2 different Ganoderma?

[daltontrees]

I found this the other day while looking a t a job for someone. The first pic shows an enormous lump of Beech lying on its side under dense canopy cover at the bottom of a slope. It is really a large fork left there after development site clearance I would guess 6 years ago. It has one dead bracket, just visible top left, now in the vertical plane. Ths I have taken to indicate Ganoderma was present before the tree was dismantled. All other brackets on the lump are horizontal and have presumably developed on teh ground.

 

The proximal end of the lump has an outstanding group of Ganoderma brackets. See picture. At first glance I thought they were G. adspersum. Then I thought they were G. applanatum. Then I began to wonder if it was both. I told the owner I wouldn't damage them. Sorry about the pics the light was very poor and I had only a basic camera. Can the two co-exist generally, and is that what's happening here?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Right..."head above the pulpit here", and I'm sure others will put me right !

 

I considered both species are exhibited here, i.e. G. adspersum (now 'australe' of course...don't know why tho!), the more 'bulbous' / irregular brackets, and G. applanatum, the 'flatter' / more regular brackets which, as I understand it, act more 'kinda' saprophytically.

 

There, I hope this helps but please await Mr Humphries and Mr Croft contribution to "put me right." Now, where di I put that copy of the HASWA 1974 and associated Management Regs. 1999

 

Cheers..

Paul

[daltontrees]

Ta, Paul, all input gratefully received. I think pics 2 and 3 could have both species, 4 is adspersum/australe and 5 could be applanatum. For what it's worth the dead bracket on 1 looks more like adspersum.

[David Humphries]

I would imagine that it is possible your images show two distinct species, but the morphology of fruiting bodies (G. applanatum/lipsiense for example) is often quite variable.

 

Plenty of characteristics listed for the differences between the species such as the cracking of the top crust for appla/lipsi as opposed to australe. The edge rim of the fb is supposed to be thin with appla/lipsi as opposed to being wider with australe. The sessile attachment point of the bracket on its host is supposed to be thicker with appla as opposed to australe. There is often evidence of mycelium in the tubes of applanatum as opposed to australe. G applanatum is supposed to be the host of the Yellow Flat-footed Fly, Agathomyia wankowiczii, with its larval galls found on underside of the bracket, but literature now suggests that these have been found on australe too.

 

So, (as mentioned by proper mycologists) microscopic work is required to determine the differences with the shape of pores and spore size.

 

 

 

.

[daltontrees]

Thanks David. I looked for but didn't notice any galls. We may be back on site in a few months to do some reductions and with client's consent I will run a silky through some brackets and see if there is any discernable morphology. I think he will just want to see them chomp away at the lump as quickly as possible but if I have a big saw on the go I might get to take a section throughthe big lump anyway.