24-03-2024 08:27
Thierry BlondelleHiOn Hedera helix fallen branchEcological habitat:
26-04-2024 10:07
Mathias HassHello, Does anyone know what this is? Found on J
24-04-2024 21:54
éric ROMEROBonjour, J'ai trouvé ce Lasiobolus sur laissées
23-04-2024 15:18
Lothar Krieglsteiner... but likely a basidiomycete. I hope it is o.k.
23-04-2024 13:17
Edouard EvangelistiBonjour à tous, Je viens de récolter ce que je
23-04-2024 21:49
Ethan CrensonHello all, A friend recently found this orange as
22-04-2024 11:52
Zuzana Sochorová (Egertová)Hello,I made a loan of a collection of Microstoma
11-01-2022 16:36
Jason KarakehianHi does anyone have a digital copy of Raitviir A (
Boudier, [J.L.] E. (1895) Description of quelques espèces récoltées in août 1894 dans les Alpes regions élevées des du Valais. Bulletin de la Société mycologique of France 11: 27-30?.
Thank you
Fidel
Best,
Fidel
I see that your interest came around Helvella alpestris. We are studying this group from several years... I can say that in the Alps, the diversity of little, black, cupulate Helvella is much more complicated than you will read in literature.
Please look at the ascus base and spore size of the Boudier's description of Helvella alpestris...
Regards
Mario
Thank you very much for your comment. My interest on Helvella alpestris is that I have studied some material from Norway, which corresponds to "H. alpestris sensu Häffner (1987: 60-62)" , but not "sensu Boudier", so I think "H. alpestris sensu Häffner" is a new species and it is closed to Helvella sulcata complex (inside of section Lacunosae).
Have you checked this?
Best,
Fidel
Helvella alpestris ss. Häffner is Helvella dovrensis T. Schumacher.
Häffner included this species into sectio Solitariae but I think it's wrong, I agree it is similar to the Lacunosae, probably a rather archaic species, with features as the cupulate apothecia in young specimens and a slightly (at least sometimes) hairy margin, that have been lost in the more evolute H. lacunosa s.l.
Maybe sectio Solitariae was recalled from H. queletii var alpina Heim & Remy, another synonym, but superseded at species rank by H. dovrensis.
The only concern for me is that Schumacher described his H. dovrensis with "acrorhynchous" ascus base. I have found H. alpestris ss. Häffner in hundreds (it is the most common alpine Helvella in the Alps, typical of wet areas with Salix or Polygonum) and it have always pleurorhynchous asci. You should check this if you have Norwegian material.
Maybe you should check also Helvella philonotis Dissing, judging from the description it should be also rather similar, if not identical (and prioritary).
Regards
Mario
Also, we compared them with H. philonotis, but in this species the ribs of the stipe continues on the apothecium sterile surface and its apothecium is lobed at maturity (Dissing 1964: 117), while in the specimens that we studied the ribs are absent on the apothecium sterile surface.
And when we sequenced the specimens, they are related to Helvella lacunosa s.l., so we think they correspond to a new species, probably an alpine H. lacunosa s.l., H. sulcata s.l., or something like that.
Best,
Fidel
I apologize, Fidel, but I feel that you are dealing with a species that you don't know on the field.
The ascomata of alpine species of Helvella remain on the ground for many weeks and they continue their morphological evolution. Usually the first apothecia of H. dovrensis (ss. me?!) - H. alpestris ss. Häffner appear in the middle of July, in the Alps not lower than 1800-1900 m, up to 2700 at least, then if some rain occurs (as usual) they live and grow until the first snowfalls at the beginning of September. Mature spores appear rather soon and then new asci are formed and the production of spores continues for weeks. Fruiting continues with new ascomata also, until September.
Young ascomata are more or less cup-shaped (usually rather irregular), then they can become discoid, saddle-shaped, then more or less confusely lobed. The ribs are almost absent at first, then they grow and can continue, or not, on the sterile surface. Usually the pubescence is also rather variable in this species.
Keep in mind that during this time, the wheater in our high mountains change every day; it is usual to have rain, cold dry winds, fog, frost in the night, and very strong sunlight (all Helvella species are black or almost so... Protection from the U.V. I think!).
So the macroscopical differences you cited can be, in my opinion, largely comprised in the variability of one species. And I don't have a very broad concept of species I think, that's just what I've seen on the field.
With this I don't want to say it's impossible you have a new species, but only that I think you need to better understand the variability before you decide.
Another thing would be if you have sequenced H. dovrensis and H. alpestris ss. Häffner, and these are proved to be different species. If so, I would be curious to understand what H. dovrensis is.
About the relation with H. lacunosa, I agree that the species I call H. dovrensis = H. alpestris ss. Schumacher must be comprised in sectio Lacunosae. The same is for mediterranean species like H. helvellula and H. semiobruta. This is a conclusion I came just observing the morphology; if you are interested I can send you some material for sequencing.
Regards
Mario
You are right, I just know these species by herbarium specimens. I will write you by email to comment the loan of material.
Best,
Fidel
Cheers - LUC.
Because several different species are used to grow very close, and often mixed...
Good luck :))