Monographs Details: Phellinus pachyphloeus var. tomentosus (Bres.) O.Fidalgo
Authority: Fidalgo, Oswaldo & Fidalgo, Maria E. 1968. Polyporaceae from Venezuela. I. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 17 (2): 1--34.
Family:Hymenochaetaceae
Description:Latin Diagnosis - Pileus surface minute and densely hirsute with setal skeletal hyphae 350 µ long; hymenial setae sparse or not and the generative hyphae narrow, 1.5-3.5 µ diam; saprophytic.

Distribution and Ecology - Distribution. Phellinus pachyphloeus has been reported in Africa, from Cameroon (Patouillard, 1889: 257, Bresadola, 1890: 41-42; 1912a: 59). Nigeria (Wakefield, 1914: 256-257; Humphrey & Leus, 1932: 545), Senegal (Patouillard & Hariot, 1900: 239; Lloyd, 1922b: 1164, note 1118), Sierra Leone (Deighton, 1928: 13-17) and from the islands of Madagascar (Lloyd, 1913: S) and Mauritius (Lloyd, 1911: 3); in continental Asia, from Vietnam in Annam, today known as Triing Ky (Patouillard, 1928: 14) and Tonkin (Patouillard, 1924: 34), Cambodia (Patouihard, 1923: 51; Humphrey & Leus, 1932: 545), Malayan Federation (Humphrey d- Leus, 1932: 545; Corner, 1932: 345-347), India (Bagchee & Singh, 1960; and several specimens seen in herbaria). East Pakistan (Ahmed, 1952: 102) and from the islands of Java (Bresadola, 1907: 238; Lloyd, 1910: 34), Krakatau (Boedijn, 1940: 391), New Guinea (Imazeki, 1952: 101-102), the Philippines (Bresadola, 1912a: 59; 1915: 294; Bresadola & Sydow, 1914: 347; Graff, 1914: 237-238; Humphrey & Leus, 1932: 545-547; Murrill, 1907: 476; 1908b: 409, as Elfvingia elmeri Murr.; Saccardo, 1912: 295, as Ganoderma elmeri (Murr.) Sacc. & Trott.; Reinking, 1920: 171, 368; Teodoro, 1937: 304; Mendoza, 1938: 95) and South Andaman (Singh, Singh & Bakshi, 1961: 248). It has also been recorded from Queensland, Austraha (Simmons, 1939: 25-28), New Zealand (Cunningham, 1948: 5), in Melanesia, from Fiji (Patouillard, 1889: 257) and in Polynesia, from Tahiti (Parks, 1926: 57). There is no question about the distribution of this fungus in southern Asia, Africa, Australia and in the southern Pacific islands. Outside of this area it has been reported only from Surinam (Bresadola, 1912a: 59) and is suspected to occur also in Cuba (Paris, 1927: 83-94; Humphrey & Leus, 1932: 536). Based on such information, it has been repeatedly reported by recent authors to occur in the northern part of South America, in Central America and AVest Indies. However, I was not able to confirm such occurrences. Regarding the report from Cuba, I located at BPI an abnormal fructification collected by J. A. Paris, March, 1929, on sugar cane in Cuba, which no doubt represents the species reported by Paris (1927) as responsible for the zonate foot-rot disease. I identified it as Phellinus lamaensis. In North-American herbaria (BPI, FH, NY), I found several collections from the New World labeled as "pachyphloeus" but not one really belonged to this species. In addition to the collections from the Phihppine Is., I examined merotypes from Fiji Islands (at FH, Lloyd 39014, BPI), the paratype from Cameroon (at N Y and BPI), from Malayan Federation and from Java (Lloyd 17 806,BPI). Habitat, Hosts and Economic Importance. Phellinus pachyphloeus has been reported on both dead and living trees which indicates that the species may be parasitic or saprophytic. It was reported on fern roots from Tahiti by Parks (1926). All other known hosts are flowering plants, mostly hardwoods on which it produces a yellow butt-rot (Bagchee & Singh, 1960) or white-rot (Singh, Singh & Bakshi, 1961). From Gymnospermae it has been mentioned on ARAUCARIACEAE. Araucaria cunninghamii Sweet (Simmons, 1939) ; PINACEAE: Agathis australis Steud. (Simmons, 1939); PODOCARPACEAE: Podocarpus dacrydioides A. Rich (Cunningham, 1948, 1965). From Angiospermae it has been reported on ACERACEAE: Acer sp. (Simmons, 1939), Acer oblongum Wall. ex DC (Bagchee & Singh, 1960); ANACARDIACEAE: Mangifera sp. (Parks, 1926), Mangifera indica L. (Bose, 1937), Odina wodier Roxb. (Bose, 1937); COMBRETACEAE: Anogeissus latifolia Wall. (Bagchee & Singh, 1960), TerminaUa myriocarpa Heurck & Müll. Arg. (Bagchee & Singh, 1960), TerminaUa tomentosa Wight & Arn. (Bagchee & Singh, 1960); CUNONIACEAE: Weinmannia racemosa L. (Cunningham, 1948); DIPTEROCARPACEAE: Hopea acuminata IMerr. (Humphrey & Leus, 1932), Hopea Philippinensis Dyer (Humphrey & Leus, 1932), Shorea sp. (Humphrey ct Leus, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937), Shorea contorta (]\Ierr. & Rolfe) Aid., under Pentacme (Humphrey ct Leus, 1932), Shorea guiso (Blanco) Blume (Humphrey & Leus, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937), Shorea malaanonan Blume, under jParas/io?'ea (Humphrey ct Leus, 1932, Teodoro, 1937 and in herbaria as Parashorea plicata Brandis (Roldan 18 at BPI), Shorea mindanensis Foxw., under Pentacine (Humphrey & Leus, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937), Shorea negroensis Foxw. (Humphrey & Leus, 1932); FAGACEAE: Nothofagus cliffortioides (Hook.) Oerst. (Cunningham, 1948, 1965); LEGUMINOSAE: Albizzia procera (Roxb.) Benth. (Graff, 1914, Humphrey & Leus, 1932, Teodoro, 1937 and Roger, 1951), Albizzia retusa Benth. (Teodoro, 1937), Dialium sp. (Corner, 1932), Parkia javanica (Lam.) Merr. (Graff, 1914, Humphrey & Leus, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937), Pithecolobium saman Benth. (Corner, 1932), Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Corner, 1932); MORACEAE: Ficus sp.( Graff, 1914, Humphrey & Leus, 1932, Corner, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937), Ficus benghalensis L. (Bose, 1937 and Bagchee & Singh, 1960); MYRTACEAE: Leptosperrnum ericoides A. Rich. (Cunningham, 1948, 1965), Metrosideros perforata A. Rich. (Cunningham, 1965), Metrosideros robusta A. Cunn. (Cunningham, 1965), Metrosideros umbellata Cav. (Cunningham, 1965); PALAIAE: Elaeis guineensis Jacq. (Roger, 1951); RHIZOPHORACEAE: Bruguiera sp. (Singh, Singh & Bakshi, 1961), Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Lam as Rhizophora candelaria DC. (Humphrey & Leus, 1932), Rhizophora mucronata Lam (Humphrey & Leus, 1932 and Teodoro, 1937); ROSACEAE: Parinarium excelsum Sab. (Patouillard & Hariot, 1900 and Deighton, 1928); SAXIFRAGACEAE: Quintinia serrata A. Cunn. (Cunningham, 1965). According to Mendoza (1938: 95) its favorite host in the Phihppine Islands is the "bagtikan" (Parashorea plicata Brandis = Shorea malaanonan Blume).

Discussion:

Type. From Buitenzorg, Java, Indonesia (S, BPI).

The type of Fomes pachyphloeus var hispidus was examined. The sporophore is effused-reflexed, the pileus applanate, up to 1 cm thick with the abhymenial surface more or less narrowly sulcate and densely hirsute; context thin, up to 3 mm thick, just a little paler than the tubes and delimited upward by a crustiform layer up to 250 µ thick; hymenial setae clearly present, 18.5-35 X 2.5-10 µ; no basidia or basidiospores seen. Besides the densely hirsute surface, no other distinct difference was found when compared to the typical variety which, when young, shows also the surface formed by a trichoderm which soon falls out. However, this variation is somewhat constant in the population and therefore I believe that it is worthwhile to maintain it at the variety level. Bresadola (1912a: 497) established it as a variety under Fomes melanodermus. Its relation to Phellinus pachyphloeus is however clear, since, F. melanodermus, decidedly, has no hymenial setae, which are always present in this variety. Lowe (1957) considered the variety to be the same as P. portoricensis. Although I consider the variety also to be very near to this species, I prefer to maintain it apart because of several characteristics: (a) the narrowly concentric zonate and tomentose surface is formed by a very thin layer developed over the crustiform layer; (b) the hymenial setae measure 24-35 X 7-15 µ; (c) in some specimens I have seen distinctly hyaline basidiospores together with pale brown basidiospores; (d) all specimens examined came from southeastern Asia, i.e., iNlalaya and Java. In P portoricensis the context is more differentiated being clearly duplex; the hymenial setae are much longer and no more than 7.5 µ broad; the basidiospores are considered to be always colored and its distribution is restricted to the New World.

Discussion. Murrill (1907: 479) when describing Pyropolyporus merrillii Murr. indicated the type collection as Merrill 3575. The number cited was wrong and caused much confusion until it was clarified by Humphrey and Leus (1932: 537) who concluded that the correct number of this type should be 3570. This seems to be correct since the lectotype at NY shows this number. Merrill 3575 has been found also on a piece of Phellinus pachyphloeus and for this reason Pyropolyporus merrillii was reported as a synonym of the former (see Teodoro, 1937: 304) which is incorrect. Pyropolyporus merrillii has no setae and was considered by Lowe (1957: 23) to be as good a species as Fomes merrillii (Murr.) Sacc. & Trott. Bresadola (1926: 79) placed Pyropolyporus grenadensis Murr. in synonymy with Phellinus pachyphloeus on the basis of a specimen sent to him by Lloyd. However, Lowe (1957: 25) indicated that this is a misconception since the type of F. grenadensis (Murr.) Sacc. & Trott. does not have the characteristic setal hyphae of Phellinus pachyphloeus. Therefore, Lowe considered F. grenadensis also to be a distinct species. I examined the type of Pijropolyporus grenadensis and I found no trace of setal skeletal hyphae; the generative hyphae are 1.5-2.5(-3) µ diam and show a large number of simple septa. Phellinus lamaensis and P. magnosporus also have setal skeletal hyphae in the context both being closely related to P. pachyphloeus. Corner (1932: 330), in a careful study, showed that P. lamaensis has pores 110-130 µ wide and extrahymenial setae of the context 3-5 µ diam, easily distinguishing it from Phellinus pachyphloeus, which has pores 55-100 µ wide and the extrahymenial setae 8-17 µ diam. Phellinus magnosporus may be distinguished from both by the larger pores and spores, respectively, 85-125 (-150) µ diam and 7-8 (-9) X 6-7.5 µ. Phellinus melanodermus and P. noxius differ from all by having no hymenial setae, although they show setal skeletal hyphae in the context. The latter character is also found in P. portoricensis from the American tropics, a species which is characterized by being the only one of this group with duplex context and "reddish-brown spores from the beginning" (Lowe, 1957). Phellinus portoricensis is most related to P. pachyphloeus, the variety "tomentosus" of the latter being an indication of the variation of P. pachyphloeus towards P portoricensis. Most herbarium specimens of P. pachyphloeus were found broken and incomplete because of their large size. However, Lloyd (1910: 36) reported a specimen from Java as being 150 cm in its greatest breadth, 20 cm thick and 20.250 kg in weight. Humphrey and Leus (1932: 539) indicated another as being 26 inches broad (= 66 cm), 15 inches long (= 38 cm), 8.7 inches thick (= 21.7 cm) and 14.3 kg in weight. Corner (1932: 345) cited specimens "up to 24 cm in radius, 45 cm wide and 10 cm thick." H e also mentioned the limits for extrahymenial setae as 600 µ long and 8-17 µ wide. Humphrey and Leus (1932: 543) suggested that these setae do not exceed 264 µ long and 20.9 µ diam. I saw at least one which was 850/* long and 32/* diam. No cystidia were seen in the specimens examined. Basidia and basidiospores are very difficult to find in herbarium specimens since most are sterile. Lloyd (1915: 260) mentioned basidiospores 8 µ diam, but I did not find any larger than 6 µ. Cunningham (1948: 5) mentioned basidia 8-14 X 4-5 µ and basidiospores 6-8 X 5-6 µ. The abhymenial surface of P. melanodermus is entirely similar to that of P pachyphloeum. All specimens in herbaria filed under P melanodermus, except the type, were found to be P. pachyphloeus. Cunningham (1965: 221) indicated for P. pachyphloeus the presence of subclavate paraphyses (?) 6-10 X 3.5-4 µ and gave a wider range for basidia 8-14 X 4-5 µ.