Data provider:
New Zealand Fungarium - Te Kohinga Hekaheka o Aotearoa
Database record added:
20 July 2007
Database record updated:
24 February 2023
Determined name:
Resupinatus huia (G. Cunn.) Thorn, Moncalvo & Redhead
Preferred name:
Resupinatus huia (G. Cunn.) Thorn, Moncalvo & Redhead
Identification type:
Determination
Associations:
has host Nothofagus solandri
Substrate:
decaying branch
Determined name:
Nothofagus solandri
Preferred name:
Fuscospora solandri
Identification type:
Determination
Collection event type:
Unknown
Location:
near Featherston, Pigeon Bush Reserve
Georeferences:
Latitude and Longitude (WGS84):
-41.1505 175.267
Verbatim locality:
near Featherston, Pigeon Bush Reserve
Verbatim collector:
B.C. Paulus, A.J. O'Donnell, J.P. Wilkie
Standardised collector:
Barbara C. Paulus; Aidan J. O'Donnell; J. P. Wilkie
Verbatim date:
2007/05/08
New Zealand Area Codes:
Wairarapa
Native lands:
Ngāti Kahungunu
Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa - Tāmaki Nui ā Rua
Georeferences:
New Zealand Map Grid:
2700285E 6003780N (WGS84 -41.150456 175.26739)
Habitat:
Open beech/Leptospermum scoparium regrowth
Public Note:
21st Fungal Foray of New Zealand; Spores narrower than in Cunn. Description.
Public Note:
Probably a synonym of Stigmatolemma incanum. A portion removed for DNA analysis. Spores (5.6)6-7.2 x (2.4)2.8-3.4(4) um, hyaline, inamyloid, smooth, ovate/cylindric, some slightly angular. No basidia seen.
J.V. McDonald, 2011/04/20
Public Note:
The terminal hairs are ramealis and branching. Not seen in PDD92596, although described that way by Cunningham. The hairs are encrusted with a chalky, deciduous layer of fine crystals. The spores are length=6.3–8.3µm (µ=7.1, σ=0.53), width=3.1–4.4µm (µ=3.7, σ=0.35), Q=1.5–2.4µm (µ=1.95, σ=0.26), n=20. The only difference between this and R. huia (at least Cunningham's description) is the spore dimension. I am inclined to consider the original identification of R. huia as correct. McDonald's comment 'probably a synonym of S. incanum' presumably refers to the potential synonymy of R. huia with R. incanum (rather than this specimen being a misidentification of R. incanum). The potential of synonymy of R. huia with R. incanum remains, but there is doubt about the description of Kalchbrenner's original type. The Talbot replacement description is not acceptable. And on biogeographical ground it seems unlikley (but not impossible) that R. incanum and R. huia are the same.
J.A. Cooper, May 2006
Assigned reference numbers