Monographs Details: Gloeoporus conchoides Mont.
Authority: Fidalgo, Oswaldo & Fidalgo, Maria E. 1968. Polyporaceae from Venezuela. I. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 17 (2): 1--34.
Description:Species Description - MACROSCOPIC CHARACTERS, sporophore: annual, sessile, broadly attached to the substrate, often effused-reflexed and imbricate, coriaceous, soft when fresh, brittle and not flexible when dry. pileus: dimidiate, conchate, thin, at times laterally connate, (1-)2—4(-7) cm long, 2-8.5(-15) cm wide and 0.1-0.2 cm thick. ABHYMENIAL SURFACE: finely touientose, azonate to slightly zonate and subsulcate, sometimes fine" striate from the median portion to the margin, white when fresh, becoming cream, yellowish or grayish-cream when dry, MP-9F3 or !MP-9E2, near Cream, margin: thin, acute, inflexed when dry, lobate, usually concolorous with the pilear surface, context: heterogeneous, duplex, firm, 0.4-1.5 mm thick, with an upper part white to cream, MP-9F3, 300-1200 p thick, separated from the lower part by a thin, dark layer 50-100 µ thick; the lower portion of the context is very thin, 30-50 p thick, gelatinous when fresh and concolorous with the tubes, very compact and waxy when dry. tubes: always in one layer, very short, 240-550 µ long, white when fresh, flesh colored when dry, ]MP-11C7 (Auteuil), glistening in section, poroid surface: white when fresh, then becoming pinkish, flesh colored or pinkish-orange, MP-11C7 (Auteuil), MP-10B5 (Peach Blow-F) to MP-12B8, near Rose Amber; pores small, rarely medium size, scarcely visible to unaided eye, round to subangular, (4-)5-7 per mm, 70-150 µ diam; dissepiments entire, thin, 30-80 µ thick. MICROSCOPIC CHARACTERS, surface: represented by a loose, short trichoderm, formed by antichnal generative hyphae. context: hyphal system monomitic; generative hyphae hyaline, branched, with clamp-connections, presenting a considerable variation in diameter, thickness of walls, degree of gelatinization and interval of septation in the different portions of the context but showing a constant pattern in each portion; in the upper context the generative hyphae subsolid to mostly solid, 3.5-5.5 µ diam, with clamps very far apart; the generative hyphae of the dark layer 2.5-4.5 µ diam, thickened, always with distinct lumen, much branched and compactly interwoven, with clamps very close to one another, these hyphae being veiy easily stained by KOH + phloxine or by lactophenol + cotton blue; in this dark layer very few hyphae with the walls gelatinized; the generative hyphae of the lower context thin-walled, (1-) 1.5-2.5 µ diam, flexuous and loosely interwoven, with frequent clamps and immersed in a gelatinous matter which swells considerably in KOH; the generative hyphae of this lower layer not staining in lactophenol + cotton blue and staining just a little in KOH + phloxine. dissepiments: formed by the same hyphae of the lower portion of the context, immersed in a gelatinous matter, subhymenium: a thin layer, 5-10 µ thick, of thin-walled generative hyphae, not immersed in gelatinous matter and staining by KOH + phloxine. hymenium: cystidia, setae and hyphal pegs not present; basidia subclavate, hyaline, 4-sterigmate, 10-13 X 2-3 µ; basidiospores hyaline, allantoid, smooth, thin-walled, non-amyloid, (3.5-) 4-5 X 1-2.5 µ.
Distribution and Ecology - Distribution. Gloeoporus conchoides is not a very common fungus. Most of the collections in herbaria, so named, were found to be specimens of G. dichrous. For this reason we prefer not to indicate the records found in the literature since they can be based also on specimens of G. dichrous. From collections seen in NY and SP, we were able to confirm the presence of G. conchoides in South America, from Brazil (Amazonas and Para) and Venezuela, in Central America from Panama, El Salvador, British Honduras, and Nicaragua, in the West Indies from Trinidad, Cuba and Santo Domingo, as well as from Mexico. It was previously reported from Venezuela from: Yaracuy, N of San Pablo, 360 m alt, Chardon 1311, Sep 27, 1932 (Overholts in Chardon & Toro, 1934: 310); Aragua, Rancho Grande, Wolf, Oct 1947-May 1948 (Wolf, 1949: 215); Alerida, Sierra de Santo Domingo, between Laguna Negra and Laguna de los Patos, 3600m alt, Dennis 1899, Jul 31, 1958.
Leptoporus conchoides (Mont, in de la Sagra) Pat., Essai Taxon. Hymenom. 85. 1900.
Polyporus conchoides (Mont, in de la Sagra) Lloyd, Mycol. Writ. 4(Syn sect A))us): 331. 1915; Overh. in Chardon & Toro, Mycol. Expl. Venezuela 310. 1934; Wolf, Llovdia 12(4): 215. 1949.
Type. Holotype, coll. Ramon de la Sagra, at PC.
Type Locality. Cuba.
Basionym. Gloeoporus conchoides Mont., 1842.
Discussion. Gloeoporus conchoides is close to G. dichrous (Fr.) Bres., a much
more common and widely spread species. In the past the name G. conchoides was
used by some American authors for collections of G. dichrous and in the herbaria
these species often are mixed up. Although Pilat (1937: 151) included G. conchoides
in the synonymy of G. dichrous, most authors such as Overholts (1953:
364) and Cunningham (1965: 111-112) considered them as specifically distinct.
Macroscopically they are easily separated; G. conchoides tends to form a larger
fructification, much less effused-reflexed and thinner than the fruiting bodies of
G. dichrous; although both have white poroid surface when fresh, G. conchoides
always become flesh pink to pinkish-orange when dry whereas G. dichrous may
become vinaceous, purple, reddish-brown or purplish-black. W e did not find the
anatomical differences between G. conchoides and G. dichrous reported bj-
Cunningham (1965: 112); in both species the dark layer that separates the upper
context from the thin lower context is composed of thick-walled hyphae, frequently
clamped and compactly interwoven. Gelatinization is not well developed
in this dark layer while in the lower part of the context and in the dissepiments
the hyphae are immersed in a gelatinous matter in both species. In an earlier
paper, Cunningham (1948: 14) indicated that in G. conchoides the hyphae of the
dissepiments mostly gelatinize and lose their outlines, while in G. dichrous the
same hyphae gelatinize only slightly, if at all, and retain their outline. Later,
Cunningham (1965: 112) expressed the opinion that in G. dichrous these hyphae
do not become imbedded in a gelatinous matter, nor become partly gelatinized.
According to Overholts (1953: 195) the main difference between these two species
is the presence of clamps in G. dichrous; clamps had not been observed in G.
conchoides. Such a difference does not exist; both species have clamp-connections
in the context as well as in the dissepiments. The only microscopical differences
noticed by us are that G. conchoides tends to have slightly broader spores than
those of G. dichrous which are up to 1 /x, wide and proportionally less clamps.
Bresadola (1916: 227) and recently Cunningham (1965: 111) indicated that
Boletus thelephoroides Hook, in Kunth is the same fungus as Gloeoporus conchoides.
W e have not seen the type of B. thelephoroides a validly published name
older than G. conchoides. If it is proved that both are conspecific, then the valid
name for this fungus would be G. thelephoroides (Hook, in Kunth) G. H. Cunn.