Fistulina sp.

A Beefsteak fungus at Namadgi National Park

Request use of media

Identification history

Fistulina sp.	25 May 2016	MichaelMulvaney
Fistulina	23 May 2016	Heino
Fistulina hepatica	20 May 2016	KenT

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

5 comments

AaronClausen wrote:

21 May 2016

KenT, you are on fire with this latest fungi collection. Absolutely superb photography.

Heino wrote:

23 May 2016

Could be Fistulina hepatica, but there is another species also recorded for Australia: Fistulina spiculifera. From my reading, it seems that more specimens need to be studied to see if we have one or two species. Fistulina hepatica has long been known from Europe, while the species Fistulina spiculifera is based on material collected in Gippsland, in the 1800s.

KenT wrote:

24 May 2016

Heino, do you know what the difference between the species is? The original description, Polyporus spiculifer Cooke, Grevillea 15 (73): 20 (1886) is: Polyporus (Hispidi) spiculiferus, Cooke. Pileo carnoso, aquose-molli subpulvinato (1-2in.) fuligineo-nigrescente, laevi, sicco ruguloso, undique spiculis obtusis sparsis erectis ornato ; carne pallido, tubulis elongatis (5-7 mm.), poris minutis, subaequalibus, dissepimentis tenuibus. Ad truncos. North Gipps Land, Australia (Tisdall and Webb). A very characteristic and singular species, somewhat resembling Hydnum gelatinosum in appearance. I would not have thought the image photographed here resembles a Hydnum. I have not been able to access the more recent papers where the species has been described of Reid, Kew Bulletin 17 (2): 280 1963 and Cunningham, Bulletin of the New Zealand Department of Industrial Research 164: 128 (1965)

Heino wrote:

24 May 2016

Reid re-studied the material seen by Cooke and, after a long discussion about micro-features, says that spiculifera is "without doubt, a typical member of the genus Fistulina". At first that certainly makes the comparison with (Pseudo)Hydnum gelatinosum seem weird. However, remember that Cooke studied dried specimens (so his note of the dark colour 'fuligineo-nigrescente', need not reflect the colour of a living specimen at its peak condition. Given that the underside of Fistulina is made up of separate, but abutting tubes, not the uniform tissue of a polypore, it may be that as each tube dried, it shrivelled a bit, quite independently of its neighbours, and so gave the whole underside a somewhat hydnoid appearance. Reid doesn't add anything to the macroscopic detail given in Cooke's Latin, except to note that the upper surface is "covered with short, scattered 'spicules', which are especially abundant near the margin and also on the stem-like base. These 'spicules' are rudimentary tubes". Don't know if they're present in your examples, for I can't tell from your photos I can't tell from I can photocopy and post or scan and send Reid's full account to you, whichever you prefer. Just let me know.

KenT wrote:

26 May 2016

Heino, I wouldn't mind seeing a copy of what Reid had to say on the species. I would have thought a tube was a fairly rudimentary structure in itself, my imagination isn't dealing too well with the idea of a rudimentary tube!.

Please Login or Register to comment.