not forcibly discharged. That is enough to exclude these specimens from Russula, and they have been placed in a separate genus, Macowanites.

Other atypical russuloid fungi have been found which resemble Macowanites in many ways: they still have sphaerocysts throughout the tissues, and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But they develop underground, and do not emerge, even at maturity. The external stipe has been lost, although a stipe remnant, in the form of a vertical column of sterile tissue, may still run through the fruit body. The spores, which are not forcibly liberated, are now symmetrically attached to their sterigmata. And the hymenium is no longer on recognizable gills, but lines convoluted or labyrinthine chambers. These specimens are segregated in the truffle-like genus Gymnomyces.


Brilliant science stuff.  I am delighted to see such intricate morphology discussed at the Shroomery.

But this is not all. A second line of reduced forms appears to have originated from Russula.

Back to history, not so brilliant--supposition.  Appearances can be deceiving.

Some of these resemble Russula in many ways, having a stalk and a cap, sphaerocysts in the outer tissues and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But the gills have entirely lost their vertical orientation and perhaps even their integrity. The fruit body is now filled with a spongy mass in which the hymenium lines finely convoluted chambers whose walls lack sphaerocysts. And although the spores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata, they are not discharged. This is the genus Elasmomyces.

Other specimens, while retaining sphaerocysts in their outer tissues and amyloid spore ornamentation, have retreated (or rather, remained) underground, have lost their stalk, and have become essentially truffle-like. Their internal arrangements are rather like those of Gymnomyces, but although they have sphaerocysts in their outer tissues, they have none in the walls of the hymenial chambers. These fungi are placed in the genus Martellia.


Morphology rules.  :woot:

So, with a little imagination, we can visualize three lines of evolution, beginning with "normal" members of the family Russulaceae, mushrooms like Russula and Lactarius, and ending in truffle-like fungi which fruit underground.

I'm a scientist, not a visionary.  John Lennon would have liked it though.

Imagine three lines of evolution,

it's easy if you try...


Notice that the Russulaceae really contains not just two, but no fewer than eight genera, and that six of them, while microscopically "correct," do not give spore prints.

:cool:

By now, you may suspect that there must be other such strange evolutionary pathways hiding among the rest of the agarics, and even in other groups of fungi. And your suspicion would be correct.

I suspect nothing about some made-up stories.  I would surmise, however, based on your research dealing with morphology these cases aren't the only ones.

In fact, no fewer than 14 _ yes fourteen _ mushroom families have given rise to closed or underground forms which are treated as separate taxa. Let me sketch for you these lines of evolution as they are understood at present:

Evolution revolution, where is the evidence?  As you said in the beginning, you're on shaky ground, Dr.

  1. Russulaceae - see above

  2. Cortinariaceae: the genus Cortinarius gets its name from the presence on the expanding basidioma of a special filamentous or cobwebby partial veil called a cortina (from the Italian for curtain). Many species also have brightly coloured caps. The basidiospores are rusty-brown in mass, and characteristically ornamented. Cortinarius has some species in which the partial veil does not open. But since the basidia still shoot their spores (they end up sitting on the inside of the veil), these species are retained in Cortinarius. In other Cortinarius-like specimens, the cap also remains closed, but careful examination shows that these have lost both the spore-shooting mechanism and the vertical plate-like organization of the gills: a section shows that the hymenium-bearing tissue has become convoluted and labyrinthine or spongy. These "aberrant" forms have been placed in the genus Thaxterogaster.

      Some species of Thaxterogaster seem to have lost their external stipe, but there is still a central column of white sterile tissue running up the middle of the fruit body. Other offshoots of Cortinarius have become entirely hypogeous, never emerging above the surface of the soil. These have lost all semblance of stipe and gills, look just like a truffle, and have been put in the genus Hymenogaster, although their basidiospores still closely resemble those of Cortinarius.


We don't know if anybody lost anything because you have given the requisite data to back up your claims.

  3. Agaricaceae: the genus Agaricus has given rise to sequestrate forms placed in the genera Endoptychum and Longula.

  4. Lepiotaceae: Notholepiota is a sequestrate member of this family.

  5. Amanitaceae: Torrendia is a sequestrate segregate of Amanita.

  6. Bolbitiaceae: this family has given rise to a common and widespread sequestrate form called Gastrocybe. This is a strange fungus which appears in the grass during hot, humid weather. A narrowly conical, wet-looking brown cap arises on a long, narrow, delicate white stipe, which soon flops over. The spores sit squarely and persistently on the sterigmata. The whole cap soon dissolves into a slimy mass, which sticks to the grass. The spores never become airborne. We tend to assume that these spores are dispersed by grazing arthropods, although there is as yet no hard data to support that hypothesis.


No hard data? I'm shocked.  The rest of your paper seems packed with it not.

  7. Coprinaceae: Coprinus has given rise to a sequestrate form which is known as the desert shaggy mane. This fungus, which is put into the genus Podaxis, looks externally very like Coprinus comatus. Yet when a mature cap is cut open, the inside is seen to be filled, not with closely-packed, upwardly deliquescing gills, but with a dry mass of black spores, which will eventually blow away like dust when the outer skin of the fruit body erodes away or breaks. I have an excellent videotape sequence of this happening to a large specimen growing out of a termite mound in Africa (the Podaxis, unlike Termitomyces, apparently does not enjoy a mutualistically symbiotic relationship with the termites). The relationship of Podaxis with Coprinus is confirmed by the fact that under wet conditions, Podaxis, too, can undergo some deliquescence or self-digestion.

Yes, a triangle is related to a square.  We know this based on morphology.  I don't think they evolved, do you?  Are Podaxis related morphologically to Coprinus?  Obviously.

  8. Strophariaceae: Stropharia is the presumed ancestor of the sequestrate genera Nivatogastrium and Weraroa.

  9. Entolomataceae: Entoloma has spawned the sequestrate Richonia, the relationship being established by the pink colour and the distinctive angular shape of Richonia spores, which are almost identical to the spores of Entoloma itself. Nolanea may have given rise to Rhodogaster.


Or it may not.  Thanks for leaving the answer open.

10. Tricholomataceae: Hydnangium appears to be a sequestrate derivative of Laccaria.

Appearances...

11. Gomphidiaceae: Gomphidius has hived off the sequestrate genus Gomphigaster, and Chroogomphus has produced Brauniellula.

You don't know this, and now, after the lack of evidence, neither do we.  I'm disinclined to take your word for it.

12. Paxillaceae: Austrogaster and Gymnopaxillus are sequestrate derivatives.

Morphologically or evolutionarily?

  13. Boletaceae: Boletus, Suillus and Leccinum have spawned above-ground sequestrate forms in Gastroboletus, Gastrosuillus and Gastroleccinum. Alpova, Truncocolumella and the extremely common Rhizopogon are below-ground, sequestrate derivatives of Suillus. The techniques of molecular biology have recently shown that, at least for certain parts of its genome, Rhizopogon is very closely related to the epigeous, spore-shooting Suillus (more closely, in fact, than Suillus is related to other genera of boletes).

  14. Strobilomycetaceae: Gautieria is a fairly common hypogeous derivative, probably of Boletellus.


Lots of qualifiers.  They reveal a tentativeness in your conclusions.  :thumbup:

I have not mentioned all the sequestrate genera connected with the families listed in Part 2: many of them are rare, or are known only from the southern hemisphere. But I have given you enough information to realize that the evolution of sequestrate forms is a widespread phenomenon. And from what I have said about the Russulaceae and the Boletaceae, it will be obvious that more than one evolutionary pathway may evolve within a single family, and perhaps even within a single genus.

Obvious if a person is easily led.  You must be talking to a neophyte or someone who wants to "believe."  I am neither.  And as far as information is concerned, you haven't given anyone shit.  Don't bullshit a bullshiter Dr.

One or two interesting questions arise from my survey.

I have more questions than that; mine involve evidence.

Why have sequestrate forms evolved?

Begging the question again, I see.  A better question would be, "Did they evolve?"

Quote:

The generally accepted explanation is that during dry periods of the Earth's recent history some mushrooms mutated in such a way as to remain closed, and lose their spore-shooting mechanism. This gave these lines a selective advantage over those which exposed their gills to the hot, dry air. It is easier to maintain an appropriate level of humidity for spore development inside a closed fruit body. The next step, of remaining underground, is another way of escaping drought. Of course, once the spores are retained inside the fruit body, or kept underground, the problem of dispersal arises. In many cases, this has been solved by involving small mammals as vectors. That means evolving mechanisms for attracting these mammals and getting them to dig up or eat the fruit bodies. So one kind of adaptive change is complicated by the need for other adaptations. But that is what evolution is all about, and any organism that survives and propagates itself has obviously hit on a successful, or at least a functional, combination.




The "generally accepted explanation" is often referred to as the "default position."  It explains nothing whatsoever other than an interpretation of the morphological facts.  Next time I need a bedtime story I'll be sure to call you.

It is less easy to explain the geographic distribution of these sequestrate and hypogeous forms, since they appear to be concentrated in such areas as western North America, parts of South America, New Zealand and Australia, and to be relatively few in number in other areas such as eastern North America and northern Europe.

No sequestrate fungi have yet been connected with two agaric families, the Hygrophoraceae and the Pluteaceae. Do such fungi exist, and have we simply not seen or recognized them? And although the Tricholomataceae is a very large and diverse family of agarics, a sequestrate derivative (Hydnangium) is known only for Laccaria. Why have none of the other more than 30 widely recognized and often very common genera in this family produced sequestrate offshoots? Or have we simply not yet found them, or recognized them for what they are?

In most cases, the sequestrate forms are much less common than their spore-shooting ancestors (though this is not true of Rhizopogon). Is this scarcity more apparent than real because they are more difficult to find, since many of them grow below-ground? Does it indicate that most of these fungi are no more than rather unsuccessful evolutionary experiments, on their way to extinction? Or have they arisen so recently that they have not yet had time to spread very far?

How long ago did the oldest, and the youngest, of these fungi arise? This question, at least, we may attempt to solve by means of our newly acquired molecular techniques, which can measure the amount, and the rate, of change in the genetic material. Could sequestrate forms be appearing regularly, even now? Are the changes taking place gradually, as the necessary mutations slowly accumulate in mushrooms. Or do they appear suddenly and sporadically as a result of what is called "punctuated" evolution, involving larger jumps during periods of great environmental stress?


:rofl2:  I love a comedian!

Seriously though, where is that solution by means of your newly acquired molecular techniques and genetic material?  That's the part I want to see.  Even then, it isn't the required extraordinary evidence needed to prop up your claim.  Get it and bring it to us.  I want to see it.

:popcorn:

Quote:

Why has all this happened? Is it the new trend among mushrooms? Will all mushrooms eventually become sequestrate? Will our descendants have to dig if they want to see the fall flush of fleshy fungi, or fill their cooking pots with boletes and other fine edibles? Only, I suspect, if the greenhouse effect goes all the way and our climate becomes much drier and hotter than it is now. But we'll have to wait and see.




Right now I'm waiting for evidence other than morphology.  So far, nada.

We are not yet in a position to answer all of those questions, but at least we know know that there is a wide range of such fungi out there. There is a message here for the amateur: Don't just throw away those aberrant closed or distorted or partly hypogeous agarics. Cut them open to see if their gills are normal vertical plates, and check them to see whether they can be persuaded to yield a spore print. If the answer to both of the above is no, then you may very well have a sequestrate fungus on your hands. One of the professional agaricologists in your area should be able to check this. If it is indeed one of these most recently evolved taxa, you may congratulate yourself on your sharp eyes, and science may thank you for one more piece of the evidence we need to unravel this great jigsaw puzzle.

Evidence?  We need plenty of it, you more than most.

I'll be on the lookout for sequestrate fungi.  Thanks for the tip.  :thumbup:

Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (12/27/08 05:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #9503591 - 12/27/08 05:53 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

falcon said:
Muy rico, Cactu,

Lots of info in your first post in this thread, can't digest it in one go.




yeah . i also enjoy to digest information, the theme of sequestrate fungi is amazing is a part of the puzzle i hope you can come in later on with some ideas, reflexion, pictures, words or whetever ,can open more light in this subject.

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

cactu said:

EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? PART 1
From: Dr. Bryce Kendrick (mycolog@pacificcoast.net)

[Kendrick, B. 1994.
    Evolution in action: from mushrooms to truffles. I. McIlvainea 11 (2): 34-38.]

The fungi are very old. Their history extends over hundreds of millions of years. Yet their origins, and the major evolutionary pathways they have followed, are still cloaked in mystery. This is largely because the fossil record of the fungi is fragmentary and disconnected. Organisms that live on land, and particularly such ephemera as most fungal fructifications, are much less likely to be fossilized than are marine organisms with hard parts. The paucity of fossil evidence has not deterred the cognoscenti among mycologists from a little judicious speculation, inevitably based largely on what we know about fungi that are alive today. This speculation is probably wrong in many respects and is usually heavily laced with the prejudices of its authors, but it is not necessarily a bad thing: students of the fungi need a conceptual framework on which to cut their teeth, and at which to aim their more mature criticisms. But we are still on shaky ground when we try to look into the evolutionary history of most modern fungi.






Well, I don't have time at the moment to critique the whole thing but I'll say this.  That's one helluva first paragraph!

As an aside I'll say this.  Morphology and chemical testing provide, and have provided, a conceptual framework from which to work.  Without morphology, DNA analyses are meaningless.

Nice thread.  :thumbup:




for sure all is part of the learning process, it was until dna analises where carry on many sequestrate fungi that people  began to understand the origin in  agaricoid forms, so this is when morphology became obsolet or useless, and dna come handy , but fro example is very informative  morphology and chemical testing to prove that the cells of certaing  sequestrate fungi are the same as the lactarius agaricoid form. so i agree what you said. hope we can get dipper in the subject and not just scratch the surface.:)


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9503616 - 12/27/08 05:59 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Me too, mi amigo.

What I'd like to see is some hard evidence for the lineages, not supposition or mumbo-jumbo.  Then again, history is history and science is science.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 17 minutes, 56 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9503668 - 12/27/08 06:11 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Hey Cactu,  these are the only kind of truffles I've found,



I found them because an animal, probably a squirrel had started eating
them and then left. I'd like to find more truffles.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #9503865 - 12/27/08 06:54 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Ok, let me give this a brief, fuller treatment.

Quote:

cactu said:



Starting out by begging the question isn't such a good beginning.
-my point it o discuss the subject all details you can take care no problem .




Then surely you'll share how you came by this interpretation of the facts.  "We now know" requires proof, as an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.  Be sure to include that in your paper, Dr.  The phrase belies a level of hubris/certainty rarely attained in any field, let alone one without fossil documentation.

i guees this pleople really are working in the subject since long ago look the dates 1997 , and this is only a paper for comoond people to understand not scientifics. his paper is more  dificult to digest.


Let us see how this has happened in the well-known and easily recognized mushroom genus Lactarius (the "milky-caps": family Russulaceae, order Agaricales).

I look forward to it.


Establishing a base-line is a wonderful idea if your target audience is a group of neophytes.  So far what you have described is pure science.  I like it; it gives the paper an air of credibility,  especially if you are talking to easily-led believers.  There are some in the audience--I am one--that are a little beyond that.  I'm a skeptic of the highest order when it comes to hypothetical lineages invented to turn myco-taxonomy on its head.  Science needs to proceed slowly.  Old ideas are hard to kill, especially when they have yielded such great understanding.

- i wish you can tell me what you dont believe and i will beging with that, and what are you discusing , really like to know that. the fact are many if you dont like to see then is ok , but for sure  many secotoid form are apearing in all genera , and the list is very long for something i think was  rare, it really is not,i love you men  just like to dig more in the subject . 

But in addition to specimens of Lactarius as I have just described it, we occasionally find extraordinary specimens. Specimens which have a few important differences from the milky caps we are used to seeing. They are similar (and theoretically could therefore be included in the genus) because they have all three characters listed above: brittle flesh full of sphaerocysts; latex exuded when the tissues are ruptured; and spores with ornamentation that is iodine-positive. Yet they are different because their cap develops in such a way as to enclose their gills, and the gills are no longer vertical plates, but have become crumpled or convoluted to form a spongy, chambered mass. Since the cap remains closed, the spores obviously cannot escape. This sounds as if it would be a serious problem for the fungus: after all, have not mushrooms evolved to be spore-making and spore-launching machines? And if the spores are not released into the atmosphere, how will they be dispersed?

You've discovered new morphology.  That's wonderful!  Glad to hear it.


Yet if we remember that the lungs of land vertebrates evolved from the swim-bladders of their fish ancestors, and the wings of birds from the forearms of their earthbound reptilian ancestors, we will appreciate that evolution, guided by environmental forces, often drives organisms in unforeseen directions. Something of this kind appears to be happening to the Lactarius, and we must assume that some other way of dispersing the spores has been evolved.

I remember that story too.  But let's not get ahead of ourselves and confuse the neophytes.  Some of them probably want real answers, not speculation built upon speculation.  The last time I checked fungi weren't fish, birds or reptiles.  What you are describing is history, albeit natural history--an arena ripe with speculation sans necessary empirical truth.
please  men , you are traslading for the neophytes word by word , not good , the guy is just given you ideas , not imposing his beliefs. that will hapend later on in scholl.

If we now cut away the edge of the unopened cap which is obscuring the gills, and try to make a spore print, we will not succeed. No spores will be deposited. This is not because the mushroom is either unripe or overmature. If we examine some of the basidia under a microscope, we will see that they have produced mature basidiospores. But the basidia have subtly changed. The four spores tend to develop symmetrically (not offset) on the sterigmata, and they tend to remain attached to the sterigmata: they are never forcibly discharged, as they were in normal Lactarius fruit bodies.

More science and morphologically based.  Cool beans!  :cool:

These differences are important enough for taxonomists to conclude that the fungus can no longer be called a Lactarius, and it has been placed in a different genus, named Arcangeliella. This genus has sometimes been excluded from the family Russulaceae and even from the order Agaricales, and has instead been put in a separate order, the Hymenogastrales.

I think that is wonderful and fascinating!  Of course, with morphology such as that it deserves its own classification.  Nice work.  :thumbup:
you see  you got youself , haha , you are making a new clasification of the same mushrooms , is good i mean we can study  more easy that maybe, you see dont matter where you put it  it always be a clasification that will be changing is not good to be atach of clasification they can change as our understanding in mushrooms change, here in the shroomery we give corect id we say , and we never handle a mushroom in hand , so is not this a bit of especulation? now you will agree that to make changes you have to imagine then to elavorate in your mind the subject. it will be tremendous tedious if we only see what is on the paper and we dont go beyond with our mind , what good scientific do is to philosopy with and idea , dream about it, and then make it real, i try people to dream, let the scientific , fight later on , but if you dream you will got to a real conclucion as all scientific do right ?after you land  first.
But there is no doubt that it has evolved from Lactarius in relatively recent times, that it is still closely related to that genus, and that it should be retained in the Agaricales, and even in the Russulaceae.

No doubt?  And you're talking history?  Dr., there is certainly doubt in such cases.  Perhaps you convince too easily.  Where is the requisite evidence/proof?  You know, that molecular stuff you were talking about.
:rofl: i got it now you a kidding  in a way , is your way of do things.:thumbup:

Arcangeliella still looks very like a mushroom, even if its behaviour is a little strange. But we have found other specimens which have evolved even further away from Lactarius. These specimens develop, and remain, just below the surface of the ground, looking rather like truffles. They are rounded or irregular in shape. The skin that covered the Lactarius now completely surrounds the truffle-like specimens. They have no stalk. There are no gills: the hymenium lines labyrinthine chambers. And the basidiospores, now sitting straight on the sterigmata of the basidia, are not actively shot away.

Note that the outer skin and often the walls of the labyrinthine spore-bearing tissues contain sphaerocysts; latex oozes from the cut surfaces of fresh specimens; and the spores have spiny or ridged ornamentation that stains dark in iodine. Once again, the three diagnostic characters of Lactarius. A vestige of a stalk may even occur in the form of a pad of sterile tissue inside the base of the fruit body; the walls of the labyrinthine chambers could be derived from crumpled gills; and the presence of sterigmata on the basidia is a reminder that these structures were originally evolved as part of a mechanism to launch spores into the air.

Yet it would be stretching the concept of Lactarius beyond the breaking point to include these specimens in it: surely no-one would call them agarics. It is also clear that they are considerably more "reduced" even than those placed in Arcangeliella. So mycologists put them in another new genus, called Zelleromyces.

Although Zelleromyces differs from both Arcangeliella and Lactarius in important ways, the fact that it has latex, sphaerocysts and iodine-positive (amyloid) spore ornamentation is a compelling argument for keeping it in the family Russulaceae of the order Agaricales. After all, this disposition seems to best reflect its true relationships. Arcangeliella and Zelleromyces are what we now call sequestrate (see the note below) derivatives of the original agaric. The word sequestrate implies that they sequester or retain their spores, rather than broadcasting them into the air. This retentive habit, diagnosed by spores sitting symmetrically on the sterigmata of non-shooting basidia, is clearly characteristic of both genera.


New classification based on morphology as far as I can see.  I think it's :omgawesome:

Before drawing the first part of this discussion to a close, I must address one final issue. If these sequestrate genera share all the essential diagnostic features of Lactarius, how are we to distinguish the Lactarius we all know from its sequestrate derivatives? It is apparent that the three diagnostic characters I described earlier must be supplemented by three more, as follows:

[4] the cap of a true Lactarius expands at maturity and the gills are exposed.
[5] its gills are vertically oriented.
[6] its basidiospores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata and are forcibly discharged at maturity.

If the Lactarius -> Arcangeliella -> Zelleromyces sequence was the only case in which this strange evolutionary sequence had been observed, we might be able to dismiss it as a quirk of evolution, a freak. But we have evidence that similar pathways have evolved in other mushroom genera. These will be explored in the second part of this article, in the next two issues of BEN.


1)  Evidence is what you failed to provide, Dr.  You have described some transitions that appear as if they are a logical sequence.  They might be, they might not.

The term "sequestrate" has recently been introduced (Kendrick 1992) to describe all these closed or hypogeous offshoots of regular fungi. It means that the spores are sequestered or hidden away, kept from contact with the outside world, at least until the fruit body decays or is eaten. The term sequestrate appears to be a more useful and more widely applicable term than such frequently-used words as 'gastroid' (which inappropriately implies close relationship with gasteromycetes) and 'secotioid,' an arcane word suggesting similarity with the genus Secotium (which is a sequestrate derivative of Agaricus). Most amateur and many professional mycologists have never seen Secotium, so the term derived from that name conveys little or no meaning.
In the first article, I described how various members of the mushroom genus Lactarius (family Russulaceae, order Agaricales) had evolved into rather strange forms. They had kept their distinctive microscopic characters: latex-producing cells which exude a unique milky fluid when broken; thin-walled, swollen sphaerocysts which make the tissues of the mushroom characteristically brittle; and a distinctive spore ornamentation of spines and ridges which often form a network, and which stain dark blue or almost black in iodine (what we call the amyloid, I , or starch-like reaction). But the fruit bodies had taken on a distinctive appearance and also appeared to function rather differently.


All science, all good.  (minus the putative evolution of Lactarius, of course)

In these evolutionary offshoots

Supposition and will remain so until the required extraordinary evidence is provided.  We have been shown a logical sequence based on morphology.  We can be content to leave it there.  Let's build science on what we know, not what we think we know.

, three things have changed: (1) the peridium remains attached to the stipe at maturity, so the gills are not exposed to the outside atmosphere; (2) the gills are no longer plate-like, and are not oriented in a precise vertical plane; and (3) the spores are not forcibly discharged from the sterigmata. So despite having the characters listed earlier as being diagnostic of Lactarius, these forms are put in a separate genus, Arcangeliella, because the differences, especially the loss of the spore-shooting mechanism so characteristic of most basidiomycetes, are regarded as being of some basic biological importance. They affect the reproductive strategy of the organisms and therefore need to be taken account of when the taxonomy of the group is being established.

Whether a loss is the case is a matter of speculation.  Nevertheless, the facts are fascinating.glad you actually take alook at the fact you are welcome to do your own researh but please dont do as other do look information to buried the other , no look for the truth ...

There are also even more reduced forms, in which the fruit body develops underground, the stipe is lost, and the gill tissues have become so folded and convoluted as to assume a spongy, chambered appearance: they are no longer gills, though they still bear basidia and produce basidiospores. So although these forms still have latex, sphaerocysts and amyloid spore ornamentation, they have been segregated in a third genus, Zelleromyces.

I concluded by saying that the Lactarius - Arcangeliella - Zelleromyces evolutionary pathway is not unique. In this second article, I will describe other similar developmental phenomena that have come to light, and the way in which they are now being interpreted.


At least you admit interpretation is key.  You have yours; I have mine.  I surmise the philosophical chasm between is an abyss.

The family Russulaceae, as understood by many mycologists, contains only two genera. We have already looked at one of them, Lactarius. Now let's consider the other one, Russula. This genus is very easy to recognize in the field, and (along with Lactarius) is one of the first genera the beginning amateur mycologist learns to identify. Russula has substantial fruit bodies, often with brightly coloured caps, stout stipes, and beautifully regular, white or cream-coloured gills. The caps, stipes and gills are brittle because their tissues contain clusters of round, thin-walled, turgid sphaerocysts. And the basidiospores have spiny, ridged and often net-like ornamentation that stains blue in iodine. Russula shares these two characters with Lactarius (which is why they are in the same family: these features are not found in any other agarics). But Russula has no laticiferous cells, and so does not produce latex (milk). This immediately distinguishes it from Lactarius, the milky cap, at least in most young, fresh collections.

Specimens are sometimes found which match the genus Russula in most ways, yet the peridium remains intact, attached to the stipe, and the gills are not exposed, even at maturity. In such specimens it will be seen that the hymenium has become highly convoluted or lacunose. Microscopic examination shows that sphaerocysts are present in the tissues, and the basidiospores do have blue-staining ornamentation; but although the attachment of the spores to the sterigmata is still somewhat asymmetrical or offset, those spores are not forcibly discharged. That is enough to exclude these specimens from Russula, and they have been placed in a separate genus, Macowanites.

Other atypical russuloid fungi have been found which resemble Macowanites in many ways: they still have sphaerocysts throughout the tissues, and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But they develop underground, and do not emerge, even at maturity. The external stipe has been lost, although a stipe remnant, in the form of a vertical column of sterile tissue, may still run through the fruit body. The spores, which are not forcibly liberated, are now symmetrically attached to their sterigmata. And the hymenium is no longer on recognizable gills, but lines convoluted or labyrinthine chambers. These specimens are segregated in the truffle-like genus Gymnomyces.


Brilliant science stuff.  I am delighted to see such intricate morphology discussed at the Shroomery. i will never discuss morphology  with you is a no win  battle haha

But this is not all. A second line of reduced forms appears to have originated from Russula.

Back to history, not so brilliant--supposition.  Appearances can be deceiving.is in dna  studies too , haha  you should read more about in the subject it took me 2 years to make this post...

Some of these resemble Russula in many ways, having a stalk and a cap, sphaerocysts in the outer tissues and spores with amyloid ornamentation. But the gills have entirely lost their vertical orientation and perhaps even their integrity. The fruit body is now filled with a spongy mass in which the hymenium lines finely convoluted chambers whose walls lack sphaerocysts. And although the spores are asymmetrically mounted on the sterigmata, they are not discharged. This is the genus Elasmomyces.

Other specimens, while retaining sphaerocysts in their outer tissues and amyloid spore ornamentation, have retreated (or rather, remained) underground, have lost their stalk, and have become essentially truffle-like. Their internal arrangements are rather like those of Gymnomyces, but although they have sphaerocysts in their outer tissues, they have none in the walls of the hymenial chambers. These fungi are placed in the genus Martellia.


Morphology rules.  :woot:

So, with a little imagination, we can visualize three lines of evolution, beginning with "normal" members of the family Russulaceae, mushrooms like Russula and Lactarius, and ending in truffle-like fungi which fruit underground.

I'm a scientist, not a visionary.  John Lennon would have liked it though.
i can belive so ..the fact evidence that rizhopogon are more  close realated to suillus  is just  visionary , men i tell you there is many information on the subject why you said that?,
Imagine three lines of evolution,

it's easy if you try...


Notice that the Russulaceae really contains not just two, but no fewer than eight genera, and that six of them, while microscopically "correct," do not give spore prints.

:cool:

By now, you may suspect that there must be other such strange evolutionary pathways hiding among the rest of the agarics, and even in other groups of fungi. And your suspicion would be correct.

I suspect nothing about some made-up stories.  I would surmise, however, based on your research dealing with morphology these cases aren't the only ones.haha  y ou amaze me i hope and aline plane abduct you and then we took about it .  just kidding as i guees you are , that silly ....

In fact, no fewer than 14 _ yes fourteen _ mushroom families have given rise to closed or underground forms which are treated as separate taxa. Let me sketch for you these lines of evolution as they are understood at present:

Evolution revolution, where is the evidence?  As you said in the beginning, you're on shaky ground, Dr.

  1. Russulaceae - see above

  2. Cortinariaceae: the genus Cortinarius gets its name from the presence on the expanding basidioma of a special filamentous or cobwebby partial veil called a cortina (from the Italian for curtain). Many species also have brightly coloured caps. The basidiospores are rusty-brown in mass, and characteristically ornamented. Cortinarius has some species in which the partial veil does not open. But since the basidia still shoot their spores (they end up sitting on the inside of the veil), these species are retained in Cortinarius. In other Cortinarius-like specimens, the cap also remains closed, but careful examination shows that these have lost both the spore-shooting mechanism and the vertical plate-like organization of the gills: a section shows that the hymenium-bearing tissue has become convoluted and labyrinthine or spongy. These "aberrant" forms have been placed in the genus Thaxterogaster.

      Some species of Thaxterogaster seem to have lost their external stipe, but there is still a central column of white sterile tissue running up the middle of the fruit body. Other offshoots of Cortinarius have become entirely hypogeous, never emerging above the surface of the soil. These have lost all semblance of stipe and gills, look just like a truffle, and have been put in the genus Hymenogaster, although their basidiospores still closely resemble those of Cortinarius.


We don't know if anybody lost anything because you have given the requisite data to back up your claims.those data are in internet sorry if do not provide then all but you can look for then instead.

  3. Agaricaceae: the genus Agaricus has given rise to sequestrate forms placed in the genera Endoptychum and Longula.

  4. Lepiotaceae: Notholepiota is a sequestrate member of this family.

  5. Amanitaceae: Torrendia is a sequestrate segregate of Amanita.

  6. Bolbitiaceae: this family has given rise to a common and widespread sequestrate form called Gastrocybe. This is a strange fungus which appears in the grass during hot, humid weather. A narrowly conical, wet-looking brown cap arises on a long, narrow, delicate white stipe, which soon flops over. The spores sit squarely and persistently on the sterigmata. The whole cap soon dissolves into a slimy mass, which sticks to the grass. The spores never become airborne. We tend to assume that these spores are dispersed by grazing arthropods, although there is as yet no hard data to support that hypothesis.


No hard data? I'm shocked.  The rest of your paper seems packed with it not.

  7. Coprinaceae: Coprinus has given rise to a sequestrate form which is known as the desert shaggy mane. This fungus, which is put into the genus Podaxis, looks externally very like Coprinus comatus. Yet when a mature cap is cut open, the inside is seen to be filled, not with closely-packed, upwardly deliquescing gills, but with a dry mass of black spores, which will eventually blow away like dust when the outer skin of the fruit body erodes away or breaks. I have an excellent videotape sequence of this happening to a large specimen growing out of a termite mound in Africa (the Podaxis, unlike Termitomyces, apparently does not enjoy a mutualistically symbiotic relationship with the termites). The relationship of Podaxis with Coprinus is confirmed by the fact that under wet conditions, Podaxis, too, can undergo some deliquescence or self-digestion.

Yes, a triangle is related to a square.  We know this based on morphology.  I don't think they evolved, do you?  Are Podaxis related morphologically to Coprinus?  Obviously. why is so dificult for you to imaging , or try to prove wrong  that they are so far distand that this is ridiculous ,

  8. Strophariaceae: Stropharia is the presumed ancestor of the sequestrate genera Nivatogastrium and Weraroa.

  9. Entolomataceae: Entoloma has spawned the sequestrate Richonia, the relationship being established by the pink colour and the distinctive angular shape of Richonia spores, which are almost identical to the spores of Entoloma itself. Nolanea may have given rise to Rhodogaster.


Or it may not.  Thanks for leaving the answer open.

10. Tricholomataceae: Hydnangium appears to be a sequestrate derivative of Laccaria.

Appearances...

11. Gomphidiaceae: Gomphidius has hived off the sequestrate genus Gomphigaster, and Chroogomphus has produced Brauniellula.

You don't know this, and now, after the lack of evidence, neither do we.  I'm disinclined to take your word for it.

12. Paxillaceae: Austrogaster and Gymnopaxillus are sequestrate derivatives.

Morphologically or evolutionarily?

  13. Boletaceae: Boletus, Suillus and Leccinum have spawned above-ground sequestrate forms in Gastroboletus, Gastrosuillus and Gastroleccinum. Alpova, Truncocolumella and the extremely common Rhizopogon are below-ground, sequestrate derivatives of Suillus. The techniques of molecular biology have recently shown that, at least for certain parts of its genome, Rhizopogon is very closely related to the epigeous, spore-shooting Suillus (more closely, in fact, than Suillus is related to other genera of boletes).

  14. Strobilomycetaceae: Gautieria is a fairly common hypogeous derivative, probably of Boletellus.


Lots of qualifiers.  They reveal a tentativeness in your conclusions.  :thumbup:thank god 1 point minus 100

I have not mentioned all the sequestrate genera connected with the families listed in Part 2: many of them are rare, or are known only from the southern hemisphere. But I have given you enough information to realize that the evolution of sequestrate forms is a widespread phenomenon. And from what I have said about the Russulaceae and the Boletaceae, it will be obvious that more than one evolutionary pathway may evolve within a single family, and perhaps even within a single genus.

Obvious if a person is easily led.  You must be talking to a neophyte or someone who wants to "believe."  I am neither.  And as far as information is concerned, you haven't given anyone shit.  Don't bullshit a bullshiter Dr.

One or two interesting questions arise from my survey.

I have more questions than that; mine involve evidence.

Why have sequestrate forms evolved?

Begging the question again, I see.  A better question would be, "Did they evolve?"well  how you will say  they apear , some where never registered until very recent  , so why are not so common, maybe is a new or old  line in evolution , this is what this thread is about , to dig depper, the fact are there , do you think einsteins was  worry if the science in their time was acurate he was dreaming about a new science , we know so little about mushrooms i like this guy ideas and the other  hundret scientific out there, but this guy put it in dreamer  word he is not claming all is true his show you what  he has learn , i will use that and put it in my world and see what i can make out of it.

Quote:

The generally accepted explanation is that during dry periods of the Earth's recent history some mushrooms mutated in such a way as to remain closed, and lose their spore-shooting mechanism. This gave these lines a selective advantage over those which exposed their gills to the hot, dry air. It is easier to maintain an appropriate level of humidity for spore development inside a closed fruit body. The next step, of remaining underground, is another way of escaping drought. Of course, once the spores are retained inside the fruit body, or kept underground, the problem of dispersal arises. In many cases, this has been solved by involving small mammals as vectors. That means evolving mechanisms for attracting these mammals and getting them to dig up or eat the fruit bodies. So one kind of adaptive change is complicated by the need for other adaptations. But that is what evolution is all about, and any organism that survives and propagates itself has obviously hit on a successful, or at least a functional, combination.




The "generally accepted explanation" is often referred to as the "default position."  It explains nothing whatsoever other than an interpretation of the morphological facts.  Next time I need a bedtime story I'll be sure to call you.
exaclty  this bed time story , is for you to dream you are a scientific , so they dream dont they ?.
that explanation is not acurate since i have seem for example in psilocybe coprophila grow how some secotoid form evolve maybe is link to the origin of mushrooms , but this really is what i like to dream and to dig in my mind in this field no scientific is up to the job only few. and in this field if you got to the conclucion you are way ahead of science don`t you fell science is just to late to give answers i just dont know can you handle for me science is not enouf , because science have a wall that advance  very  little and we are speculing inj the other side, i rather take scientific fact and jump the wall with science and philosophy  or what i call my mind , i have better tools , that only science,



It is less easy to explain the geographic distribution of these sequestrate and hypogeous forms, since they appear to be concentrated in such areas as western North America, parts of South America, New Zealand and Australia, and to be relatively few in number in other areas such as eastern North America and northern Europe.

No sequestrate fungi have yet been connected with two agaric families, the Hygrophoraceae and the Pluteaceae. Do such fungi exist, and have we simply not seen or recognized them? And although the Tricholomataceae is a very large and diverse family of agarics, a sequestrate derivative (Hydnangium) is known only for Laccaria. Why have none of the other more than 30 widely recognized and often very common genera in this family produced sequestrate offshoots? Or have we simply not yet found them, or recognized them for what they are?

In most cases, the sequestrate forms are much less common than their spore-shooting ancestors (though this is not true of Rhizopogon). Is this scarcity more apparent than real because they are more difficult to find, since many of them grow below-ground? Does it indicate that most of these fungi are no more than rather unsuccessful evolutionary experiments, on their way to extinction? Or have they arisen so recently that they have not yet had time to spread very far?

How long ago did the oldest, and the youngest, of these fungi arise? This question, at least, we may attempt to solve by means of our newly acquired molecular techniques, which can measure the amount, and the rate, of change in the genetic material. Could sequestrate forms be appearing regularly, even now? Are the changes taking place gradually, as the necessary mutations slowly accumulate in mushrooms. Or do they appear suddenly and sporadically as a result of what is called "punctuated" evolution, involving larger jumps during periods of great environmental stress?


:rofl2:  I love a comedian!

Seriously though, where is that solution by means of your newly acquired molecular techniques and genetic material?  That's the part I want to see.  Even then, it isn't the required extraordinary evidence needed to prop up your claim.  Get it and bring it to us.  I want to see it.

:popcorn:

Quote:

Why has all this happened? Is it the new trend among mushrooms? Will all mushrooms eventually become sequestrate? Will our descendants have to dig if they want to see the fall flush of fleshy fungi, or fill their cooking pots with boletes and other fine edibles? Only, I suspect, if the greenhouse effect goes all the way and our climate becomes much drier and hotter than it is now. But we'll have to wait and see.




Right now I'm waiting for evidence other than morphology.  So far, nada.

We are not yet in a position to answer all of those questions, but at least we know know that there is a wide range of such fungi out there. There is a message here for the amateur: Don't just throw away those aberrant closed or distorted or partly hypogeous agarics. Cut them open to see if their gills are normal vertical plates, and check them to see whether they can be persuaded to yield a spore print. If the answer to both of the above is no, then you may very well have a sequestrate fungus on your hands. One of the professional agaricologists in your area should be able to check this. If it is indeed one of these most recently evolved taxa, you may congratulate yourself on your sharp eyes, and science may thank you for one more piece of the evidence we need to unravel this great jigsaw puzzle.

Evidence?  We need plenty of it, you more than most.

I'll be on the lookout for sequestrate fungi.  Thanks for the tip.  :thumbup:








hope a secotoid fungi found you and teach you all :hehehe:


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: falcon]
    #9504017 - 12/27/08 07:29 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

falcon said:
Hey Cactu,  these are the only kind of truffles I've found,



I found them because an animal, probably a squirrel had started eating
them and then left. I'd like to find more truffles.





nice find  did you got to id then yet, is interesting how truffles are help by animal  in the dispersion of spores , and a idea of evolution of secotoid mushrooms is maybe influence by animals, i guees is really amazing  with  all little  we know about mushrooms , how in this new year we are going to see many changes , in our understanding of mushroooms .
do you think they are truffles or false truffles ?


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 17 minutes, 56 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9504096 - 12/27/08 08:03 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I'm pretty sure they were the false truffle, Elaphomyces granulatus.

Animals seem to play a big role in their spore dispersal. The idea that
they play a part in their evolution is tempting, especially as to what gets selected by dispersal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: falcon]
    #9504159 - 12/27/08 08:25 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

i found similar specie  or maybe granulatus  growing with cordyceps .

did you make a transversal cut , do it next time, maybe you found a secotoid, mushrooms , do you think it was a deer . deer mushrooms ?


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 17 minutes, 56 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9504202 - 12/27/08 08:39 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Yep, I think it was deer mushroom.  The spores were almost mature,
it wasn't a puffball. It had a pungent smell, not unpleasant, but very
strong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9504232 - 12/27/08 08:48 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

cactu said:

http://www.amjbot.org/content/vol88/issue12/images/large/abot-88-12-21-f04.jpeg

http://www.amjbot.org/content/vol88/issue12/images/large/abot-88-12-21-f05.jpeg

hope a secotoid fungi found you and teach you all :hehehe:




Fascinating drawings.  I think I've seen something similar in an avatar.  Tell me, cactu, how much pruning will those require?  Do those cladograms indicate the gradual change required for natural selection?  They appear rather rigid.

Here's a couple more for your collection.  Neither look like a tree, but they sure are pretty.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #9504688 - 12/27/08 10:48 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Relationship of Laccaria to Hydnangium and Podohydnangium
Podohydnangium must be considered along with Hydnangium in discussions of the relationship of Laccaria to putative gasteroid relatives. Podohydnangium is a monotypic genus that differs from Hydnangium by having a distinct stipe-columella and, therefore, appears intermediate between Laccaria and Hydnangium (Beaton et al., 1984). Podohydnangium  was not included in Kühner's (1980) or Jülich's (1981) treatments since it was first described in 1984 and was excluded from Singer's (1986) classification for the same reason that he excluded Hydnangium; uncertainty of affinity. These three classifications discussed above treat the relationship of Laccaria  to Hydnangium and Podohydnangium differently (Table 2). This is because of fundamental differences in opinion regarding the relationship of gasteroid genera to their agaric counterparts. Kühner (1980) and Jülich (1981) both treated certain gasteroid taxa within the Agaricales, incorporating them into the classification with their putative sister taxa. Singer (1986), on the other hand, maintained that the relationship of these fungi to epigeous agarics is not sufficiently resolved to justify incorporating them into the Agaricales.
While Laccaria, Podohydnangium and Hydnangium differ drastically in macromorphology, they share several presumably derived micromorphological character states; identical basidiospore ornamentation and, at least in Laccaria and Hydnangium (Podohydnangium has not been examined), multinucleate basidiospores.
Laccaria is unique among epigeous agarics in that the conic echinulae, diagnostic features of the genus, are formed by microtubials that run perpendicular to the epispore (Besson and Kühner, 1971; Kühner, 1980; v. Hofsten and Mueller, unpublished). SEM micrographs of basidiospores from several Hydnangium and Podohydnangium taxa have documented the similarity of shape of the basidiospore ornamentation between these taxa and those of Laccaria (Pegler and Young, 1979; Beaton et al., 1984; Castellano et al., 1989) and unpublished TEM data obtained by v. Hofsten (Institute of Physiological Botany, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden) document that the basidiospore wall ultrastructure of Hydnangium is similar to that found in Laccaria; the echinulae are composed of microtubials that run perpendicular to the epispore.
All examined taxa of Laccaria as well as Hydnangium carneum have multinucleate basidiospores (Table 1; Kühner, 1980; Tommerup et al., 1991).
The three genera also share several pleisiomorphies such as having abundant clamp connections; nonamyloid, acyanophilic basidiospores; and the lack of a heteromerous trama (Pegler and Young, 1979; Beaton et al., 1984). Finally, at least some species of Hydnangium appear similar in color to orange-brown Laccaria.
Differences between the genera are statismosporic basidiospores that are orthotropic in development in Hydnangium and Podohydnangium versus ballistosporic basidiospores that are heterotropic in development in Laccaria. But, as pointed out by several authors (e.g., Pegler and Young, 1979; Beaton et al., 1984), Hydnangium is not closely related to any of the genera such as Octavianina O. Kuntze formerly treated in the polyphyletic Hymenogastrales sensu Singer and Smith (1960) and others.
While Laccaria, Hydnangium and Podohydnangium appear to form a monophyletic group, it is currently not possible to undertake a rigorous analysis of the relationship of these three genera to each other as no detailed systematic work has been carried out on either Hydnangium or Podohydnangium and species circumscriptions, composition, and relationships are still uncertain in these two genera. Castellano and Trappe (1990) accepted 23 names in Hydnangium in their bibliographic survey of Australian gasteroid fungi. Numerous systematic problems remain in the group, however, and some of these taxa probably belong in other genera. Until intra- and intergeneric relationships within this group are resolved, I choose to treat the taxa in this group as three separate genera (Laccaria, Hydnangium, Podohydnangium) in the Tricholomataceae sensu Singer (1986) amended to include Hydnangium and Podohydnangium. The inability to resolve infrafamiliar relationships within the family precludes recognizing the clade composed of these genera in a formal classification (see above).

here is more information http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_Collections/botany/botany_sites/fungi/phylo-consid.main.html


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9504751 - 12/27/08 11:10 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Tricholomatoid clade (V).
The Tricholomatoid clade appears sister of an inclusive group of mostly dark-spored taxa, the Agaricoid clade (see below). Analysis III produces a significant PP (0.97) for the union of these two inclusive clades. Of the 11 EM origins (FIG. 1Go) nine are concentrated in the Tricholomatoid + Agaricoid clade alone. Gross morphologies in both groups are dominated by gilled pileate-stipitate forms but also include secotioid or truffle-like forms (sequestrate)
Agaricoid clade (VI).
Most members of the Agaricoid clade are characterized by pigmented, multinucleate basidiospores and an open-pore type of hilum (Pegler and Young 1969Go; Kühner 1980Go, 1984Go). The clade is essentially that of Kühner’s narrow concept of the Agaricales but unequivocally includes the Hydnangiaceae (multinucleate, white-spored Laccaria and sequestrate allies), the gasteromycete groups, Nidulariaceae and Lycoperdales, and several other sequestrate forms (Krüger et al 2001Go, Peintner et al 2001Go). No links to resupinate taxa have been established, but a few cyphelloid lineages are included (viz. Pellidiscus [Crepidotaceae] and Phaeosolenia) (Bodensteiner et al 2004Go). Many taxa in the Agaricoid clade possess basidiospores with an apical germ pore (e.g. most Psathyrellaceae, many Agaricaceae, Panaeoleae, many Bolbitiaceae), but the phylogenetic distribution of these taxa is diffuse. A germ pore is not present among taxa in the other major clades of the Agaricales. In addition no members of the clade exhibit amyloid spores with the exception of some species of Cystoderma. Hallucinogenic compounds, namely psilocybin, can be found in several lineages of the Agaricoid clade—Conocybe, Copelandia, Gymnopilus, Inocybe s. str., Panaeolina, Panaeolus (Benjamin 1995Go).

As many as six EM origins are inferred in the Agaricoid clade and include the Hydnangiaceae, Cortinariaceae s. str., Inocybaceae, the genera Descolea and Phaeocollybia and elements of the Hymenogastraceae. The remaining taxa are primarily saprotrophic (Vellinga 2004Go, Watling and Gregory 1987Go) but include some lineages in the Agaricaceae that are symbiotic with ants (Chapela et al 1994Go, Mueller et al 1998Go).
http://www.mycologia.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/982
http://www.anbg.gov.au/fungi/truffle-like.html
http://mycor.nancy.inra.fr/IMGC/LaccariaGenome/pub/LaccariaSpecialIssue/TR_Laccaria.pdf


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Edited by cactu (12/27/08 11:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecactu
culture and magic
Male


Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 3,913
Loc: mexicoelcentrodelconocimi...
Trusted Identifier
Re: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: FROM MUSHROOMS TO TRUFFLES? [Re: cactu]
    #9504774 - 12/27/08 11:18 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Does secotioid inertia drive the evolution of false-truffles?

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Steven Robert Albee-ScottCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aUniversity of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor, 3600 Varsity Drive, MI, 48108-2287, USA

Received 3 January 2006;
revised 17 July 2007;
accepted 15 August 2007.
Corresponding Editor: Scott LaGreca.
Available online 28 August 2007.

Abstract

Secotioid inertia is a model implemented to explain the prevalence of highly derived false-truffles with no obvious connection to the Homobasidiomycetes. The model accommodates the apparent lack of epigeous sister taxa for some highly derived hypogeous lineages by assuming that gasteromycetation in some fungi leads to the extinction of their epigeous sister population. The derived state of some hypogeous lineages suggests that they arose early in the evolution of Homobasidiomycetes and that those groups were subject to conditions that favoured hypogeous lineages such that the hypogeous fruit body form became the predominant form for some lineages. The directional selection component of secotioid inertia, termed secotioid drive, led to the extinction of their epigeous sister taxon. Morphological and molecular data from Russulaceae are used to model the evolutionary stages of secotioid inertia. The resulting phylogenetic results are compared with data from the order Leucogastrales, and the genus Destuntzia. The implications of secotioid drive are discussed with reference to gasteromycete phylogenetics, evolution, and conservation. Specifically, secotioid inertia can be used to account for reversals in fruit body morphology and instability in mycorrhizal formation.

yo any hacker out there that can access more of this information?
iam dying for more :dna:  :watchingyou:


--------------------

cuando una rafaga del pensamiento nos pasa  al lado se puede sentir  que valio  la pena  haber vivido, y cuando ese pensamiento se  convierte en sueño no paramos de soñar hasta realizarlo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amanita Muscaria Store Amanita Muscaria   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Magic truffles? S.F.Sorrow 3,154 8 06/11/03 07:08 AM
by canid
* odd mushrooms II Polecat 1,013 5 11/24/03 10:50 AM
by ToxicMan
* Unusual find... maybe secotioid Bolbitius TimmiTM 930 3 09/18/10 01:40 PM
by St. Chibes
* Mushroom Fair in Denver, Sunday, August 11 ToxicManM 2,172 10 08/10/02 04:09 AM
by Anonymous
* Hunting mushrooms with dogs... Ajoc 1,733 8 10/19/03 10:46 PM
by Gumby
* New Cambodian Magic Mushroom (Picture)
( 1 2 all )
mjshroomer 5,566 27 08/31/03 09:37 PM
by Zen Peddler
* URGENT: STUPID FRIENDS MUSHROOM INJESTION! Melbourne, Aus.
( 1 2 all )
121212 6,022 25 07/02/03 03:54 AM
by Anonymous
* TRUFFLE ( TUBER ) T0aD 1,674 9 11/23/02 05:14 AM
by Roadkill

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
19,150 topic views. 0 members, 25 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.