Fungi fd. 7 Sept. 2002
Daniel B. Wheeler
dwheeler at ipns.com
Thu Oct 10 03:11:30 EST 2002
"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Marco_Floriani?=" <marco.floriani at libero.it> wrote in message news:<H3NJ93$0C575A21FE0DAB4F65B224021D9CD57B at libero.it>...
> Daniel B. Wheeler wrote:
> > BTW, Japanese matsutake is now known to be the same as Tricholoma
> > (or Armillaria) caligatum, and has been confirmed by DNA analysis
> > to also be found in Oregon at least. Will that make T. caligatum
> > more sought after in the US?
> As far as I know, T. matsutake and T. caligatum are two different
> things. DNA analysis has confirmed the identity between T. matsutake
> and T. nauseosum, another ally of T. caligatum. Since T. caligatum
> has been (mis)interpreted in many different senses, it may well be
> that the Oregon T. caligatum actually corresponds to T. nauseosum
> and thus to T. matsutake, but in this case you should call it
> T. caligatum ss. auct.
> T. caligatum ss. str. is different from T. matsutake and is known to
> grow especially in the Mediterranean area of Europe. Remember that in
> Europe there is a third species in this group, named T. dulciolens.
> Some fundamental references:
> Kytövuori, I. (1988) - The Tricholoma caligatum group in Europe and
> North Africa. Karstenia 28: 65-77.
> Bergius, N. & Danell, E. (2000) The Swedish matsutake (Tricholoma
> nauseosum syn. T. matsutake): distribution, abundance and ecology.
> Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15: 318-325.
> Ryman, S., Bergius, N., Danell, E. (2000). Proposal to conserve the
> name Armillaria matsutake against Armillaria nauseosa (Fungi,
> Basidiomycotina, Tricholomataceae). Taxon 49: 555-556.
> And a web site:
> Best wishes to you all!
WHOOOPS! Thanks for the correction, Marco.
Daniel B. Wheeler
More information about the Mycology