Polyporus varius (Pers.) Fr., syn.: Polyporus leptocephalus (Jacq.) Fr., Polyporus elegans Blackfoot Polypore, DE: Lwengelber SchwarzfuporlingSlo.: raznolini luknjiarDat.: July 26. 2015Lat.: 46.41417 Long. 13.56060Code: Bot_903/2015_DSC7972 (042257)Habitat: mountain lake shore, in willow thickets, among tall herbs, flat terrain, calcareous alluvial, skeletal ground; in shade, humid place, partly protected from direct rain by tree canopies, average precipitations ~ 2.800 mm/year, average temperature 5-7 deg C, elevation 960 m (3.150 feet), alpine phytogeographical region. Substratum: fallen, dead trunk of Salix eleagnos in its initial disintegration stage.Place: Iof di Montasio region, south shore of Raibel Lake (Rabeljsko jezero), south of village Rabelj (Cave del Predil), Jezernica valley (Val Rio del Lago), borderline between East and West Julian Alps, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Italy EC.Comments: Assuming this find belongs to Polyporus Fr. (sens.lat.) large measured spores point to the group Polyporus s.str. with only two members in Europe, namely Polyoprus tuberaster and Polyporus squamosus (Ref.1). Since Polyporus tuberster grows on ground from a sclerotium the only candidate from this group remains Polyporus squamoss. However, density of pores (measured 5-6 pores/mm; typical for Polyporus squamosus 1-2/mm) apparently exclude this option. Also, pilei surface do not show even a trace of radially arranged darker squamules so typical for Polyporus squamosus. So, this option seems out. On the other hand macroscopic traits fit well to Polyporud varius. Pilei size, density of pores, pilei color (for young pilei), decurrent pores, black, short, relatively thin stipe and substratum all speak in favor of this determination. However, measured spores are way too big. I have no convincing explanation for this discrepancy. May be that the sporocarps found were too young to sporulate and that the spores measured belong to some other fungi in the vicinity of the find? SP was (if at all) very faint, practically invisible for the naked eye.Growing solitary and in a single group of four pilei fuzzed at the base; pilei diameter up to 6.5 cm; stipe short, thin compared to pilei diameter, almost entirely black; context firm, leathery, almost difficult to cut; when dry very hard; context slowly darkening to light brown when cut; pore surface also darkening to light brown when handled; smell distinct, mushroomy, pleasant; taste distinct, mushroomy, slightly unpleasant after a while; SP almost none.Spores smooth. Dimensions: 13 [13.9 ; 14.4] 15.2 x 4.9 [5.4 ; 5.7] 6.1 microns; Q = 2.3 [2.5 ; 2.6] 2.8; N = 20; C = 95%; Me = 14.1 x 5.5 microns. Olympus CH20, NEA 100x/1.25, magnification 1.000 x, oil, in water, in vivo. AmScope MA500 digital camera.Herbarium: Mycotheca and lichen herbarium (LJU-Li) of Slovenian Forestry Institute, Vena pot 2, Ljubljana, Index Herbariorum LJFRef.:(1) L. Ryvarden, R.L. Gilbertson, European Polypores, part 2., Synopsis Fungorum 7., Fungiflora A/S (1994), p 586. (2) R.Phillips, Mushrooms, Macmillan (2006), p 298. (3) S.Buczacki, Collins Fungi Guide, Collins (2012), p 510. (4) G.J.Krieglsteiner (Hrsg.), Die Grosspilze Baden-Wrttembergs, Band 1., Ulmer (2000), p 510.(5) A.Bernicchia, S.P.Gorjon, Cortitiaceaes.i., Fungi Europaei Vol.12., EdizioniCandusso (2010), p 473. (6) R.M. Daehncke, 1200 Pilze in Farbfotos, AT Verlag (2009), p 1060. (7) D.Arora, Mushrooms Demystified, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley (1986), p 562.(8) L. Ryvarden, Polyporaceae of North Europe, Vol. I & II, Islo (1978). (9) S. Domanski, H. Orlos, A. Skirgiello, Grzby, Polyporaceac II, Mucronoporaceae II, Springfield, Warshaw (1967).
