Cantharellus pseudocibarius P. Henn.

Buyck, Bart, Eyssartier, Guillaume, Dima, Bálint, Consiglio, Giovanni, Noordeloos, Machiel Evert, Papp, Viktor, Bera, Ishika, Ghosh, Aniket, Rossi, Walter, Leonardi, Marco & Das, Kanad, 2021, Fungal Biodiversity Profiles 101 - 110, Cryptogamie, Mycologie 20 (5), pp. 63-89 : 66

102. Cantharellus pseudocibarius P. Henn.

( Figs 2 ; 3 )

Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 38: 123 (1905).

TYPUS. — Cameroon, Bipinde, leg. G. Zenker 2457.

Original diagnosis (from Hennings 1905): «Pileo carnoso, subflabellato vel convexo medio depressoque, aurantiaco, levi glabro 2-5 cm diam., margine integro vel undulato lobatoque; stipite laterali vel excentrico, tereti, farcto, laevi vel substriato, basi bulbilloso, 4-6 cm longo, 3-4 cm crasso, concolori; lamellis subpliciformibus vel usque ad 2 mm latis, decurrentibus, subconfertis, furcatis,inaequilongis, acie crassis integris, aurantiis; sporis subglobosis vel ovoideis, hyalinis, 4-5 × 3 ½-4; odore amoeno. Kamerun: Bipindi im Urwalde am Grunde der Stämme (Zenker n. 2457. – Okt. 1901).

DESCRIPTION

Spores

Ellipsoid, (5.6)6.0-6.36-6.7(7.1) × (4.2)4.4-4.65-4.9(5.2) µm, Q = (1.23)1.30-1.37-1.45(1.50), smooth.

Basidia

50-60 × 7-9 µm, narrowly clavate, predominantly 5-spored; sterigmata relatively small, 5-6 × 1-2 µm.

Subhymenium

Not well inflated, most likely filamentous and composed of long, slender cells.

Pileipellis

Composed of hyphae of variable diam. and cells of variable size and width; mostly thin-walled but some cells slightly to distinctly thick-walled, subcylindrical or somewhat widening toward one septum, sometimes almost ellipsoid;the terminal cell obtuse rounded or slightly narrowing at the tip, the narrowest ones mostly thin-walled, c. 6-8 µm diam. and subcylindrical, but mostly terminal and often also some subterminal cells are more inflated, subclavate, ellipsoid or even ampullaceous, and more or less thick-walled, up to 10(-12) µm diam.

Clamp connections

Absent everywhere.

NOTES

We have been hesitating as to whether the duplicates of the type collection should be referred to as syntypes or isotypes. As the number of these duplicate collections are quite considerable: there are four “collections” at PC, consisting each of several fruiting bodies, and there is also at least one more collection in BR and another one in K, while the reference collection should have been originally at B but most likely destroyed by fire. It seems therefore very likely that these various collections represent different gatherings that have been filed under a single number (2457) and possibly collected at different dates as suggested by the year 1902 (versus 1901 in the original description). The spores of the examined syntypes in Paris (PC) are near identical to slightly smaller than those measured on the syntype deposited in the botanical garden of Meise (BR), which were 6-6.73- 7.5 × 4-4.85-6 µm, Q = 1.17-1.39-1.62 ( Eyssartier 2001). Both these measurements are well above the measurements given in the original description where spore size values are clearly too low. From the studied material ( Fig. 2 ), it can be observed that the hymenophore consists of quite distant, unequal gill folds with dispersed forkings, neither strongly interveined nor anastomosing in between.

The here studied and illustrated microscopic features came from a syntype that revived much better than the syntype studied by Eyssartier (2001), allowing now for a detailed description and illustration of the pileipellis composition. This pileipellis is made up of variously inflated cells of different form and size and with cell walls of variable thickness, reminding strongly of the pileipellis illustrated for C. rufopunctatus (Beeli) Heinem. in De Kesel et al. (2016) .

Cantharellus rufopunctatus is probably the only other orange, but distinctly larger chanterelle that occurs in the same Central African rain forest. As it has much more elongate spores (Qmean = 1.9), we can thus exclude the hypothesis that both species are contaxic. In the key by De Kesel et al. (2016), C. pseudocibarius is keyed out by comparing it with C. rufopunctatus but the length/width ratio (Q) for spores is mentioned there for C. pseudocibarius as <1.2, which was based on Heinemann’s (1966) interpretation of Henning’s “sporis subglobosis vel ovoideis” as “subglobose spores”.

As far as we are aware, there are no other Cantharellus species described from Africa that match the features of Henning’s species. Cantharellus pseudocibarius was reported and illustrated by Buyck (1994) from Burundi and had previously also been reported from Tanzania and Zambia ( Pegler & Piearce 1980). In both cases, however, this involves equally orange, but different species with much more elongate spores (8-9 × 4-5mm or Q = approximately 2 in the case of the Burundi chanterelle which produced also much smaller fruiting bodies). As for the C. pseudocibarius mentioned by Pegler & Piearce (1980), we think it might correspond to C. humidicolus Buyck & V. Hofst. , described more recently from Tanzania (Buyck et al. 2013). The latter species has a similar size as C. pseudocibarius but also differs in its very elongate spores (Qmean = 2.4). In conclusion, we think that Henning’s species still awaits to be rediscovered in the Central African rain forest.

Figures

FIG. 2. — Cantharellus pseudocibarius P. Henn.: A-C, three of the four syntype collections at PC (PC0142534-PC0142537). Scale bars: A, B, 5 mm; C, 1 cm. Photos: B. Buyck.

FIG. 3. — Cantharellus pseudocibarius P.Henn. (syntype PC), microscopic features: A, spores; B, basidia and basidiola; C, hyphal extremities of the pileipellis. Scale bar: A, 5 μm; B, C, 10 μm. Drawings: B. Buyck.