Strange fruiting bodies on old cherry

[Sam]

Any ideas? Is it a saprophyte? Not seen this guy before.

 

Thanks.

[openspaceman]

Fomes fomentarius?

 

both a saprophyte and a white rotter I think

[Chris at eden]

22 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Fomes fomentarius?

 

both a saprophyte and a white rotter I think

Never seen Fomes on Cherry but you are correct re the white rot. Simultaneous rot to be exact.  
 

this one looks more like an old desiccated Laetiporus bracket to me. That would fit better with the cherry for me as well.  Brown rotter if so. 

 

[Chris at eden]

Actually, it looks a bit like Piptoporus.  I should probably mention at this point that I can’t find my glasses. 😁

Edited April 14, 2021 by Chris at eden

[Treeation]

Sure that's not a type of birch tree? Looks like catkins too on the foliage.....Id say its Piptoporus on a birch tree.

[daltontrees]

38 minutes ago, Treeation said:

Sure that's not a type of birch tree? Looks like catkins too on the foliage.....Id say its Piptoporus on a birch tree.

I'd say that's exactly what it is.

[Michael h]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I'd say that's exactly what it is.

Me too

although name has been changed to fomitopsis betulina.

another brown rotter, may just be acting saphrotically on the dead branches but more likely also colonising live wood as well

[daltontrees]

6 hours ago, Michael h said:

Me too

although name has been changed to fomitopsis betulina.

another brown rotter, may just be acting saphrotically on the dead branches but more likely also colonising live wood as well

This would make your head spin. The change to Fomitopsis doesn't seem to be entirely accepted. I just read a paper that say it all about how bonkers taxonomy can get. It starts by saying "no comprehensive investigation was carried out on a broad phylogenetic overview of Fomitopsis with enough samples from relevant genera, such as Daedalea and Piptoporus, and taxonomic delimitation of Fomitopsis has been controversial and remained insufficiently resolved . So, further phylogenetic analyses sampling more species are needed to clarify the relationships of Fomitopsis and its related genera."

 

Pages later it concludes (if you can even call it a conclusion) that "In summary, we performed a comprehensive study on Fomitopsis s. l. and its related genera. On the basis of morphological characters and phylogenetic evidence, six new genera, Fragifomes, Niveoporofomes, Rhodofomitopsis, Rubellofomes, Ungulidaedalea and Piptoporellus are proposed, four new species, Buglossoporus eucalypticola, Daedalea allantoidea, Piptoporellus hainanensis and P. triqueter are described, and 16 new combinations are proposed. However, the DNA sequences data of ca. 20 species of Fomitopsis s. l. are not available, and the systematic and phylogenetic position of those species remains uncertain. "

 

Yes folks, they didn't succeed in proving that Piptoporus should be renamed Fomitopsis but along the way they have identifed 4 new species and are suggesting 6 new genera.

 

I remain in denial till it settles down a bit.