United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacifi c Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-576

March 2003

Ecology and Management 

of Commercially Harvested 

Chanterelle Mushrooms

David Pilz, Lorelei Norvell, Eric Danell, and 

Randy Molina

Note: Some imprinted photos are used in the Web version of this publication.
David Pilz is a faculty research assistant in the Department of Forest Science, Oregon 

State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5752; Lorelei Norvell is 

adjunct associate professor in biology, Portland State University, and a professional 

mycologist and president of Pacific Northwest Mycology Service, 6720 NW Skyline 

Boulevard, Portland, OR 97229-1309; Eric Danell is associate professor, Botany 

Section, Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyv.16,SE-752 36, Uppsala, 

Sweden; Randy Molina is a research botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331-4401.

Authors

Cover—Colorful Pacific golden chanterelles (Cantharellus formosus) abound each autumn in 

Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest. Until recently these avidly 

collected mushrooms were misidentified as Cantharellus cibarius, the golden chanterelle of 

fame in Europe and elsewhere. Now properly named, it has been honored as the state mushroom of Oregon, and is sold locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally (©2002 Taylor F. 

Lockwood).
Pilz, David; Norvell, Lorelei; Danell, Eric; Molina, Randy. 2003. Ecology and 

management of commercially harvested chanterelle mushrooms. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-576. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 83 p.

During the last two decades, the chanterelle mushroom harvest from Pacific Northwest forests has become a multimillion dollar industry, yet managers, harvesters, 

and scientists lack a current synthesis of information about chanterelles. We define 

chanterelles and then discuss North American species, their place among chanterelle species around the world, international markets for chanterelles, our current 

understanding of the organism, reasons for declining production in parts of Europe, 

and efforts to cultivate chanterelles. Shifting focus back to chanterelles of the Pacific 

Northwest, we describe our species, regional forest management issues, recent 

studies, and future research and monitoring needed to sustain this prized resource.

Keywords: Chanterelle mushrooms, edible mushrooms, ectomycorrhizae, forest 

management, nontimber forest products, Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, 

Polyozellus.

Abstract
Chanterelles are globally renowned as one of the best edible forest mushrooms, and 

their international commercial value likely exceeds a billion dollars annually.

A variety of chanterelle species fruit plentifully in Pacific Northwest forests, and their 

abundance has spawned a significant commercial harvest industry during the last 

two decades. Because chanterelles grow symbiotically with the roots of forest trees, 

managing the fungi for sustainable harvests also means managing forest habitats.

This publication summarizes what we currently know about chanterelles. Our intent is 

to provide forest managers, policymakers, mushroom harvesters, mushroom enthusiasts, and research mycologists with accurate information for an informed debate about 

chanterelle management. Our commercial harvest in the Pacific Northwest originates 

within a broad historical, cultural, ecological, and international trade context, and much 

relevant information about the organism comes from research in Europe. Therefore 

we also discuss chanterelles throughout North America and worldwide; the international chanterelle market; chanterelle biology, ecology, chemistry, and nutrition; recent 

chanterelle productivity declines reported from parts of Europe; and current research 

on chanterelle cultivation. Returning our focus to Pacific Northwest chanterelles, we 

describe local species, discuss management issues, summarize recent research, and 

conclude with future research and monitoring designed to ensure a continued abundance of chanterelles in our forests.

Summary
Contents 1 Introduction

2 Chanterelle Names

3 Chanterelles Around the World

3 What Are Chanterelles?

3 North American Chanterelles

7 Global Distribution and History of Use

16 International Commerce

18 Understanding Chanterelles

18 Chanterelle Evolution

19 Morphology and Physiology

19 Soils and Host Trees 

20 Fruiting

20 Insects and Parasites

21 Reproductive Strategy

22 Chemistry, Nutrition, and Health

24 Human Impacts

25 Cultivation

29 Pacific Northwest Chanterelles

29 Species Descriptions 

30 Key to Pacific Northwest Chanterelles, Chanterelle-Like Mushrooms and 

 Look-Alikes

43 Management and Research in the Pacific Northwest

43 Commercial Harvest

44 Management Issues

46 Recent Research

53 Future Research

54 Closing Remarks

54 Glossary

55 Acknowledgments

55 English Equivalents

56 Literature Cited

78 Appendix 1: Common Names, Scientific Names, and Synonyms

83 Appendix 2: Description of the Genus Cantharellus
1

Owing to its varied topography and climate, the Pacific slope of western North America 

is covered with temperate conifer and hardwood forests that are unrivaled in their rich 

biological diversity. The original human inhabitants no doubt marveled at this region’s 

bountiful heritage of fish, wildlife, and plants that provided them with food and shelter. Native American tribes used native fungi for medicine and food, but as far as we 

know, mushrooms were minor items in the diets of most Native Americans dwelling in 

the Pacific Northwest. European settlers, however, brought with them very different 

cultures and food preferences, including a passion for mushrooms. The diverse flora 

of the Pacific Northwest supports a correspondingly rich mycota.1 As all major types of 

edible mushrooms appreciated in Europe are also found in the Pacific Northwest, often 

in a profuse variety, settlers and their descendants have harvested edible mushrooms 

for food and pleasure ever since their arrival. Chanterelles, already much appreciated 

in parts of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Central America, have become one of the most 

commonly harvested edible mushrooms in Pacific Northwest forests. Although some 

chanterelles have been sold locally (plate 1, [on center page]) ever since they were 

first collected in the region, the nature and scale of mushroom harvesting changed 

dramatically during the 1980s when they became internationally traded commodities.

Chanterelles are ectomycorrhizal. Mycorrhizal fungi grow in a mutually beneficial, or 

symbiotic, association with the root tips of green plants. Ectomycorrhizal fungi are a 

subset of mycorrhizal fungi that form sheaths over the root tips of certain trees and 

shrubs. (See the section entitled “Morphology and Physiology” for a more thorough 

explanation). Because chanterelles obtain their carbohydrate nutrition from living trees 

through this symbiotic association, forests are essential to their survival and productivity. We will discuss efforts to cultivate chanterelles, but currently they are all collected 

from natural or planted forests. With the onset of widespread commercial harvesting, 

sustainable chanterelle production has become an important issue for harvesters, consumers, and forest managers alike. Given the interdependence between chanterelles 

and live trees, everyone interested in sustaining chanterelle production recognizes that 

appropriate forest management influences their abundance. What constitutes “appropriate” forest management is less clear, however. 

The purpose of this publication is to summarize, in a convenient format, what we 

currently know about chanterelles and management of the forests upon which they 

depend. Our literature cited section is meant to be inclusive so that it serves as a fairly 

complete guide to current, global, and historical literature about chanterelles. Our intended audience is broad, including forest managers, mycologists, mushroom enthusiasts, harvesters, ecologists, botanists, administrators, legislators, and the general 

public. In addition to our primary audience in the Pacific Northwest, we have designed 

this publication to be of interest to readers around the world. Effective management of 

chanterelles cannot be adequately addressed without considering the broad historical, 

cultural, ecological, and commercial context of their harvest. Similarly, much relevant 

information about the organism comes from research in Europe. After discussing the 

genera of mushrooms that are considered chanterelles and reviewing North American 

species, we explore chanterelles around the world and pertinent research conducted 

Introduction

1 “Flora” can either refer to all plants that grow in a defined region, 

or to a comprehensive reference (keys and descriptions) to those 

plants. Flora is often used for fungi, as in “fungal flora,” but because fungi constitute a separate kingdom of life (that is actually 

more closely related to animals than to plants) we use the technically correct term “mycota” in the same manner that “flora” is used.
2 

elsewhere. Thereafter we return our focus to Pacific Northwest chanterelles and regional research. Considering the diversity of interests of our intended audience, we wrote 

each part of this document so that the reader can skip directly to subject matter 

of interest without losing continuity.

Although we frequently use scientific names to discuss taxonomic issues and avoid 

ambiguity, we also use common (English) names for chanterelles to enhance readability. The proper use of both scientific and common names can be tricky, so this section 

explains some of the issues we faced and the conventions we adopted.

Scientific names—For over two and a half centuries, scientists have referred to the 

organisms they study by using the binomial system of nomenclature introduced by 

Linnaeus in his “Species Plantarum” (1753). Despite universal adherence to the rules 

of standardized nomenclature, names change. In fact, names must change as our 

understanding of taxonomic distinctions between organisms improves. For instance, 

Cantharellus formosus is the scientific name for the common golden chanterelle of the 

Pacific Northwest. Yet the name Cantharellus cibarius (the accepted scientific name for 

the golden chanterelle of Europe) was commonly used for this popular edible in western 

North America until recent research demonstrated it to be a distinct species found only 

in western North America. Name changes can also result from moving a species into 

a different genus. For instance, we will discuss the recent move of some Cantharellus

species into the genus Craterellus. Current molecular techniques of DNA and protein 

analysis provide supporting evidence for both of these examples, and more scientific 

names undoubtedly will be altered as the techniques are more widely applied. Readers 

are referred to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter and others 

2000) for information on the highly complex rules that govern scientific name changes. 

Appendix 1 lists currently accepted scientific names, their authors (cited authorities), 

dates of publication for names or name changes, earlier scientific synonyms, and references. For brevity and clarity, throughout the text we abbreviate the genus Cantharellus

with “C.,” Craterellus with “Cr.,” Gomphus with “G.,” and Polyozellus with “P.”

Common names—Because common names are quite variable, we have carefully 

selected names (listed in appendix 1) that do not overlap among species. Cantharellus 

cibarius has long fame as the “golden chanterelle [of Europe],” although it likely grows 

elsewhere too. We call C. cibarius either simply “the golden chanterelle” or “European 

golden chanterelle” where needed to clearly distinguish it from the golden chanterelle of the Pacific Northwest. We use the term “Pacific golden chanterelle” (coined by 

Redhead and others 1997) for C. formosus because it reflects the species distribution 

along the west coast of North America. In this publication we also introduce the term 

“craterelle” to distinguish species in the genus Craterellus from “true chanterelles” in the 

genus Cantharellus.

Common names can be influential. Oregon is one of only two states2 in the United 

States to recognize a state mushroom. The catchy common name “Pacific golden 

chanterelle,” its popularity as a good edible, and its importance in commerce motivated 

the legislature in 1999 to select Cantharellus formosus as the Oregon state mushroom.

Unfamiliar terms—Because many of our readers might not be acquainted with the 

technical language used to discuss fungi, we define or discuss potentially unfamiliar 

terms in the text or in footnotes the first time the word is used. We also include a brief 

2 Minnesota’s state mushroom is the morel, Morchella esculenta.

Chanterelle Names
3

glossary for readers who prefer to skip sections and might have missed the definition. 

Comprehensive definitions can be found in Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk and others 

2001).

The term “chanterelle” is used for a variety of edible, and highly prized mushrooms 

with ridges (instead of gills) on the underside of the cap. Mushrooms are the reproductive structures (fruitbody or sporocarp) of certain fungi, and in the case of chanterelles, 

the fungus lives in the soil and derives its carbohydrate nutrition from a symbiotic 

mycorrhizal association with fine tree roots (Smith and Read 1997). The word “chanterelle” is derived from the Greek “kantharos” meaning “cup,” “goblet,” or “drinking 

vessel,” a reference to their funnel-like shapes (Persson and Mossberg 1997). As the 

species name for the European golden chanterelle, “cibarius” is derived from the Latin 

word for “food,” the combined species name, Cantharellus cibarius, quite appropriately 

translates as “cup of food.” Indeed most chanterelles are highly prized for their flavor 

and can be safely collected and consumed because they are easily identified (Moser 

and Jülich 2000). 

Four genera, Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, and Polyozellus, are commonly 

referred to as “chanterelles” because their spore-bearing surfaces appear similar 

without magnification. The fertile or spore-bearing surface of mushrooms is called the 

hymenium. The chanterelle hymenium can be smooth, wrinkled, veined, or ridged, but 

never forms bladelike gills (as in mushrooms like Agaricus) or tubes (as in Boletus).

Most chanterelles have spore-bearing ridges that typically extend from the edge of the 

cap (pileus) well down the tapered stems (stipes). Chanterelles can be brittle, fleshy, 

or leathery, but they are never woody in texture. Morphological characters that distinguish these genera are listed in table 1. Appendix 2 provides a technical description of 

the genus Cantharellus, the “true chanterelles.”

Over 40 species of chanterelles and chanterelle-like mushrooms (in all four chanterelle genera) are currently recognized in North America. Common host trees include 

pine, fir, spruce, Douglas-fir, hemlock, and oak (see app. 1 for species names). Seven 

prominent edible species occur in the forests of the Pacific Northwest (here defined 

as southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, northern California, 

Idaho, and western Montana): the Pacific golden chanterelle (C. formosus), the white 

chanterelle (C. subalbidus), the rainbow chanterelle (C. cibarius var. roseocanus), the 

winter craterelle (erroneously called Cr. tubaeformis—see further discussion below), 

the horn of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides), pig’s ears (Gomphus clavatus), and the blue 

chanterelle (Polyozellus multiplex). Although these chanterelles differ in abundance 

and distribution, and not all are commercially collected, all are popular edibles. East 

of the Rocky mountains, field guides most commonly discuss the following edible species: the golden chanterelle (C. cibarius), the red or cinnabar chanterelle (C. cinnabarinus), the smooth chanterelle (C. lateritius), the small chanterelle (C. minor), the black 

craterelle [originally “chanterelle”] (Cr. cinereus), the black trumpet or horn of plenty 

(Cr. cornucopioides),3 the flame-colored craterelle [chanterelle] (Cr. ignicolor), the 

autumn craterelle [chanterelle] (Cr. tubaeformis), the fragrant craterelle [chanterelle] 

(Cr. odoratus), the fragrant black trumpet (Cr. foetidus), and the pig’s ear gomphus 

(G. clavatus).

Chanterelles Around 

the World

What Are Chanterelles?

North American 

Chanterelles

3 See the Pacific Northwest chanterelle species description for 

Cr. cornucopioides concerning Cr. fallax and recent taxonomic 

revisions.
4 

The two most commercially valuable and widely collected Pacific Northwest chanterelles are the Pacific golden and white chanterelles. Until recently, most collectors 

regarded Pacific golden chanterelles as simply larger forms of the golden chanterelle, 

C. cibarius. Nearly a century ago, however, American chanterelle specialists had begun to question whether the Pacific Northwest golden chanterelle was the same as 

C. cibarius (Redhead and others 1997). Murrill (1912), who made many collections in 

Pacific coastal forests observed, “I found it difficult to believe that this was the same 

plant I had seen so often in Europe and the eastern United States.” Thirty-five years 

later Smith and Morse (1947) also suggested that the western golden chanterelles 

differed from the eastern. In 1966, the British chanterelle specialist Corner named a 

new species, Cantharellus formosus, based on a collection he had made 30 years 

previously on British Columbia’s Vancouver Island. Although several other scientists 

(Norvell 1995, Petersen 1969, Thiers 1985, Tylutki 1987) believed this was the correct name for the commonly harvested golden chanterelle of western North America, 

popular field guides continued to refer to the Pacific golden chanterelle as “C. cibarius.” The resulting confusion led to both “C. formosus” and “C. cibarius” being listed in 

the United States government’s Northwest Forest Plan as survey and manage strategy 

1 and strategy 3 fungi, respectively (USDA USDI 1994a,1994b; Castellano and others 

1999). Partly in response to this error and partly to heighten public awareness to the 

fact that the Pacific golden chanterelle was not, in fact, C. cibarius of Europe, Redhead 

and others (1997) collected samples from several sites on Vancouver Island near the 

area where Corner had originally collected C. formosus. By comparing the descriptions and DNA data from these and other collections (Danell 1995, Feibelman and others 1994), they were able to establish C. formosus as the correct scientific name and 

proposed the common name “Pacific golden chanterelle” (plate 2).

Table 1—Morphological characters differentiating the cantharelloid genera Cantharellus, Craterellus,

Gomphus, and Polyozellus

Genus Cantharellus Craterellus Gomphus Polyozellus

Order Cantharellales Cantharellales Phallales Thelephorales

Family Cantharellaceae Cantharellaceae Gomphaceae Thelephoraceae

Habit Single stems often 

 solid (sometimes 

 fused)

Single stems often 

 hollow

Single to multiple stems No stem to multiple 

 stems from the same 

 base

Texture Fleshy, firm Leathery, brittle Fleshy, firm, chunky Somewhat leathery

Colors Usually bright: orange, 

 yellow, red, or white

Dark (brown or black) 

 tones often present;

 some are yellow

Orange, red, purple, or 

 tan with white flesh

Dark bluish purple to 

 black exterior and flesh

Basidia a Longitudinal nuclear 

 spindles during meiosis

Longitudinal nuclear 

 spindles during meiosis

Horizontal nuclear 

 spindles during meiosis

Longitudinal nuclear 

 spindles during meiosis

Spores Ellipsoid, smooth, 

 walls colorless

Ellipsoid, smooth, 

 walls colorless

Ornamented, walls 

 yellowish, stain blue

Not quite spherical, 

 warty, greenish in KOH

a Microscopic clublike structures where spores develop.

Sources include Bruns and others 1998, Dahlman and others 2000, Feibelman and others 1997, Hibbett and others 1997, Kirk and others 2001.
5

In the same publication, Redhead, Norvell, and Danell also named and described the 

newly recognized rainbow chanterelle (C. cibarius var. roseocanus), associated with 

Sitka spruce on the coast and Engelmann spruce at higher elevations in the Cascade 

Range, but not found in pure stands of Douglas-fir or hemlock. The rainbow chanterelle has since been observed to fruit in pure stands of lodgepole (shore) pine on 

the Oregon Coast.4 (C. formosus also grows in spruce forests, but has not yet been 

confirmed as an ectomycorrhizal associate of pines.) Citing preliminary DNA evidence 

that showed it to be closely related to the European golden chanterelle, the authors 

named the rainbow chanterelle as a variety of C. cibarius. If further evidence warrants, 

the rainbow chanterelle might later be elevated to the status of a distinct species. 

More species of chanterelles are likely to be described in the Pacific Northwest. Other 

DNA research (Dunham and others 1998, Feibelman and others 1994) indicates there 

might be two or more intermingling species of golden chanterelles in the Douglas-fir 

and western hemlock forests of the Oregon Cascade Range (and possibly elsewhere). 

One yet-to-be named chanterelle that appears genetically distinct differs only slightly 

in color and stature from C. formosus.

5 Similarly, one or more6 distinct species of 

golden chanterelles are thought to grow with oaks in California. For instance, specimens fruiting under oaks in Santa Barbara County were found to be genetically distinct 

from other known west coast chanterelles.7 Although Smith (1968) originally described 

C. cibarius var. pallidifolius from Michigan, Thiers (1985) documented one collection 

growing with tanbark oak in Mendocino County, California. Analyses of DNA continue 

to probe the relationships among various North American and European species.8

4 Dunham, Susie. 2001. Personal communication. Ph.D. student, 

Department of Forest Science, 321 Richardson Hall, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR 97331-5752. Also, Danell, Eric. 2001. 

Unpublished DNA analysis. On file with: Museum of Evolution, 

Uppsala University, Norbyv.16, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.

5 Dunham, S.; O’Dell, T.; Molina, R. [In review]. Analysis of nrDNA 

sequences and microsatellite allele frequencies reveals a cryptic 

chanterelle species Cantharellus cascadensis sp. nov. from the 

Pacific Northwest. On file with: Department of Forest Science, 321 

Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-

5752.

6 Camacho, Francisco. 2001. Personal communication. Research 

assistant, Department of Environmental Science, University of 

California at Riverside, Riverside, CA, 92521.

7 Dunham, Susie. 2000. Unpublished data. On file with: 

Department of Forest Science, 321 Richardson Hall, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-5752. Collections courtesy 

of the late Helmut Ehrenspeck, Dibble Geological Foundation, 

Geological Sciences Department, University of California, Santa 

Barbara, CA 93106. Also, Danell, Eric. 2000. Unpublished DNA 

analysis. On file with: Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, 

SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden. Collections from N. California, courtesy of John Donoghue, Northwest Mycological Consultants, 702 

NW 4th St., Corvallis, OR 97330.

8 Danell, E.; Camacho, F.; Liston, A. [and others]. [In preparation]. 

RFLP and sequencing of rDNA ITS of the ectomycorrhizal edible 

mushrooms Cantharellus cibarius, C. pallens, C. formosus and C.

subalbidus. On file with: Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, 

Norbyv.16, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.
6 

Craterelles or “horns of plenty” (Craterellus) are the thinner cousins of true chanterelles (Cantharellus), and most scientists place both genera in the same order 

(Cantharellales) and family (Cantharellaceae) (Dahlman and others 2000, Hansen 

and Knudsen 1997, Kirk and others 2001, Pine and others 1999). Distinctions between these genera are currently being revised, however, and several species have 

recently been moved from the genus Cantharellus to the genus Craterellus. During the 

last century, craterelles were distinguished from true chanterelles based on the presence or absence of clamp connections9 on the hyphae, whether the stem is hollow or 

solid, and the presence or absence of yellow carotenoid pigments (table 1) (Corner 

1966, Donk 1964, Fries 1874, Jülich 1984, Patouillard 1900, Pegler and others 1997, 

Petersen 1971b, Romagnesi 1995, Watling and Turnbull 1998). Recent DNA analyses 

support Cantharellus and Craterellus as separate and independent (Dahlman and others 2000, Feibelman and others 1997, Pine and others 1999) but do not confirm visible 

characters as consistently useful for differentiating the two genera. For instance, despite their small size, rubbery consistency, and hollow stem, both the autumn craterelle 

(Cr. tubaeformis) and flame-colored craterelle (Cr. ignicolor) were previously treated 

as true chanterelles in the genus Cantharellus because both have clamp connections 

and carotenoid pigments like chanterelles. Analyses of DNA (Bruns and others 1998, 

Dahlman and others 2000, Feibelman and others 1997, Hibbett and others 1997), 

however, clearly support inclusion of both species in the genus Craterellus, along with 

the yellow-footed chanterelle (now Cr. lutescens), the horn of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides), and the wavy capped chanterelle (now Cr. undulatus). Hollowness of the stem is 

now considered the most useful feature for distinguishing these genera in the absence 

of a microscope or DNA probes. Even this character might not turn out to be entirely 

consistent, however, as the solid-stemmed C. melanoxeros could be a craterelle. Time 

and further DNA analyses will tell.

Smith and Morse (1947) and Smith (1968) distinguished between two western and two 

eastern craterelles (as chanterelles) using the names C. tubaeformis and C. infundibuliformis. Redhead (1979) noted that Smith used inconsistent features to distinguish the 

pairs of species in eastern versus western North America, and also that the name C.

infundibuliformis was unavailable, because it is considered to be synonymous with C. 

tubaeformis. Smith and Morse (1947) and Redhead (1979) have both suggested that 

the western species on rotten logs requires a distinct name, but further studies of original collections are also needed. Dahlman and others (2000), using molecular data, 

likewise suggested that the Pacific Northwest winter craterelle is a distinct species 

differing from Cr. tubaeformis of Europe and eastern North America. In this publication, we use the name Craterellus neotubaeformis nom. prov.10 for our western winter 

craterelle because the group of mycologists who are working on this species wish to 

incorporate a link to the old name. More information about Fries’ distinctions among 

C. tubaeformis, C. infundibuliformis, and the yellow-foot chanterelle C. lutescens (all 

listed as Cantharellus) can be found in Donk (1969), Petersen (1979), Kuyper (1990), 

and Redhead and others (2002).

9 Distinctive microscopic structures.

10 “Nom. prov.” is an abbreviation for the Latin term “nomen 

provisorium” meaning “provisional name.” It is used to reserve a 

species name while the description is being prepared for official 

publication.
7

The genus Gomphus is more distantly related to Cantharellus than is Craterellus. 

Although superficially similar to true chanterelles, this genus is placed in its own family, the Gomphaceae, and a different order, the Phallales. Analyses of DNA (Bruns and 

others 1998, Hibbett and others 1997, Humpert and others 2001, Pine and others 1999, 

Villegas and others 1999) now confirm a close relationship between Gomphus and other 

genera formerly placed in the Clavariaceae family (for example, coral fungi—Ramaria, 

club coral fungi—Clavariadelphus, and fairy clubs—Clavaria) as well as other members 

of the Phallales such as stinkhorns (Phallus species). Unlike the other three chanterelle 

genera, Gomphus contains both edible and inedible species. Of the four Gomphus species found in western North America, only the pig’s ear gomphus (Gomphus clavatus) 

is considered a safe edible. Inedible species include the scaly vase chanterelle (G. 

floccosus), Kauffman’s gomphus (G. kauffmanii), and Bonar’s gomphus (G. bonarii). 

See the key for Pacific Northwest species and the description of Gomphus clavatus

(page 30) for information on how to recognize the nonedible Gomphus species.

Polyozellus is a genus that contains only one species. The edible and choice blue 

chanterelle (P. multiplex) was originally described as a Cantharellus species because 

its veined hymenium and fleshy texture resemble those of true chanterelles. W.A. 

Murrill (1910) placed this species into its new genus, and subsequent research (Imazeki 

1953) confirmed that P. multiplex is only very distantly related to the true chanterelles. 

Polyozellus is now (Kirk and others 2001) placed in the Leathery Earth Fan family 

(Thelephoraceae) and order (Thelephorales) along with other fungi characterized by 

dark rough angular spores and the production of thelephoric acid (Hibbett and others 

1997). We include it because it appears similar to chanterelles, has long been called a 

chanterelle, and is edible.

Although not considered chanterelles, the club corals (Clavariadelphus species) and 

hedgehog mushrooms (Hydnum species) have been regarded as chanterelle relatives (Corner 1957, 1966; Donk 1964; Persson and Mossberg 1997; Petersen 1971b). 

Although Reijnders and Stalpers (1992) concluded that Hydnum was not closely related 

to chanterelles, more recent DNA evidence indicates otherwise (Hibbett and others 

1997). Hibbett and Thorn (2000) note that whereas the club corals belong to the same 

order and family as Gomphus, hedgehogs belong to the same clade (DNA-based group 

of related fungi) as chanterelles and craterelles.

Because all chanterelles are only distant relatives of gilled fungi, our knowledge of genetics and physiology derived from research on gilled fungi might not be fully applicable 

to chanterelles. This is important to keep in mind as we later discuss the biology and 

ecology of chanterelles.

About 90 species in the genera Cantharellus and Craterellus have been described 

worldwide. The total number differs according to authors and how they define species 

(Corner 1966, Dahlman and others 2000, Danell 1994a, Eyssartier and Buyck 2000, 

Feibelman and others 1997, Pegler and others 1997, Persson and Mossberg 1997, 

Watling and Turnbull 1998). Well over 70 species of true chanterelles have been described thus far, and many more are yet to be named. They are found on every continent that has forests with ectomycorrhizal host trees. Impressive chanterelle mycotas 

exist in southeastern and eastern Asia, Japan, Africa, Australia, and Central and South 

America. Chanterelles are especially appreciated in Europe and North America. The 

large number of common names listed in table 2 illustrates the worldwide popularity of 

this highly prized edible. Table 3 shows the global distribution of species discussed in 

our text.

Global Distribution 

and History of Use
8 

Table 2—Worldwide vernacular names of chanterelles (Cantharellus cibarius sensu latoa)

Name Meaning Language

Agerola from Girolle Catalonian

Amarillo yellow Spanish, local—Hidalgo, Mexico

Anzutake apricot mushroom Japanese

Baina Basque

Bolet cabriter Catalonian

Cabrilla Spanish, local—Segovia, Spain

Camagroc Catalonian

Canarinhos canary bird chicken Portuguese

Cantarela from chanterelle Spanish, local—La Rioja and Navarra, Spain

Cantarelos from chanterelle Portuguese

Capo gallo cock crest, head Italian

Carn de gallina chicken meat Spanish

Chanterelle French, English

Chevrette small goat French

Corneta trumpet Spanish, local—Hidalgo, Mexico

Crête de coq cock crest French

Csirke gomba chicken mushroom Hungarian

Dooierzwam egg yolk mushroom Dutch

Dotterpilz egg yolk mushroom German

Duraznillo name of a sweet tropical fruit Spanish, local—Texcoco, Mexico

Eierschwamm egg mushroom German

Euskera ziza hori Spanish, local

Finferlo see Pfifferling Italian

Finferli see Pfifferling Italian, local—South Tyrol, Austria

Galbiori yellowish one Romanian

Galletto young rooster Italian

Gallinace chicken French

Gallinaccio chicken Italian

Galuschel yellow ear German

Gelbhähnel yellow chick German

Gelbling yellowing German

Ginestola Catalonian

Ginesterola From the yellow Genista plant Catalonian

Girola from girolle Spanish, local—La Rioja and Navarra, Spain

Girolle girer = twist French

Gullsvamp golden mushroom Swedish, local—Småland, Sweden

Hanekam cock crest Dutch

Harilik kukeseen common cock mushroom Estonian

Hasenöhrlein little hare ear German
9

Name Meaning Language

Hed Kamin Yai large Kamin mushroom Thai

Huangzhi-gu yellow cape jasmine mushroom Chinese

Hühnling chick German

Jaunette little yellow French

Jidanhuang egg yolk Chinese

Jiyou-jun chicken fat mushroom Chinese

Kantarel from chanterelle Danish, Dutch

Kantarell from chanterelle Swedish, Norwegian

Kantarella from chanterelle Icelandic

Kantarelli from chanterelle Finnish

Keltasieni yellow mushroom Finnish

Keltavahvero Finnish

Kkue-kko-ri beosus nightingale mushroom Korean

Kuratko chick Czech

Kurka Polish

Lekazina Basque, local

Lisitjka fox mushroom Russian

Liska fox mushroom Czech

Mãozinhas baby hands Portuguese

Membrillo name of a sweet tropical fruit Spanish, local—Texcoco, Mexico

Niwl gomba hare mushroom Ancient Hungarian

Orecina little ear Italian (dialect)

Oreille de lièvre hare’s ear French

Oreja de liebre hare’s ear Spanish

Picornell Spanish, local—Balearic Islands, Spain

Pfifferling Pfeffer = pepper German

Qhale másinċe• tree? = mushroom Kashaya, Kashaya Pomo tribe, Northern California

Rebozuelo Woman’s dress Spanish, common in Europe and South America

Reheling German

Rehfüsshen deer’s foot German

Roka gomba fox mushroom Hungarian

Rossinyol nightingale Catalonian

Rubito little blond Spanish, local

Sal-gu beosus apricot mushroom Korean

Saltzaperretxiko sauce mushroom Basque

Seta amarilla Spanish, local

Seta del brezo Spanish, local—Soria, Spain

Seta de San Juan St. John’s mushroom Spanish, local—Segovia, Spain

Sisa lekaxin Basque

Table 2—Worldwide vernacular names of chanterelles (Cantharellus cibarius sensu latoa) (continued)
10 

Name Meaning Language

Susa Spanish, local

Txaltxatua Basque

Ull de perdiu partridge eye Catalonian

Urri-ziza golden mushroom Basque

Vaqueta small cow Catalonian

Vingesvamp wing mushroom Danish, local

Wisogolo Swahili

Xingjun apricot mushroom Chinese

Xochilnanácatl flower mushroom Nahuatl, Valle de México, Mexico

Yumurta mantari egg mushroom Turkish

Ziza horia yellow mushroom Basque, Spain and France

a “Sensu lato,” Latin for “in a broad sense,” is used after species names to indicate that the definition of a species is being interpreted 

broadly or loosely in a particular context. It is abbreviated “s.l.,” an abbreviation we use throughout the manuscript.

Table 2—Worldwide vernacular names of chanterelles (Cantharellus cibarius sensu latoa) (continued)

Species Continent(s) Distribution

C. appalachiensis

 

East coast of North America (similar 

chanterelle reported in India)

C. atrolilacinus Costa Rica, Guatemala?

C. cibarius

Circum-Atlantic in the Northern 

Hemisphere, also North Africa, 

Himalayas, and Thailand a

C. cibarius

 var. amethysteus Europe, Southern United States?

C. cibarius

 var. roseocanus

Pacific Northwest near coast

C. cinnabarinus Southeastern United States, West Indies, 

Central and South America, and Japan

C. concinnus 

 ( = C. cibarius 

 var. australiensis)

Australia, New Guinea, and New Zealand

Table 3—Worldwide distribution of the chanterelle species we discuss
11

Table 3—Worldwide distribution of the chanterelle species we discuss (continued)

Species Continent(s) Distribution

C. congolensis Tanzania, Burundi, Congo, and Senegal

C. formosus Pacific Northwest

C. friesii Europe

C. lateritius Eastern North America and Costa Rica

C. longisporus Tanzania, Madagascar

C. melanoxeros Europe; also reported in Malaysia, 

Singapore, and Indochina

C. minor Eastern United States; reported from 

Japan, Thailand, and New Guinea

C. ochraceoravus Australia

C. pallens Europe, with hazels, oaks, and spruce

C. platyphyllus Tanzania, Madagascar

C. pseudocibarius Tanzania, Burundi, Congo, and Cameroon

C. pudorinus Malaysia, Singapore, and Indochina

C. subalbidus Pacific Northwest
12 

Table 3—Worldwide distribution of the chanterelle species we discuss (continued)

Species Continent(s) Distribution

C. subcibarius Pakistan, India, China, Malaysia, Japan,

and Philippines

C. symoensii Eastern Africa

Cr. boyacensis Columbia, Costa Rica, and Central to

South America

Cr. cinereus Eastern North America and Europe, in

broadleaf forests

Cr. cornucopioides 

 ( = Cr. fallax)

North, Central, and South America,

Europe, Asia, and Japan, in

broadleaf forests

Cr. costaricensis Costa Rica

Cr. ignicolor Eastern North America

Cr. lutescens Eastern North America, Europe 

Cr. neotubaeformis

 nom. prov.

West coast of North America

Cr. odoratus North America, Malaysia, Singapore, and

Indochina

Cr. tubaeformis Europe, Asia, and North America in

coniferous forests

Cr. undulatus Europe and North America, with hazels 

and oaks
13

Species Continent(s) Distribution

G. bonarii Northern and western North America

G. clavatus

West coast of North America, Europe, 

Pakistan, India, and Japan; likely 

pan-hemispheric

G. floccosus Northern and western North America

G. kauffmanii Pacific Northwest and southern 

Appalachians; rare

P. multiplex Northern and montane North America, 

Japan

Note: See appendix 1 for prior names and synonyms.

a Species with distributions spanning several continents, such as C. cibarius, might actually consist of two or more locally unique species that 

will be differentiated with future research.

Table 3—Worldwide distribution of the chanterelle species we discuss (continued)

Europe—Currently, 10 species of chanterelles are widely recognized in Europe. The 

golden chanterelle (C. cibarius) is the primary commercial species. Other species that 

occur throughout Europe are the blackening chanterelle (C. melanoxeros), the horn 

of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides), the black craterelle (Cr. cinereus), the autumn craterelle (Cr. tubaeformis), and the yellow foot (Cr. lutescens). The orange chanterelle 

(C. friesii) and the amethyst chanterelle (C. cibarius var. amethysteus) have a more 

southern distribution, and the European pale chanterelle (C. pallens) and the wavycapped chanterelle (Cr. undulatus) are primarily ectomycorrhizal associates of hazels 

and oaks. Uncertain species include a single collection of C. borealis (Petersen and 

Ryvarden 1971) and the recently described C. pseudominimus and C. romagnesianus

(Eyssartier and Buyck 1999b).

The Dutch herbalist Lobelius (1581) was the first to mention chanterelles in the 

European literature. The Belgian botanist Clusius (1601), who traveled extensively and 

wrote the first scientific monograph on fungi, cited German “Reheling” and Hungarian 

“Niwl Gomba” as local common names for the golden chanterelle. The existence of 

these old vernacular names suggests that Europeans ate chanterelles in medieval 

times. French language and traditions influenced much of medieval Europe, so the 

name “chanterelle” and the practice of eating chanterelles likely spread from France 

to other parts of Europe. The Swedish naturalist Linnaeus (1747) noted that “chantarellen” were common edible mushrooms, but used the scientific name Agaricus chantarellus for the golden chanterelle (Linnaeus 1755). The Swedish scientist Elias Fries, 

now regarded as the “father of mycology” for his pioneering work on fungal taxonomy, 

coined the current scientific name for the golden chanterelle, Cantharellus cibarius, in 
14 

his Systema Mycologicum (Fries 1821–32). Persson and Mossberg (1997) discuss 

the early history of chanterelle research in greater detail and reproduce original illustrations.

Traditionally, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon Europeans have been regarded as mycophobic (afraid of fungi or eating mushrooms), whereas Slavic, Finnish, and Latin 

peoples are considered mycophilic (fond of fungi). The latter have a long tradition of 

mycophagy (eating fungi) dating back to Roman times (Ainsworth 1976, Pegler and 

others 1997). There are many colloquial names for chanterelles in Catalonian and 

Italian (table 2) that reflect a long tradition of using them for food. In contrast, few local names exist for chanterelles in mycophobic England and Sweden. Once wealthy 

Britons discovered chanterelles in the early 1880s, however, they became fashionable and were served at banquets and state occasions (Pegler and others 1997). The 

popularity of chanterelles continues to grow throughout Europe.

Africa—In Africa, 20 species, such as C. congolensis, C. longisporus, and C. pseudocibarius (Corner 1966), were described decades ago. More recent literature further 

explores their taxonomy and use (Buyck 1994; Buyck and Eyssartier 1999; Buyck 

and others 1996, 2000; Eyssartier and Buyck 2001a; Härkönen and others 1995). 

Chanterelles are found in many tropical African countries such as Burkina Faso 

(Sanon and others 1997), Burundi (Buyck 1994), Guinea-Congo (Buyck and others 

1996), Madagascar (Eyssartier 1997, Eyssartier and Buyck 1999a), Senegal, (Thoen 

and Ba 1989), Zaïre [now Democratic Republic of the Congo] (Eyssartier 1997, Thoen 

and Ba 1989), and Zambia (Bordeaux 1996). Local tribes often seek them avidly 

(Rammeloo and Walleyn 1993) and vernacular names are diverse (Buyck 1994). Many 

tribes use “wisogolo” (Swahili for chanterelle) for all Cantharellus species (Härkönen 

and others 1995). In the rainy season, chanterelles are picked in the “miombo” forests 

that stretch across Africa south of the Congo Basin rain forest. These chanterelles are 

often sold in quiverlike baskets made of coconut leaves for the equivalent of $2.25 per 

pound. 

On a 1998 expedition to Tanzania, author Eric Danell, Bart Buyck (Paris Museum of 

Natural History), and Dr. Kivaisi’s staff (University of Dar es Salaam) encountered 12 

chanterelle species, including 2 new to science. During their visit, Ngoto, a Zaramo 

tribesman from Kisarawi collected the red kilogoro (C. platyphyllus), the black C. congolensis (plate 3), and the yellow C. pseudocibarius. The pungent C. symoensii from 

eastern Africa tastes somewhat bitter, but when cooked with sugar it becomes delicious. 

Asia—Chanterelles similar to C. cibarius, and the close relative C. subcibarius, are 

reported from Pakistan, India, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, and the Philippines. 

Many Thai chanterelles fruit in ectomycorrhizal Dipterocarpus forests during the rainy 

season (May–October). Craterellus cantharellus (now C. lateritius) is reported from 

Thailand 11 (Jones and others 1994), and C. ianthinus, C. pudorinus, and Cr. odoratus

occur in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indochina (Corner 1966, Nuhamara 1987, See 

and others 1995). Chanterelles are an important ingredient in Thai cuisine. In Chiang 

Mai (northwestern Thailand), C. minor is picked by farmers in mixed bamboo and teak 

11 Nopamornbodi, Omsub. 1996. Personal communication. 

Researcher, Soil Microbiology Research Group, Division of Soil 

Science, Department of Agriculture, Chatujak Bangkok 10 900, 

Thailand.
15

forests, and then sold at local markets for $0.55 per pound (Jones and others 1994). 

By contrast, local residents regard chanterelles that fruit during the July monsoon season in India’s Goa territory as inedible. Chanterelles resembling C. appalachiensis and 

C. lateritius are reported from India’s Uttar Pradesh province (Dhancholia and others 

1991). In the Himalayas, C. cibarius s.l. 12 occurs under spruce, oak, and pine,13 and 

Watling and Abraham (1992) reported C. cibarius from Kashmir where it is widespread 

and grows under Himalayan spruce.

Indirect evidence suggests that the Chinese have used mushrooms for 6,000 years. 

The first Chinese mycota (reference guide) was written in 1245 A.D. (Yun-Chang 

1987). Chamberlain (1996) suggests that the Chinese are so familiar with mushrooms 

that few poisonings are reported. In some provinces, chanterelles are called jiyou-jun 

(Hall and others 1998) meaning “chicken-oil-mushroom.” 14 In Yunnan, chanterelles 

are picked in the mountains and sold locally for the equivalent of less than $1.00 per 

small basket, a price considered quite expensive. Small specimens are preferred for 

their texture. Tibetan women who collect C. cibarius s.l., serve them for breakfast 

together with other mushrooms, dumplings, tea, and fried yak cheese (Chamberlain 

1996). Chanterelles are also used medicinally in China to prevent night blindness, alleviate skin dryness, and keep mucous membranes moist (Pegler and others 1997). 

Australia—We do not know whether Australian aborigines used chanterelles, although C. cibarius var.15 australiensis grows with Eucalyptus forests in Australia, 

New Guinea, and New Caledonia.16 Eyssartier and Buyck (2001b) review 17 possible Australian chanterelle species and conclude only 3 are true chanterelles (C.

ochraceoravus Grgurinovic, C. concinnus Berk (= C. cibarius var. australiensis), and 

C. viscosus Berk). In New Guinea, the Beangi people of the Morobe Province do eat 

chanterelles, but declining sales at local markets suggest waning popularity (Shoeman 

1991). Some small chanterelle species are also native to New Zealand, but no records 

exist of their traditional use by the Maori.

Central and South America—Several Cantharellus species, including C. cibarius s.l. 

and the red chanterelle (C. cinnabarinus), have been reported from Central and South 

America, and the West Indies. Mushroom consumption seems to be an old tradition 

in this part of the world (Bandala and others 1997). In Mexico, the indigenous Nahuatl 

name “xochilnanácatl” means “flower mushroom,” a reference to its fruity apricot smell 

12 See the footnote for table 2 or glossary for definition of “s.l.”

13 Reddy, M. Sudhakar. 1999. Personal communication. 

Researcher, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, 

School of Biotechnology, P.O. Box 32, Patiala 147004, India.

14 Zheng, Juxian. 2000. Personal communication. Ph.D. student, Department of Forest Mycology and Pathology, Swedish 

University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7026, S750 07, Uppsala, 

Sweden.

15 “Var.” is an abbreviation for variety, which is used to connote 

“subspecies” in fungus names. Often used for geographically 

disjunct populations of a species or minor differences in taxonomic 

characters. 

16 Bougher, Neale. 1992. Personal communication. Researcher, 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 

Forestry and Forest Products, Private Bag, P.O. Box 5, Wembley, 

WA 6913, Australia.
16 

(Gonzalez 1982). Local names in the Texcoco region, such as “membrillo” and “duraznillo,” are derived from Spanish terms for trees with sweet fruits. Chanterelles were 

among the edible mushrooms documented by Villareal-Ruiz (1994) in his ecological 

and silvicultural study near Veracruz. Harvesters collect chanterelles in the mountains, starting in early June, and bring them to the La Merced market in Mexico City. 

Common host trees are pines and evergreen oaks.

In 2000, Roy Halling of the New York Botanical Garden and author Lorelei Norvell 

collected C. lateritius and C. cibarius s.l. in oak forests of the Talamanca Mountains in 

Costa Rica. They also found a new chanterelle species previously collected by Halling 

(Halling and Mueller 2000, Mata 1999) that has been given the provisional name C.

atrolilacinus Halling & Mueller nom. prov. Much further south, Spegazzini described 

three chanterelles from Argentina in 1909 (Farr 1973). Craterellus species are poorly known in Central and South America, but Cr. tubaeformis,

17 Cr. cornucopioides

(discussed as Cr. fallax), Cr. ignicolor, and Cr. undulatus, have been reported along 

with Cr. boyacensis and Cr. costaricensis (Halling and Mueller 2000, Wu and Mueller 

1995).

In 1992, Schlosser and Blatner (1995) reported the export market for the 515 metric 

tons of chanterelles collected in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to be proportioned 

as follows: 30 percent Western United States, 14 percent Germany and France, 9 

percent Canada, 27 percent to other European countries, and 20 percent to other 

international markets. Most chanterelles that are exported from the United States and 

Canada come from the Pacific Northwest, yet our exports constitute a relatively small 

proportion of international commerce. Watling (1997), Hall and others (1998), and 

Hall and Yun (2000) estimate global chanterelle commerce at about 200 000 metric 

tons (441 million lbs.), worth approximately $1.25 to $1.4 billion annually. By comparison, Schlosser and Blatner (1995) report the value of chanterelle exports from Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington at $3.6 million in 1992. Similarly, Germany imported 5856 

metric tons of chanterelles in 1996, but only 97 of those metric tons were from the 

United States and Canada (Weigand 2000). Although small in relation to world markets, our chanterelle exports make significant contributions to our regional economy 

and to the income of harvesters. The most salient feature of our position in global 

chanterelle commerce is that prices paid to local harvesters fluctuate widely in response to harvest quantities and seasons elsewhere. Although prices paid to harvesters in the Pacific Northwest fluctuate daily and seasonally, Blatner and Alexander 

(1998) report relatively stable annual average prices: $2.95 per pound in 1992, $4.00 

per pound in 1994, $3.02 per pound in 1995, and $3.06 per pound in 1996. Rowe 

(1997) reports an average of $2.00 per pound in 1992, with a high of $8.00 per pound 

and a low of $1.25 per pound during the course of the season. The annual volume of 

Pacific Northwest chanterelle exports fluctuated during the 1990s, but no trend was 

apparent (Alexander and others 2002). 

Declining production in parts of Europe (discussed later) and increasing consumer 

demand have recently improved market conditions for profitable importation of chanterelles from North America (Schlosser and Blatner 1995), Eastern Europe and 

the former Soviet republics (Weigand 2000), and Africa (Pegler and others 1997). 

International Commerce

17 Specimen collected in Guatemala by Roberto Flores, Biologist, 

Biologia Vegetal (Botanica) Facultad de Biologia, Campus de 

Espinardo, Universidad de Murcia, Avda Teniente Flomesta, no 5, 

30003 Murcia, Spain.
17

Germany is currently the largest chanterelle importer in Europe, followed by France 

and other western European countries (Alexander and others 2002). After trade relations improved in the early 1990s, the largest exporters to Germany became Poland, 

Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, and Latvia (Weigand 2000). Indeed, one Polish company, Omar Holding S.A., claims to export 500 to 700 metric tons of chanterelles 

around the world each year, an amount equal to the entire Pacific Northwest United 

States annual harvest. Using data compiled from EUROSTAT (the European Union’s 

statistical information service), Tedder and others (2000) report 275 metric tons of 

chanterelles exported from North America to European Union countries in 1998, but 

Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Montenegro, and 

Turkey supplied 14 765 metric tons. Imports from Asia and Africa will likely compete 

with European and North American crops as international trade networks continue to 

expand. For instance, two Swedish companies are developing networks for importing 

chanterelles from Zimbabwe and Tanzania, and Pegler and others (1997) report that 

some African chanterelles are already being sold in England and France. Japan also 

imports chanterelles; C. cibarius from France has sold for over $100 per pound in the 

Nishiki market in Kyoto.

Many countries that import or export chanterelles also have local, regional, and national chanterelle markets. Citing statistics from the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Fruit and Vegetable Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Haugen (2001) reports 

U.S. wholesale market prices for chanterelles to be $22 per pound in Dallas, Texas, 

and to range between $4.50 and $11.25 per pound in San Francisco during the most 

recent autumn fruiting season (September through November 2001). Although the 

United States might not import many chanterelles, starting in 2004, fresh mushrooms 

imported into the United States and sold in retail markets will need to have the country 

of origin labeled (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002).

In Sweden, in 1993, about 50 metric tons of golden chanterelles were sold in local markets. Swedish chanterelles retail for about $10.00 per pound. Harvesters can 

either market their chanterelles directly to consumers for $6.00 per pound or sell in 

bulk to wholesalers for about $0.80 per pound. Up to $555 (5,000 SEK 18) per person 

of annual income from mushroom, berry, and cone picking is tax free, so a family of 

four can earn up to $2,220 per year tax free from the harvest of such nontimber forest 

products. Because Swedish forests produce about 450 to 2500 metric tons of fresh 

chanterelles annually and at least 40 percent of the population picks mushrooms at 

least once a year, Kardell and others (1980) surmised that large quantities are consumed without ever reaching the market. Indeed, many Europeans enjoy harvesting 

their own mushrooms as much as eating them. There is even a book on training dogs 

to find chanterelles (Hallgren and Hansson-Hallgren 1990).

When the Pacific golden chanterelle (C. formosus) was first exported to Europe from 

the Pacific Northwest, it was mistakenly called C. cibarius. This misnomer caused 

confusion among mushroom dealers and mycologists, who recognized differences 

between the two chanterelles (Danell 1995, Norvell 1995, Redhead and others 1997). 

18 SEK (Swedish krona) is the abbreviation for Swedish currency 

stipulated by the International Organization of Standardization. 

The Swedish krona is also abbreviated Skr by the International 

Monetary Fund. Exchange rates vary daily; so all prices converted 

from non-United States currencies to dollars are approximate. 

These calculations were conducted December 11, 2002, when the 

exchange rate was 1 US$ = 9.01323 SEK.
18 

Some European canning companies chose not to use the Pacific chanterelle because 

they discerned a difference in texture from the golden chanterelle of Europe (Danell 

1994a). Consequently, Swedish canning companies imported about 90 metric tons of 

golden chanterelles from Eastern Europe in 1993. Europeans pay less for the white 

chanterelle of the Pacific Northwest than for the Pacific golden chanterelle because 

the Pacific golden chanterelle more closely resembles the golden chanterelle collected 

in Europe. In spite of these factors, Alexander and others (2002) state that prices for 

Pacific Northwest chanterelles remain nearly double what importers pay for chanterelles from Eastern Europe.

Although customer preferences can be fickle, they also can be modified with education and advertising. Certainly our Pacific Northwest white chanterelle is a good candidate for an educational marketing campaign in Europe because it is hefty, relatively 

abundant, and flavorful. As consumers continue to experiment with new products, 

other chanterelle species are likely to be marketed internationally. For instance, Cr. 

tubaeformis is considered inedible in Poland and deemed rather small to bother picking in the United States, but its popularity in Sweden is increasing because it tastes 

similar to the golden chanterelle, fruits abundantly, and is easily preserved by drying. Craterelles are appreciated as much as chanterelles in many parts of Europe 

(Dahlman and others 2000), and some species are commercially harvested in the 

Pacific Northwest as well (Arora 1999, de Geus 1995, Molina and others 1993, 

Schneider 1999). The black color of the horn of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides) deters 

consumption by some, but in Sweden and France it is considered a delicacy. British 

mycologist Cooke called it “...an excellent addition to the table” (Pegler and others 

1997), and Arora (1986) says “...its flavor is superb and its potential unlimited.” Other 

chanterelles such as the blue chanterelle and pig’s ear gomphus are harvested for 

local or specialty markets in the United States but are not currently sold internationally 

in large quantities. 

As mushroom consumption increased in Europe during the middle of the 19th century 

(Ainsworth 1976, Persson and Mossberg 1997), so did interest in cultivating mushrooms other than the button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus). The complex symbiotic 

association between chanterelles and trees made cultivation a difficult challenge, 

however. In order to sustain natural crops of chanterelles in the forest and develop 

cultivation techniques, more knowledge was needed about the origin, biology, ecology, 

physiology, and chemistry of chanterelles. In this section we explore what is known 

about chanterelles as organisms. Although much of this information derives from research in Europe, we review it as a starting point for understanding Pacific Northwest 

chanterelles.

Chanterelles belong to a group of fungi called Basidiomycetes, members of the phylum Basidiomycota (Alexopoulos and others 1996), a taxonomic category of fungi 

that also includes gilled fungi and boletes (among others). Recent protein analysis 

suggests that Basidiomycetes branched off from other fungi about 1.2 billion years 

ago during the Precambrian era (Heckman and others 2001), but the first undisputed 

fossils of land plants and fungi do not appear until the Ordovician period 480 to 460 

million years ago. Fossils of mycorrhizae in 400-million-year-old Rhynie chert lend 

credence to the theory that mycorrhizae facilitated the colonization of land by vascular plants (Hibbett and others 2000). Evolutionary theorists suggest that as woody 

plant debris accumulated during the Carboniferous era, a variety of Basidiomycete 

species evolved the ability to produce enzymes that decompose cellulose and lignin 

Understanding 

Chanterelles

Chanterelle Evolution
19

(recalcitrant compounds in wood that simpler microorganisms find difficult to decompose). Mycologists believe that saprobic (decomposer) basidiomycete fungi evolved 

symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with tree roots during the Jurassic era (213 

to 144 million years ago) when pines first appeared (Allen 1991, Pirozynski and 

Hawksworth 1988). Although genetic analyses suggest mycorrhizal fungi diverged 

130 million years ago (Berbee and Taylor 1993), the oldest actual fossil of an ectomycorrhizal root tip is 50 million years old (Selosse and Le Tacon 1998), and the oldest 

gilled mushroom (preserved in amber) is about 90 to 94 million years old (Hibbett and 

others 1995). Pegler and others (1997) speculate that chanterelles are more primitive than gilled fungi (also subject to revision), but regardless of their actual antiquity, 

chanterelles have had ample time to colonize every continent except Antarctica and to 

differentiate into the several genera and numerous species now found worldwide.

A chanterelle individual is composed of a network of microscopic hyphae (one-cellwide fungal filaments). Collectively, a network of hyphae is called a mycelium, and 

a chanterelle individual may be referred to as a mycelial colony. What we call chanterelle mushrooms are in fact the fruitbodies of a chanterelle mycelial colony (equivalent to fruits of green plants). Fruitbodies of basidiomycete fungi develop into a 

variety of forms, such as truffles, conks, or, in the case of chanterelles, mushrooms. 

Chanterelle fruitbodies begin as dense clots of mycelium that form primordia (miniature mushrooms that have the potential to grow to full size under favorable conditions). 

Fruitbodies have a layer of fertile tissue called the hymenium (in chanterelles, the 

ridges found under a cap and down the stem) that in turn generates microscopic reproductive structures (basidia in this case) where spores are produced and released.

Fungi are not photosynthetic; hence they must obtain their food from other living or 

dead organisms. Chanterelles live symbiotically with host trees, colonizing the fine 

roots of trees and forming structures called mycorrhizae (literally “fungus-roots”). 

Although all chanterelles are thought to be mycorrhizal, this has not been experimentally confirmed with all the species of the four genera called chanterelles. Chanterelle 

hyphae also permeate the surrounding soil, absorbing water and minerals that they 

translocate to host trees. In return for greatly extending the tree’s effective root system, the tree provides chanterelles with carbohydrates that are needed for growth and 

reproduction. Chanterelles form a type of mycorrhizae called ectomycorrhizae (plate 

4), the prefix ecto- referring to a fungal sheath or mantle that forms around the root 

tips of a host tree (Smith and Read 1997). Chanterelles can form long-lived mycelial colonies (Jahn and Jahn 1986) if their tree partners continue to provide nutrition. 

Chanterelle ectomycorrhizae are not distinctive under field conditions; thus they were 

not well described until they were created under sterile laboratory and greenhouse 

conditions (plate 5) (Danell 1994a, 1994b; Danell and Camacho 1997). 

Chanterelles grow in a wide variety of soils, but little is known about how chanterelles 

colonize field soils because their mycelium is diffuse and individual hyphae do not aggregate to form easily visible structures other than the mushrooms. The golden chanterelle grows best in well-drained forest soils with low nitrogen content and a pH range 

of 4.0 to 5.5 (Danell 1994a, Jansen and van Dobben 1987). In eastern North America 

and southern California, chanterelles associate with oak, beech, birch, and various 

conifers growing on a variety of soils derived from limestone, glacial till, sedimentary 

rock, or weathered granite. In the Pacific Northwest, chanterelles generally associate 

with Douglas-fir, hemlock, spruce, fir, and pine growing predominantly on volcanic, 

sedimentary, metamorphic, or sand dune soils.

Soils and Host Trees

Morphology and 

Physiology
20 

Chanterelles have a very broad host range. One species alone, the golden chanterelle, has been reported to form mycorrhizal associations with trees in 14 genera: Abies, Betula, Carpinus, Castanea, Corylus, Eucalyptus, Fagus, Picea, Pinus, 

Populus, Pseudotsuga, Quercus, Shorea, and Tsuga (Danell 1999). However, because the name C. cibarius has been misapplied to what is likely a group of similar species around the world, this broad host range is more appropriately bestowed 

on the genus Cantharellus as a whole. Certain chanterelle species or varieties are 

thought to associate only with specific tree genera. For instance, the rainbow chanterelle (C. cibarius var. roseocanus) in the Pacific Northwest appears to associate only 

with spruce (Redhead and others 1997) or pine (see footnote 4). Similarly, in pure 

culture synthesis trials, Danell (1994b) noted that one strain of C. cibarius colonized 

spruce and pine roots, but not birch even though chanterelles fruiting under the different tree genera could not be distinguished by DNA analysis. 

Chanterelles always fruit 19 in association with host trees. In forest plantations, chanterelles will begin to fruit when the trees are 10 to 40 years of age, depending on the 

climate and growth rate of the host trees (Danell 1994a, 1994b). Although chanterelles tend to fruit most abundantly in young or mature stands, they also occur in older 

forests. Love and others (1998), who interviewed harvesters on Washington’s Olympic 

Peninsula, speculate that in dry years, stands with abundant, well-rotted, coarse 

woody debris might have better chanterelle crops than stands lacking this feature because more soil moisture is retained by the rotted wood. Chanterelles fruit abundantly 

in tree plantations, but not in nurseries unless specifically cultivated (Danell 1994a, 

Danell and Camacho 1997, O’Dell and others 1992). Chanterelle hunters in the Pacific 

Northwest commonly report disproportionate numbers of chanterelles fruiting along 

the edges of old logging roads or log skid trails, but potential explanations remain 

speculative.

Production can vary greatly from year to year and site to site. Among the many factors 

influencing chanterelle abundance in any given year, weather patterns are very important. Dahlberg (1991) suggests that warm spring weather promotes fruiting by encouraging rapid mycelial growth and abundant nutrient storage. In Oregon, a long-term 

chanterelle study conducted by Oregon Mycological Society members found a significant correlation between warm summers and chanterelle abundance (Norvell 1995, 

Norvell and Roger 1998). Reijnders (1963) notes that rain during primordia formation 

supplies moisture needed for cell elongation and mushroom growth. High soil humidity 

during the fruiting season also allows mushrooms to continue growing without drying 

out (Kasparavičius 2000). Chanterelle mushrooms grow slowly (2 to 5 cm per month) 

and persist for an average of 44 days and occasionally more than 90 days (Largent 

and Sime 1995, Norvell 1995), longer than many gilled mushrooms (Weber 2001), so 

consistently high humidity might be especially important in their development.

Long-lived mushrooms, such as chanterelles, need to discourage hungry insects or 

animals, lest they be eaten before they can disperse their spores. Some chanterelle 

species are rarely infested with insects in spite of the 120 species of flies reported to 

feed on mushrooms (Hackman and Meinander 1979). One Finnish study found that 

Fruiting

Insects and Parasites

19 Although “fruit” is technically a misnomer when applied to fungi, 

“fruiting” and “fruitbodies” are widely used in the mycological literature.
21

less than 1 percent of golden chanterelles were infested with larvae, compared to 

40 to 80 percent of other mushroom taxa (Hackman and Meinander 1979). On the 

other hand, pickers report occasional heavy larval infestations in C. lateritius in the 

Southeastern United States, and wormy chanterelles have been documented in the 

Midwest (Smith 1949) and Great Smoky Mountains (Lacy 1984). Considering that 

most mushrooms and toxic plants are eaten by at least some adapted insects, it is surprising that neither the European nor the Pacific golden chanterelles become heavily 

infested during their long period of fruiting (Danell 1994a, Kälin and Ayer 1983, Norvell 

1992b). Chemists Pang and Sterner (1991) and Pang and others (1992) suggest that 

insecticides might be formed in response to predation, but the compounds described 

have never been tested on insects. Slugs and snails also prefer other mushrooms, 

or even cannibalism, to chanterelles (Frömming 1954, Rangel-Castro 2001, Worthen 

1988). North and others (1997) reported wildlife consuming more chanterelles than 

other mushrooms. Mammals, such as squirrels, sheep, wild boar, and moose are 

known to eat chanterelles (Danell 1994a, Fogel and Trappe 1978, Grönwall 1982). 

Contrary to these published reports, Pacific Northwest harvesters rarely report significant competition from wildlife such as deer, elk, and bear. Similarly, the authors have 

noted very little animal consumption of Pacific Northwest chanterelles in their field 

studies (Pilz and others 1998b), except in very dry years.20

Both fungi and viruses are known to parasitize chanterelles. Overholts (1929) reported 

the small gilled mushroom, Entoloma parasiticum (cited as Claudopus subdepluens

in the original publication) growing from chanterelles. Entoloma pseudoparasiticum

fruits exclusively on chanterelle hymenia (Noordeloos 1992). Helfer (1991) reported Hypomyces odoratus (a relative of the parasitic but edible lobster mushroom 

Hypomyces lactifluorum) growing as a parasite on C. cibarius. Hypomyces semitranslucens attacks Cr. tubaeformis, and the wilt fungus Verticillium lecanii infects Cr. 

lutescens (reported as Cr. aurora). Viruses occasionally cause growths on chanterelle 

caps, often affecting whole clusters (Blattny and Králík 1968). Other malformations 

might be caused by mutations in the chanterelle itself. 

Many mushroom species produce large flushes of mature spores over a period of 

a week or two. This relatively rapid spore maturation and release might be an evolutionary adaptation to swift consumption of the mushroom by insects or mammals. 

Saprobic (decomposer) mushrooms that decay limited substrates, such as logs, 

might also release large quantities of spores to increase the probability of establishing 

new colonies before their nutritional sources are depleted. Chanterelles, by contrast, 

produce a continuous supply of slowly maturing spores over a period of a month or 

two. Spore development is less regular (Maire 1902), spore germination rates are low 

(Fries 1979), and the total number of spores released over the lifespan of the chanterelle is comparatively small (Danell 1994a).

Nevertheless, given that chanterelles can dissuade fungivores (organisms that eat 

fungi), form long-lived colonies, produce long-lived fruitbodies, and repair tissue at 

wound sites (Danell 1994a), their reproductive strategy of long-term, low-level spore 

20 Norvell, Lorelei; Roger, Judy. 2000. Unpublished data. Oregon 

Mycological Society chanterelle study. On file with: Pacific Northwest 

Mycology Service, LLC, 6720 NW Skyline Boulevard, Portland, OR 

97229-1309.

Reproductive Strategy
22 

dispersal appears to be effective (Danell 1994a). For example, in Denmark, chanterelles are now found in reforested regions of Denmark even though virtually the entire 

country was deforested two centuries ago.21 Chanterelles are also harvested from 

plantations of nonnative trees in Scotland (Dyke and Newton 1999).

In spite of what we do know; questions of how, when, and under what condtions chanterelles thrive and reproduce remain among the most important gaps in our understanding of how to sustain chanterelle populations in perpetuity. In particular, we need 

basic research on spore dispersal and germination, conditions conducive to establishment and persistence of chanterelle colonies, population genetics, physiological interactions with arboreal hosts, and competition with other fungi.

“Not only this same fungus [the chanterelle] never did any harm, but it might 

even restore the dead.”

—L. Trattinnick, Essenbarre Schwamme (nineteenth century).

Quoted in Benjamin (1995), p. 68

The health effects of chanterelles, as with any complex natural food, can be expected 

to vary. For instance, Grüter and others (1991) state that chanterelle extracts have 

a weak mutagenic effect on bacteria, although less so than extracts from the button 

mushroom (Agaricus bisporus). Conversely, Grüter and others (1990) showed that Cr.

cornucopioides extracts, in association with bacteria, inhibited the mutagenic action 

of aflatoxin (a highly carcinogenic mold toxin commonly found in peanuts) and benzopyrene (a compound in cigarette smoke). In his section on the medicinal effects of C.

cibarius, Hobbs (1995) cites the Icones of Medicinal Fungi from China (Ying and others 1987) as asserting that chanterelles increase resistance to certain diseases of the 

respiratory tract and inhibit the growth of sarcoma. 

Bicyclic carotenoids are the compounds responsible for the yellow color of many 

chanterelles (Arpin and Fiasson 1971, Gill and Steglich 1987, Mui and others 1998). 

Common in green plants, where they act as antioxidants, ultraviolet protectors, and 

pigments, these chemicals are rare in mushrooms (Gill and Steglich 1987). The 

golden chanterelle and C. minor both contain beta-carotene and small amounts of 

other carotenoids (Gill and Steglich 1987). Vitamin A, synthesized from beta-carotene, 

(Jensen and Salisbury 1984) is essential for good night vision (Stryer 1988), a fact that 

might explain the use of chanterelles by Chinese herbalists to treat night blindness. 

Carotenoids found in the pink-red C. cinnabarinus and the orange C. friesii are composed almost entirely of canthaxanthin, a pigment also found in salmon and flamingo 

feathers (Gill and Steglich 1987). Canthaxanthin is reported to protect human tissues 

from oxidative damage (Chen and Tappel 1996) and is sold as an antioxidant.

Carotenoids mediate responses to light in some fungi (Carlile 1970). Danell (1999) 

noted that chanterelles fruiting in a greenhouse grew toward a stationary light source.

Perhaps this phototropic response promotes stem elongation for better spore dispersal. European and Pacific golden chanterelles are usually pale until after they emerge 

from moss or litter layers and become exposed to light. Chanterelles contain high levels of vitamin D (Mattila and others 1994), a vitamin synthesized from ergosterol when 

21 Svendsen, Ditte. 1998. Personal communication. Chief Forest 

Officer, State Forest District of Thy, Danish Forest and Nature 

Agency, Ministry of the Environment. Søholtvej 6, Vester Vandet, 

DK-7700 Thisted, Denmark.

Chemistry, Nutrition, 

and Health
23

tissues are illuminated. Chanterelle vitamin D concentrations vary considerably, but remain high even when the mushrooms are dried and stored for up to 6 years (RangelCastro and others 2002c). With inadequate dietary sources, humans can suffer 

vitamin D deficiencies during the dark winters in high latitudes because we synthesize 

it in our skin in response to sunlight. Next to cod liver oil, chanterelles are one of the 

most concentrated natural dietary sources of vitamin D, and are certainly an excellent 

choice for vegetarians. High vitamin D concentrations also might play a role in chanterelle ultraviolet protection and resistance to insect predation (Rangel-Castro 2001).

The nutrient value (dry weight basis) of mushrooms is high compared to many vegetables (Bano and Rajarathnam 1988). Protein content has often been overestimated, 

however, because analyses based on total nitrogen content include nondigestible 

chitin in the cell walls (Danell and Eaker 1992). Analyses based on amino acid content 

reveal that C. cibarius contains approximately 10 percent protein by dry weight (Danell 

and Eaker 1992). Fruiting bodies of C. cibarius have also been analyzed for levels of 

carbohydrates (Laub and Lichtenthal 1985), lipids (Aho and Kurkela 1978, Daniewski 

and others 1987), minerals (Vetter 1993), vitamins (Leichter and Bandoni 1980, Mattila 

and others 1994), and sterols (Kocór and Schmidt-Szalowska 1972). Additional mineral analyses of Pacific chanterelles from the Olympic Peninsula are shown in table 4. 

Mushrooms are known to accumulate and concentrate toxic metals (Gast and others 

1988, Obst and others 2001, Seeger 1982, Stijve 1993), a pertinent health concern 

for those who eat chanterelles from polluted areas. Grzybek and Janczy (1990) found 

that lead and cadmium levels in C. cibarius were lower than those in other edible species from the same site. Likewise, golden chanterelles collected in northern Europe 

accumulated less radioactive cesium-137 from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident 

than many other species of edible mushrooms (Danell 1994a). It is possible that some 

heavy metals in fungi might not threaten human health, however, because Schellmann 

and others (1984) showed that cadmium and copper bind strongly to the indigestible 

cell walls. Chanterelles collected from the relatively less polluted natural environments 

of the Pacific Northwest might enjoy commercial advantages if their wholesome origin 

is emphasized.

The vernacular names listed in table 2 reflect the pleasant fruity smell of chanterelles. 

The olfactory compounds responsible for the chanterelle’s distinctive aroma are still 

unknown, but volatile chemicals found in highest concentrations thus far include 

octenols (responsible for the characteristic “mushroom” smell), caproic acid, acetic 

acid, and octa-1.3-dien (Breheret 1997, Buchbauer and others 1993, Pyysalo 1976). 

Chanterelles are especially prized for this fruity or apricot aroma and their nutlike 

taste with peppery overtones (Czarnecki 1986, Czarnecki and Wallach 1995), flavors 

best retained by cooking fresh chanterelles in butter, oil, water, or wine (Persson and 

Mossberg 1997). Canning, or lightly sautéing and then freezing, are popular means 

of preserving chanterelles, but dried chanterelles are usually chewy or rubbery when 

reconstituted (Fischer and Bessette 1992). Opinions differ about the relative flavor of 

different chanterelle species. Generally, young moist chanterelles seem to be more 

flavorful than older, rain-soaked specimens. Savvy cooks add apricots or apricot juice 

when preparing older, wet chanterelles. 

Although chanterelles are generally considered one of the safest wild edible mushrooms, idiosyncratic allergic-type reactions have been reported to the North American 

Mycological Association’s poison registry (Benjamin 1995). Gerber (1989) states that 

consuming large quantities of chanterelles without chewing them properly can cause 
24 

intestinal distress, and Persson and Karlsson-Stiber (1993) report that consuming Cr. 

tubaeformis with alcohol might in rare cases cause negative reactions. As with all wild 

mushrooms, chanterelles should be positively identified, cooked well, and sampled in 

small amounts when eaten for the first time. Lastly, Lehrer and others (1986) report 

that 5 percent of those with respiratory allergies are sensitive to chanterelle spores.

The production and harvest of several chanterelle species have declined in parts 

of Europe during the past several decades (Arnolds 1985, 1995). For instance, the 

number of locations where chanterelles fruit in the Netherlands has decreased by 

60 percent in 20 years (Arnolds 1988, 1991, 1995; Jansen and van Dobben 1987). 

Chanterelles have not been the only mushrooms affected. By the early 1990s, red lists 

of endangered and threatened mushroom species were being compiled throughout 

Europe (Arnolds 1992, 1995; Bendiksen and Høiland 1996; Deutsche Gesellschaft 

fur Mykologie e. V. 1992; Gärdenfors 2000; Kreisel 1990; Larsson 1997; Lizon 1993, 

1995; Redhead 1997a). Air pollution (Gulden and others 1992), short timber rotations, 

clearcutting, depletion of forest soil litter layers (Arnolds 1990, Bendiksen 1994), and 

excessive mushroom harvests are some of the reasons suggested for this declining 

abundance of edible forest mushrooms. 

Air pollution has certainly compromised forest health in parts of industrialized Europe. 

Whether the harm is caused by damaged foliage or polluted soils, the tree and its 

symbiotic partners (the mycorrhizal fungi) are both likely to suffer (Jansen 1991).

Because the chanterelle mycelium usually grows in the upper 5 to 10 cm of the soil 

(Danell 1994b), it is readily exposed to air pollution deposits. Wallander and Nylund 

Table 4—Mineral nutrient analysis of C. formosus fruiting bodies (bulked samples) from 

six sites on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington

Element (measure a) Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6

Phosphorus (%) 0.64 0.052 0.6 0.64 0.81 0.42

Potassium (%) 5.23 4.85 4.54 5.39 6.12 3.19

Calcium (%) .04 .04 .04 .03 .07 .04

Magnesium (%) .12 .11 .12 .12 .17 .06

Sodium (%) .01 .02 .02 .02 .07 .01

Manganese (ppm b) 28 47 92 25 85 29

Copper (ppm) 30 39 27 30 34 15

Boron (ppm) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Zinc (ppm) 81 83 74 70 90 40

Selenium (ppm) <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0

Sulfur (ppm) 1127 986 959 1038 1397 635

Carbon (%) 45.7 45.8 44.3 46.8 43.3 45.4

Sulfur (%) .10 .09 .09 .09 .12 .07

Nitrogen (%) 3.18 3.98 3.06 3.23 3.89 2.67

aAll but the last three values were derived from an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectral analysis after wet (hydrogen 

peroxide and nitric acid) digestion in a microwave oven. The last three values were derived from a LEUCO-CNS 

Analyzer. Nitrogen reflects total nitrogen, not the fraction in amino acids.

bppm = parts per million by dry weight.

Data provided by Kermit Cromack, Jr., Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Human Impacts
25

(1992) showed that excess nitrogen can decrease fungal biomass, and Nohrstedt 

(1994) and Menge and Grand (1978) observed fewer mushrooms fruiting after fertilization trials. Arnolds (1988) suggested that excessive soil acidification resulting from 

sulfur or nitrogen deposits could alter the mobility of numerous toxic and essential 

elements. Removal of litter layers containing high amounts of nitrogen might restore 

chanterelle productivity in some cases (Arnolds 1991, Baar and Kuyper 1993, de Vries 

and others 1995), but removal of litter layers or coarse woody debris also diminishes 

habitat for saprobic forest fungi and wildlife populations. 

Clearcut timber harvesting has the potential to shrink or eliminate chanterelle patches 

(mycelial colonies) by removing their carbohydrate supply, disturbing protective moss 

layers, or liberating toxic levels of nitrogen (Wallander and Nylund 1992). Prompt reforestation might allow established chanterelle patches to persist if planted tree seedlings 

form mycorrhizae with the chanterelle mycelium before its food reserves from the previous host trees are depleted. Analyses of DNA could determine the origin of chanterelles that fruit in recently regenerated stands. Such research would provide insights 

about the relative importance of spore dispersal versus persistent mycelial colonies for 

restoring chanterelle productivity in new stands. 

As the decline in mushroom production in Europe became evident, some people suggested implementation of mushroom harvest restrictions (Ebert 1992, Jansen 1990). 

Several researchers, however, have found that picking has no negative impact on subsequent chanterelle fruiting (Arnolds 1991, Danell 1994a, Egli and others 1990, Jahn 

and Jahn 1986, Norvell 1995, Norvell and Roger 1998, Norvell and others 1996). Egli 

and others (1990) did report that intense trampling of study plots depressed fruiting, 

but they speculated the effect was temporary and resulted from crushed chanterelle 

primordia because fruiting returned to previous levels after the trampling treatments 

ceased.

Arnolds (2001) reported that many macrofungi fruited abundantly in the Netherlands in 

the summer of 2000, including species such as chanterelles that were previously noted to be in serious decline. Possible reasons include exceptionally favorable weather 

conditions and reduced acid rain and nitrogen deposition as pollution controls begin to 

take effect.

Regardless of the causes, less local fruiting and continued high demand have created 

a significant import market in western European countries. Depressed natural production in affected forests also has reinvigorated chanterelle cultivation research, but 

chanterelles have proven to be difficult to culture artificially.

Mushroom harvesters often spread old mushrooms around hoping to establish new 

patches by dispersing spores, but the efficacy of this well-intentioned practice remains 

unconfirmed. Scientists and entrepreneurs intent on establishing new chanterelle colonies need more reliable methods. One approach is to isolate the fungus of interest, 

grow it in pure culture, and then inoculate the mycelium onto tree seedlings that lack 

other mycorrhizae (Danell 1994a, 1994b, 1999; Danell and Fries 1990). Once such 

inoculated seedlings develop mycorrhizae, tree nurseries and their customers must 

be able to confirm the identity of the mycorrhizal fungus to ensure that contaminant 

fungi did not become established. Further, to demonstrate that this method will eventually lead to chanterelle-producing plantations, scientists must demonstrate that the 

inoculated mycorrhizae will persist on the seedlings after they are outplanted into soils 

where many competing mycorrhizal fungi already exist. Finally, in order to justify the 

Cultivation
26 

expensive inoculation procedures, they must show that any chanterelles that ultimately 

fruit in these plantations are genetically derived from the original inoculated fungal 

strain, not naturally established colonies.

One reason chanterelles have been so difficult to cultivate is the presence of bacteria and other foreign microorganisms within the sporocarp tissues (Danell and 

others 1993). Bacteria, mainly fluorescent Pseudomonas but also Streptomyces, 

Xanthomonas, and Bacillus, are present in millions per gram of fresh weight (Danell 

and others 1993). Presumably these bacteria are incorporated in fungal tissues during primordium formation (Danell 1994a, Danell and others 1993), and grow actively 

between the cells without harming the mushroom (Danell and others 1993). Analyses 

show that amino acids, organic acids, and sugars released by chanterelles serve as a 

likely nutrient source for the bacteria (Rangel-Castro 2001, Rangel-Castro and others 2002a). Garbaye and others (1990) have noted beneficial interactions between 

bacteria and other mushrooms, and Rainey (1991) described the role of Pseudomonas

during fruiting of the button mushroom. Rangel-Castro (2001) and Rangel-Castro and 

others (2002b) discuss the possibility that chanterelle mycelia obtain nitrogen indirectly by exuding enzymes that are used by associated bacteria to break down organic 

matter and then reabsorbing the resultant nitrogen-containing breakdown products. 

Regardless of their function, bacterial contamination has plagued all who have tried to 

culture chanterelles (Ballero and others 1991, Itävaara and Willberg 1988, Schouten 

and Waandrager 1979, Straatsma and others 1985). When chanterelle tissue is 

transferred to nutrient media, bacteria from the chanterelles grow more quickly than 

fungal hyphae, thus precluding subsequent isolation of uncontaminated chanterelle 

hyphae. Recently, Dutch scientists used an antibacterial nutrient media formulation 

(Fries 1979) to grow and isolate pure chanterelle mycelium from chanterelle tissues 

(Straatsma and van Griensven 1986, Straatsma and others 1985). 

Genetically identifiable chanterelle strains are needed to positively verify culturing and 

inoculation success. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), restriction fragment length 

polymorphisms (RFLP), and DNA sequencing are recent techniques used to check 

the identity of specific strains (Glick and Pasternak 1998). Many interesting studies 

on chanterelle physiology bear repeating with genetically identified cultures because 

sometimes even the species of an isolated strain was difficult to verify before the 

advent of DNA analysis (Ballero and others 1991, Doak 1934, Garza-Ocañas 1991, 

Hattula and Gyllenberg 1969, Pachlewski and others 1996, Riffle 1971, Siehr and 

others 1969, Strzelczyk and others 1997, Sugihara and Humfeld 1954, Torev 1969, 

Volz 1972). For instance, DNA analysis has shown that a chanterelle strain kept at the 

American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) was previously incorrectly identified (strain 

M83= NRRL 2370=ATCC 13228CBS 155.69).22

Once pure chanterelle strains have been isolated, they must be grown into sufficient 

quantities to inoculate seedlings. Chanterelle mycelia grow very slowly in pure culture 

(plate 6), a trait common to ectomycorrhizal fungi lacking their tree partner. At the 

optimal temperature of 20 °C, the growth rate on modified Fries medium (Straatsma 

1998, Straatsma and van Griensven 1986) is 0.5 millimeters per day (Danell 1994a). 

After sufficient pure culture chanterelle inoculum is obtained, ectomycorrhizae are 

formed by inoculating the roots of aseptically grown tree seedlings. Doak (1934), 

22 Stalpers, J.A. 1994. Personal communication. Researcher, 

Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Fungal Biodiversity 

Center, P.O. Box 85167, 3508 AD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
27

Garza-Ocañas (1991), and Moore and others (1989) report successful chanterelle 

ectomycorrhiza formation by using standard and Straatsma’s techniques. To facilitate 

rapid and routine seedling inoculation, Danell (1994a, 1994b) refined previous specialized techniques (Jentschke and others 1991, McLaughlin 1970) and demonstrated the 

importance of elevated carbon dioxide levels to chanterelle ectomycorrhiza formation (Magnusson 1992, Straatsma and Bruinsma 1986, Straatsma and others 1986). 

In addition to supplemental carbon dioxide, other critical elements of Danell’s technique include: sterile inoculation chambers, aseptically germinated tree seedlings, 

continuous gas exchange through microporous filters, a dilute fertilizer and glucose 

solution vacuum-flushed through a quartz sand rooting substrate, and a computer to 

control the lights and the pumps for gas and nutrient exchanges (plate 7). Within 8 to 

12 weeks, Swedish C. cibarius ectomycorrhizae can be reliably produced on the root 

systems of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and even North American ponderosa pine by 

using this method. No Pacific Northwest chanterelle has yet been successfully inoculated onto native tree species.

Danell planted some of his inoculated seedlings into pots in a greenhouse in order 

to investigate the persistence of artificially inoculated chanterelle ectomycorrhizae. 

During the next several months, chanterelle ectomycorrhizae became more abundant 

on well-colonized seedlings, although some newly emergent or noncolonized root tips 

developed ectomycorrhizae with common greenhouse contaminant fungi. In 1996, the 

first artificially cultivated chanterelles (plate 8) unexpectedly fruited from the drainage 

holes of these pots when the seedlings were only 16 months old and 0.5 meters tall 

(Danell and Camacho 1997). Analyses of DNA confirmed that the chanterelles were 

identical to the original inoculated strain of mycelium. No obvious environmental conditions triggered the fruiting; the greenhouse environment was relatively uniform, and 

fruiting occurred in April, June, and November. The chanterelles were not directly attached to the tree roots, but emerged from the top of the pot and from drainage holes, 

and then grew toward lamps that provided supplemental light. Although the strain used 

for inoculation was free of bacteria, all the chanterelles that grew in the greenhouse 

did contain bacteria. Why chanterelles fruited with seedlings in a greenhouse but natural populations of chanterelles only fruit with older trees remains a matter of speculation, but Danell (1994a) discusses the difficulties of spore reproduction in the field and 

postulates that the mycelium requires a level of carbohydrate saturation to fruit.

The relatively low market value of chanterelles (compared to truffles or matsutake, for 

instance), combined with the high costs of producing inoculated seedlings, suggests 

that greenhouse culture of chanterelles is unlikely to be profitable even if chanterelles 

fruit within 1 year of inoculation. Instead, plantations of inoculated seedlings might 

provide additional chanterelle crops as the trees mature (Danell 1997). Hall and Yun 

(2000) suggest that less valuable ectomycorrhizal mushrooms, such as chanterelles, 

might be better suited as secondary crops in forests managed for timber than in tree 

plantations predominantly intended for mushroom cultivation. Regardless of the primary management goal for inoculated plantations, the expense of inoculating seedlings 

in pure culture might be partially circumvented by planting nonmycorrhizal seedlings in 

close proximity to inoculated trees, thus allowing the selected strains of chanterelles to 

spread under nursery or plantation conditions (Danell 1999).

In June 1998, Danell outplanted 600 Scots pines inoculated with the golden chanterelle in 24 locations in southern Sweden. The experimental chanterelle orchards 

consist of tree seedlings planted 1.5 meters apart. At a mycelial growth rate of 15 centimeters per year in southern Sweden (Danell 1994a), identical mycelium from all the 
2

8

inoculated seedlings should theoretically fuse and fully occupy the soil habitat within 

5 years. Annual sampling of ectomycorrhizae in these plots will determine the persis-

tence and growth of the inoculated chanterelle strain. Whether chanterelles fruit on 

young seedlings in these field plots, as they did in the greenhouse, will be especially 

interesting.

Inoculated seedlings could either be sold to individuals hoping to create their private 

chanterelle patches or to entrepreneurs seeking to establish commercial chanterelle 

plantations. In France, Robin Nursery in Saint-Laurent-Du-Cros, sells tree seedlings 

inoculated with other species of edible ectomycorrhizal fungi. Established truffle orchards, grown from inoculated seedlings, are producing truffles in Europe and elsewhere (Chevalier and Frochot 1997, Giovannetti and others 1994, Hall and others 

1998), and outplanting trials with C. cibarius on Scots pine have begun in Sweden 

(Danell 2001). 

Lacking prior experience, prediction of chanterelle productivity in inoculated planta-

tions is speculative at best, but some production seems probable. Careful site se-

lection for favorable soil conditions will improve the likelihood of success. Nitrogen 

fertilization should be avoided, but irrigation might speed tree growth or improve chan-

terelle productivity in dry climates or in dry years. 

The quantity, diversity, and competitive vigor of other resident ectomycorrhizal fungi 

are likely to be among the most important factors influencing potential chanterelle pro-

duction in a plantation of artificially inoculated trees. In a review of truffle plantations in 

France, Chevalier and others (2001) report production of 8 to 46 kg

•ha-1• yr -1 and note 

that one of the factors favoring successful truffle orchards is planting trees inoculated 

with truffle ectomycorrhizae into areas where only endomycorrhizal plants, such as 

grass, previously grew. Plantations also can be established in areas of the Southern 

Hemisphere where there are no ectomycorrhizal host plants, hence no competing 

native ectomycorrhizal fungi. One striking example of mushroom productivity in an 

exotic plantation has been reported from mountainous regions of Ecuador. There 

pines, unintentionally inoculated in the nursery with the edible slippery jack (Suillus 

luteus), were planted in native grasslands that lacked ectomycorrhizal fungi. Using 

different assumptions, Hedger (1986) reported a dry weight production of 569 to 

1138 kg

•ha-1• yr -1, Horton (1997) estimated 104 to 227 kg•ha-1• yr -1, and Chapela 

and others (2001) estimated 81 to 174 kg

•ha-1• yr -1. Because these are dry weight 

biomass values, even the lower estimates are ten times greater than most fresh weight 

biomass estimates of ectomycorrhizal mushroom productivity (all species combined) 

in native temperate forests. Although these large estimates were extrapolated from 

seasonal samples, the assumption that a uniformly moderate climate allowed fruiting 

for 9 months of the year was derived from observations by local mushroom proces-

sors. If efforts to establish chanterelles in plantations in the Southern Hemisphere 

eventually succeed (Hall and others 1998), fresh crops from these countries would 

have the competitive advantage of being available during the off-season in the 

Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, widespread introduction of ectomycor-

rhizal fungi into ecosystems that lack these fungi might pose the risk of extirpating 

native species or disrupting the food webs of native ecosystems. For instance, Wang 

and others (1997) state that until more research is conducted on the potentially semipathogenic nature of the Japanese matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare), New Zealand 

and Australia are unlikely to allow importation for fear of harming pine plantations that 

support local timber industries. Nonnative ectomycorrhizal fungi will only invade an 

ecosystem if appropriate host trees also are present.
29

In the following pages, we provide an identification key to ten chanterelle species 

and five look-alikes. The users can skip to key choice five if they are sure the specimen is in one of the four genera we discuss as chanterelles. Note that three of the four 

species of Gomphus are not considered edible. After the key, we describe in more 

detail seven prominent edible species (in alphabetical order by scientific name)—the 

rainbow chanterelle (C. cibarius var. roseocanus), the Pacific golden chanterelle (C.

formosus), the white chanterelle (C. subalbidus), the horn of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides), the winter craterelle (Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov.), pig’s ears (G. clavatus), 

and the blue chanterelle (P. multiplex). Scientific names are those currently most accepted among mycologists. Scientific names are accompanied by the name of the authors who first validly published each species, followed by the publication date. These 

authorities and dates also correspond to citations in our “Literature Cited” section. 

Occasionally species were first described in one genus and later moved to another. 

In these cases, the name of the author who first described the species is placed in 

parentheses, followed first by the name of the author who placed the species into the 

current genus, and then by the date of the publication that combined that species and 

genus. The first common name that we list reflects our attempt at consistent and nonoverlapping usage; other frequently used common names follow. Important features 

for distinguishing among similar chanterelle species are highlighted in bold type. The 

discussions of similar mushrooms are meant to assist the novice at becoming familiar with look-alike specimens they might encounter, but other similar mushrooms are 

likely to occur outside the Pacific Northwest. Always positively identify each mushroom 

before eating it, then cook the mushrooms thoroughly and start by consuming small 

amounts. Even “safe edibles” such as chanterelles can cause allergic reactions in 

some individuals. These descriptions are not meant as a definitive identification guide. 

If you are uncertain, seek additional information and advice. Table 5 lists popular field 

guides with additional photographs, keys, and descriptions for each species, and table 

6 provides technical references.

Pacific Northwest 

Chanterelles

Species Descriptions
30 

1. Underside of cap covered with soft, toothpick-like spines; 

fruitbody creamy to pale orange; resembling chanterelles 

only until turned over [orange hedgehogs] .....................................................................

............................................................ Hydnum repandum, H. umbilicatum, & allies

1. Underside of cap with gills, wrinkles, ridges, or nearly smooth ................................ 2

2. Hymenium (spore-producing surface) consisting of true 

bladelike gills; gills thick, distant, unforked, orange to 

smoky gray from black spores; cap thick fleshed, orange, 

woolly [woolly pine spike] ..................................... Chroogomphus tomentosus

2. Hymenium consisting of folds, wrinkles, ridges, or gills;

if gilled, gills thin, crowded, and repeatedly forking ............................................. 3

3. Hymenium consisting of crowded, forked, very thin gills 

that are easily scraped off the underside of the cap .................................................. 4

3. Hymenium consisting of relatively shallow arching ridges, 

blunt folds, or wrinkles that are not easily scraped off the 

underside of the cap ...................................................................................................... 5

4. Gills pallid to dingy yellow or browner, often staining 

reddish brown; spore print yellowish to reddish brown; 

taste sour or bitter [poison pax, brown chanterelle] ...............................................

...................................... Paxillus involutus [POISONOUS], P. vernalis & allies 

4. Gills brilliant to pastel orange, not staining; spore print 

white; taste bland [false chanterelle] .....................Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca

5. Hymenium shallow veined, purple to violet colored when 

young (later dull ochre or tan); cap thick fleshed, often 

slightly off-center; stem not hollow; overall shape resembling 

a sow’s ear [pig’s ear gomphus] ................................................. Gomphus clavatus

5. Hymenium variously colored (including sooty or bluish black) 

but not distinctly purple or violet when young; with or without 

hollowed stems; trumpet-, fan-, vase-, or bun-shaped .............................................. 6

6. Fruiting bodies blackish, bluish black, or sooty gray over all ............................. 7

6. Fruiting bodies white, creamy, pinkish, orangish, yellowish, 

reddish, or tan colored ............................................................................................ 8

7. Cap trumpet shaped, yellow, brown, or gray, but typically 

very dark brown to black; hymenial folds smooth to unevenly 

lightly wrinkled, ash gray, brownish, salmon or rose-tinged, 

rarely yellow; stem gray, brown, or black; flesh relatively thin 

and tough; occasionally entire mushroom yellow with only 

stem base black; stem hollow [horn of plenty] ........... Craterellus cornucopioides

7. Cap fan shaped, deep blue black to purple; hymenial 

veins frosted with a heavy gray bloom; stem short, 

solid [blue chanterelle] ............................................................. Polyozellus multiplex

Key to Pacific 

Northwest Chanterelles, 

Chanterelle-Like 

Mushrooms, and 

Look-Alikes
31

8. Stem a hollow, puckered tube, dirty orange yellow; 

cap orange brown, convex to funnel shaped; hymenial 

ridges distinct, yellow orange at first, becoming lilac 

brown with age, stem base long remaining orange; 

usually on crumbly brown rotted wood or peaty soil 

[winter craterelle] ................................. Craterellus neotubaeformis nom. prov.

8. Stem either solid or short and not tubular ............................................................ 9

9. Cap (and fruitbody) deeply vase shaped becoming 

slightly trumpet shaped, when mature often larger 

than a man’s hand; cap surface very scaly to crumblyscaly [Gomphus] .......................................................................................................... 10

9. Cap convex to depressed; cap surface smooth or 

with small, more or less flattened scales [chanterelles] .......................................... 12

10. Fruitbody large, fleshy-meaty; funnel-shaped cap 

cap tan to brown (no orange tones) with large 

woolly-felty scales that curve back toward or 

detach and fall into a pile of debris at the bottom 

of the funnel [Kauffman’s gomphus] ................................ Gomphus kauffmanii

10. Fruitbody similar, but with orange colors present 

and with scales not as readily breaking off and 

falling into the funnel ............................................................................................. 11

11. Hymenial ridges deep, relatively close; cap bright 

rusty orange; hymenium and stipe yellowish to 

ochraceous [woolly or scaly vase chanterelle] ........................ Gomphus floccosus

11. Hymenial ridges shallow, distant; cap salmon to 

foxy orange; hymenium and stipe cream to tan 

[Bonar’s gomphus] ........................................................................... Gomphus bonarii

12. Fruitbody whitish overall (pallid, cream, ivory, 

or buff) [white chanterelle] .......................................... Cantharellus subalbidus

12. Fruitbody distinctly pigmented (yellow, gold, 

pink, ochre, orange) .............................................................................................. 13

13. Hymenium usually paler than cap, pale yellow 

orange with a subtle to intensely pinkish cast; cap 

yellow orange beneath a thin brownish cuticle that 

(in dry weather) lifts into small appressed scales 

(squamules); flesh staining immediately yellow 

when bruised [Pacific golden chanterelle] .......................... Cantharellus formosus

13. Hymenium rarely paler than cap, deep orange yellow

with no to little pinkish cast; young cap covered 

with a pink or yellow pink “frost” (especially at the 

margin), lacking brown tones and always smooth; 

flesh not staining immediately yellow when bruised 

[rainbow chanterelle] ................................. Cantharellus cibarius var. roseocanus
32 

Scientific name—Cantharellus cibarius var. roseocanus 23 Redhead, Norvell, and Danell 1997

Common name—Rainbow chanterelle

Edibility—Choice

Description—Mushrooms up to 12 cm across, usually much smaller, bright yellow orange 

overall, cap usually bright orange yellow overall but margin covered with a thin pinkish bloom 

(possibly obscured when rain soaked); hymenium ridged, more or less brilliant orange yellow, as 

intensely colored as or darker than the cap, running from the cap edge well down the stem; stem 

usually relatively short solid, light yellow; flesh firm and fibrous, bruising sparingly and very 

slowly, with damaged areas noted as darker patches in older specimens; odor fruity apricotlike 

(slightly stronger than C. formosus). Spore print orange yellow. Under the microscope: basidiospores ellipsoid, smooth, colorless (6)24 7.5 to 10 (11.3) × 4.5 to 5.5 μm; clamp connections 

abundant in all tissues.

Range and habitat—The rainbow chanterelle is native to the region and apparently 

restricted to temperate western spruce 

and pine forests. The species has been 

confirmed from Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia, and likely also occurs in 

California (Steiger 1997). Rainbow chanterelles are ectomycorrhizal with Sitka 

spruce and shore pine along the coast 

and Engelmann spruce in the mountains. 

It generally fruits from August through 

October in old forests.

Similar mushrooms—Unlike the Pacific 

golden chanterelle, the rainbow chanterelle has a smooth cap that lacks closely appressed scales even when young, exhibits no immediate yellow staining when bruised, and has a darker spore print. The bright orange yellow ridges 

of the rainbow chanterelle lack a pinkish cast, so that any pink coloration is generally restricted to 

the outer cap margin. The intense pinkish coloration found in certain young or dry Pacific golden 

chanterelles, on the other hand, is found only on the hymenium.

23 The authors conservatively named this chanterelle as a variety of C. cibarius

because the available genetic data were preliminary. Subsequent research 

might indicate it merits the status of a separate species.

24 When values for size are given in parentheses, they represent outlier values 

that are occasionally encountered.

© S.A. Redhead/Agriculture Canada
33

Scientific name—Cantharellus formosus Corner 1966

Common names—Pacific golden chanterelle, golden chanterelle, yellow chanterelle

Edibility—Choice

Description—Mushroom often big, up to 14 cm across, brightly colored with dull orange to 

brown-orange cap and stem; hymenium (fertile spore-bearing surface) deeply ridged, pale 

orange yellow and often with a pink cast, and running from the cap edge well down the stems; 

cap surface frequently with small closely adhering, slightly darker scales particularly visible in dry 

weather; flesh firm and fibrous, when bruised, at first yellowing slowly, eventually darkening to a 

dull ochre; odor faint, fruity, apricotlike, more noticeable in drier fresh specimens; taste mildly 

peppery when raw. Spore print yellowish white. Under the microscope: basidiospores ellipsoid, 

smooth, colorless, 7.2 to 9.2 × 4.7 to 6.1 μm; clamp connections abundant in all tissues.

Range and habitat—The Pacific golden chanterelle is native to western North American temperate coniferous rain forests. Collections have been reported from California, Oregon, Washington, 

and British Columbia under hemlock, Douglas-fir, and spruce. It is ectomycorrhizal and fruits from 

midsummer through late fall in young to old forests.

Similar mushrooms—As discussed in the section on Pacific Northwest chanterelles, a variety 

of very similar undescribed species of golden chanterelles likely exist in western North America. 

Macroscopic (visible without magnification) characters tend to overlap among these species depending on size, age, growing conditions, and moisture status of the specimens. Fortunately, they 

are all good edibles.

Nonchanterelles frequently cited as lookalikes in field guides include the woolly pine 

spike (Chroogomphus tomentosus), the 

false chanterelle (Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca) and some Clitocybe species. These 

species, however, have bladelike gills rather 

than ridges underneath the caps, and even 

though the gills might be thick (woolly pine 

spike) or fork like the ridges on chanterelles, 

they are distinct from the flesh of the cap or 

stem. Orange hedgehogs (Hydnum repandum

and Hydnum umbilicatum) also can be easily 

mistaken for the Pacific golden chanterelles 

when viewed from a distance or from above. Hedgehogs have white stems and a spore-bearing 

surface that consists of white to orange spines rather than ridges. Hedgehogs are choice commercially harvested edibles. 

Although bearing scant resemblance to chanterelles, the poison pax (Paxillus involutus) is 

sometimes called the “brown chanterelle.” This dull yellow brown mushroom (with yellow to olive 

crowded gills that run down the stem, stain brown, and separate readily from the cap) has been 

eaten in Europe (especially Poland) for centuries. Unfortunately, this common urban mushroom 

causes the rare “Paxillus syndrome” (immune hemolytic anemia) (Benjamin 1995) and has been 

implicated in a number of deaths. The toxins can accumulate in susceptible consumers over long 

periods of time with little effect, and then the next meal can cause sudden illness or death. 

© Steve Trudell
34 

Scientific name—Cantharellus subalbidus Smith and Morse 1947 

Common name—White chanterelle

Edibility—Choice

Description—Mushrooms up to 14 cm across, relatively compact, cream to ivory colored 

overall; cap generally darkening to a pale buff color when old or water soaked, entire mushroom 

becoming dark orange or rust color when very dry; hymenium of generally well-separated and 

long ridges, extending from the cap well down the solid stem; flesh firm, dense, cream colored, 

and slowly staining dull yellow when handled; odor pleasant, in fresh specimens reminiscent 

of apricots (contrary to Smith and Morse’s original description); taste usually peppery when raw. 

Spore print white. Under the microscope: basidiospores ellipsoid, smooth, colorless, 7 to 9 × 5 

to 5.5 μm; clamp connections abundant in all tissues.

Range and habitat—White chanterelles, apparently 

mycorrhizal with Douglas-fir and hemlocks, are endemic to coastal and montane forests of California, 

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. They 

commonly fruit in late summer and early fall in mature to old forests.

Similar mushrooms—After harvest, white chanterelles can be confused with Pacific golden chanterelles because with handling the whites tend to yellow and darken, and the goldens lose color as they 

dry. Additionally, in the forest, golden chanterelles 

are sometimes pale to almost white when sheltered 

from light under duff or debris. Among chanterelles 

that might also be mistaken for white chanterelles 

are an unnamed British Columbia species that is 

very similar to the European pale chanterelle, C.

pallens (Redhead and others 1997), and another 

reported by Thiers (1985) as C. cibarius var. pallidi-

© S.A. Redhead/Agriculture Canada

folius from under tanbark oaks in California. 
35

Scientific names—Craterellus cornucopioides

Persoon 1825

Craterellus fallax A.H. Smith 1968 and Cr. konradii Bourdot & Maire, previously treated as separate species, are now considered synonyms by 

Dahlman and others (2000). Craterellus konradii was the name previously given to the yellow 

form of this species.

Common names—Horn of plenty (Cr. cornucopioides), also known as the trumpet (or angel) 

of death and black chanterelle. The names 

black trumpet and deceptive horn of plenty 

are used to refer to Craterellus fallax when that species is viewed as distinct. The names angel 

of death and trumpet of death belie the fact that these mushrooms are choice and highly prized 

edibles: here “death” refers not to any toxic qualities but rather the somber dark brown to black 

color of the mushrooms.

Edibility—Arora (1991) describes this species as delicious and the most flavorful of the 

“chanterelles.” They are highly prized in Europe but not eaten in Japan.

Description—Mushroom up to 6 cm across, trumpet to funnel shaped, thin, tough, hollow; 

caps sometimes yellow, brown, or gray, but typically very dark brown to black, inner top surface 

slightly feltlike and outer surface smooth; hymenium slightly wrinkled (not ridged), ash-gray, 

brownish, salmon or rose-tinged, rarely yellow; stem gray, brown, or black; flesh relatively thin 

and tough; occasionally entire mushroom yellow with only stem base black; odor pleasant; taste 

mild when raw. The white spore print of Cr. cornucopioides has been used to distinguish it from 

the yellow/salmon-tinged spore print of Cr. fallax when they are recognized as separate species. 

Under the microscope: basidiospores off-round to ellipsoid, smooth, colorless, (7) 11 to 15 (20) × 

(5) 7 to 11 μm; clamp connections absent.

Range and habitat—Horns of plenty tend to grow in scattered groups or close clusters, often 

arising from a common base in humus or mineral soil. They are ectomycorrhizal with coniferous 

and deciduous trees (Dahlman and others 2000, Molina and others 1993). Although relatively 

common in eastern North America and abundant in the coastal regions of central to northern 

California, horns of plenty are uncommon north of southern Oregon. Redhead (1997a) cites only 

one unconfirmed report of Cr. cornucopioides (from a Vancouver Island foray) in his coverage 

of macrofungi in British Columbia. The horn of plenty fruits during the same cold weather as the 

winter craterelle—beginning in late fall in southern Oregon and continuing on into early winter 

and late spring in California.

Similar mushrooms—The horn of plenty is a relatively distinctive mushroom not easily confused 

with any other, except perhaps the blue chanterelle, Polyozellus multiplex. The clustered blue 

chanterelle is dark blue to gray violet (instead of brown or black) and is never hollow.

© Steve Trudell
36 

Scientific name—Craterellus neotubaeformis

nom. prov.25

Previously misapplied names include 

Cantharellus tubaeformis Fr. : Fries 1821 and 

Cantharellus infundibuliformis, (Scopoli) Fries 

1838.

Common names—Winter craterelle (previously called the winter chanterelle); outside of 

western North America it is also known as the 

autumn, funnel, or trumpet chanterelle.

Edibility—Edible and highly favored by some 

Description—Mushroom small, up to 5 cm across, texture pliable; caps dark brown to brownish orange ochre with down-turned margin and depressed center, depression sometimes deep 

and continuing into the hollow stem, surface frequently scurfy with uneven short fibers or fine 

scales; hymenium of shallow, forked ridges, pale orange yellow to yellow gray or pale lilac brown; 

stems hollow, brilliant to dull orange yellow; odor and taste not distinctive when raw. Spore print 

white to yellow. Under the microscope: basidiospores slightly off-round to ellipsoid, smooth, colorless, 9 to 11 × 6 to 10 μm; clamp connections abundant in all tissues.

Range and habitat—Relatively common and abundant in moist coniferous rain forests of the 

Pacific Northwest from Alaska to northern California, winter craterelles are usually found scattered to clustered on well-decayed wood (illustrated in the species photo), or sometimes in soil 

and humus, near the roots of living trees and around stumps. Winter craterelles generally fruit 

November to May. Craterellus neotubaeformis nom. prov. was recently confirmed as a mycorrhizal species (Jonsson and others 2000, Trappe 2001).

Similar mushrooms—Novices might mistake the darker young forms of the false chanterelle 

(Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca) or other similarly colored mushrooms with gills that continue down 

the stem (such as Chrysomphalina chrysophylla or Hygrocybe species) for the winter chanterelle. 

All of these look-alikes, however, have bright orange, thin gills rather than ridges. 

25 As noted in the section on North American chanterelles, Dahlman and 

others (2000) suggest that what has been called Cr. tubaeformis in the Pacific 

Northwest is a different species from the true Cr. tubaeformis from Europe. 

The provisional name used here incorporates this prior name to provide a link.

Photo by David Pilz
37

Scientific name—Gomphus clavatus (Persoon : Fries) Gray 1821

Common name—Pig’s ear gomphus 

Edibility—Good to choice when young, but frequently larval infested when old or in 

warmer weather. (Although the three other Gomphus species discussed in the “Similar 

Mushrooms” section below—G. floccosus, G. kauffmanii, and G. bonarii—are quite 

meaty and eaten by some, they have been known to cause digestive upsets and are 

not recommended edibles.)

Description—Mushroom up to 15 cm tall and across, yellow to olive-tan with violet 

tones, fleshy, club to peg shaped; cap initially purple-tinged and irregularly convex, 

later upturned and ruffled at the margin, smooth to slightly feltlike; hymenium of purple 

to lavender shallow wrinkled folds that extend almost to the stem base; stem relatively 

wide and solid; flesh firm, white to buff; taste not distinctive when raw and odor mild. 

Spore print color ochre to dark olive buff. Under the microscope, basidiospores long 

ellipsoid, warty-ornamented, yellow brownish, (9) 10 to 16 (17) × (4) 4.5 to 7 (7.5) μm; 

clamp connections abundant in all tissues.

Range and habitat—Solitary to clustered (often in arcs or circles) in rich soil and humus. The pig’s ear gomphus is ectomycorrhizal with conifers and occurs from northern 

California to Alaska, and east (through the northern states and Canadian provinces) to 

the Atlantic. It is also found in Europe and Asia.

Similar mushrooms—Although 

Arora (1991) notes that young 

clublike specimens are somewhat 

similar to club coral fungi, the 

pig’s ear is not readily confused 

with other fungi. Smith and Morse 

(1947) originally noted a similarity with Cr. pseudoclavatus, a 

species that lacks clamp connections and apparently has been 

collected only once in northern 

California (Thiers 1985). The 

pig’s ear gomphus lacks the hairy 

to scaly caps with deeply depressed to hollow centers characteristic of the three scaly

vase Gomphus species found in North America (all of which also lack purplish folds 

and clamp connections). The common woolly or scaly vase chanterelle (G. floccosus) 

(plate 9) has a heavily to moderately scaly, bright to rusty orange cap. The less common Kauffman’s gomphus (G. kauffmanii) and Bonar’s gomphus (G. bonarii) are also 

characterized by having large, coarse to woolly scales. Kauffman’s gomphus produces 

mushrooms with pale yellow brown to buff-colored caps (no red or orange tones present) and ochre- to cinnamon-colored spore “folds,” whereas Bonar’s gomphus grows 

in dense clusters, has orange buff, salmon, or foxy orange caps, dingy cream to tan 

shallow folds, and produces smaller basidiospores.

© Steve Trudell
38 

Scientific name—Polyozellus multiplex

(Underwood) Murrill 1910

Common name—Blue chanterelle, blue 

clustered chanterelle, black chanterelle 

(in Alaska)

Edibility—Good to choice

Description—Mushroom up to 15 cm 

across, fleshy, dark purple to deep blue 

black; caps slightly roughened and dry, 

often occurring in clusters above stems 

that are frequently fused; hymenium of 

shallow forked veins often extending down 

the stems, dark violet black to blue purple when fresh, becoming a paler gray violet when dried; 

flesh tough and somewhat brittle, dark purple; odor faintly pungent, taste mild and not distinctive 

when raw. Spore print white. Under the microscope, basidiospores ornamented with low bumps, 

colorless, 4.5 to 9 × 4.5 to 8 μm; tissues turn greenish black in potassium hydroxide; clamp connections present.

Range and habitat—Relatively rare and, in the Pacific Northwest, restricted to old coniferous forests from California’s Humboldt County north to Alaska. Ectomycorrhizal with fir and 

Sitka spruce in British Columbia. The blue chanterelle is also found in the Rocky Mountains 

south to New Mexico and east to Maine at higher latitudes. It might be common in some areas. 

Polyozellus multiplex is also known from Japan (Imazeki 1953).

Similar mushrooms—The dark bluish black to purple color and clustered growth form make 

the blue chanterelle distinctive and not easily confused with any other mushrooms. Craterellus

cinereus var. multiplex, although similar, is browner in color and has ellipsoid, smooth basidiospores; the pig’s ear gomphus is fleshier, a much paler violet, and has much larger, roughened, 

ellipsoidal basidiospores. © Steve Trudell
39 C. formosus Pacific golden chanterelle C. subalbidus white chanterelle Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov. winter craterelle Cr. cornucopioides horn of plenty (= Cr. fallax)a black trumpet G. clavatus pig’s ear gomphus P. multiplex blue chanterelle

Arora 1986 *K, C C *C C D C C

Arora 1991 *C b C *C C C C

Bandoni and Szczawinski 1976 B *B

Barron 1999 *C C C C

Bessette and Sundberg 1987 *C *C C C

Bessette and others 1997 *C c C D

Biek 1984 K *K K, B K

Castellano and others 1999 C d C

Castellano and others 2003 K, C *K, C K, C K, C

Courtenay and Burdsall 1982 *C C

Evenson 1997

Glick 1979 B *B B B B

Groves [and Redhead] 1979 K, C K, C K, C

Kibby 1992 C C c C C

Lincoff 1981 *C C *C C C C

McKenny and others 1987 C *C C C

McKnight and McKnight 1987 *C C C C

Miller 1978 *K, C K *C c K, C K, C K

Miller and Miller 1988 *C *C C C

Molina and others 1993 *C * C C

Orr and Orr 1979 K, C D K, C

Persson and Mossberg 1997 C C *C C D C

Phillips 1991 C *C C C

Schalkwijk-Barendsen 1991 *C D *C

Smith 1949 *K, C *C c *C *K, C * K, C

Smith 1975 *K, C K, C

Smith and Weber 1980 *K, C * K, C K, C

Weber and Smith 1985 *K, C *K, C

Note: Many field guides use previous scientific names or alternate common names. Consult appendix 1 for cross-references.

Legend: * = Entry in field guide listed under a previous scientific name or alternate common name, D = written description only, 

K = key provided, C = color photo or painting, B = black and white photo or drawing.

a Now considered the same species as Cr. cornucopioides, but listed in table 5 because most field guides treated them separately.

b The chanterelle shown on page 2 of Arora’s (1991) mushroom guide is likely one of the yet undescribed (unnamed) California species.

c Eastern North American species (autumn craterelle). See discussion of Cr. tubaeformis and neotubaeformis nom. prov. in the 

“North American Chanterelles” section and under the species description for our western winter craterelle.

d Accuracy of color rendition best in Pilz photo.

Table 5—North American field guides treating two or more Pacific Northwest chanterelle species
40 

Plate 6—Cantharellus cibarius mycelium growing on a special antibacterial agar in a petri plate.

Plate 5—Cantharellus cibarius/Pinus sylvestris mycorrhizae 

grown in pure culture.

Plate 4—Cross section of a Cantharellus 

cibarius/Picea abies mycorrhiza. The thin tubes 

on top are transected chanterelle hyphae, building up the yellow mantle. The big root cells belong 

to the spruce root. Scanning electron micrograph, 

1900×.

Plate 3—Chanterelles exhibit a striking range 

of color variations and climatic adaptations. 

Pictured here is the black C. congolensis that 

grows in the Congo Basin in African countries 

such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

Burundi, Tanzania, Malawi, and others.

Plate 2—Closeup view of Cantharellus formosus, the common Pacific golden chanterelle. For at least 80 years, the 

name “C. cibarius” was misapplied to this Pacific Northwest 

native, which is, in fact, a unique species.

Plate 1—Pacific golden 

chanterelles for sale at 

Pike Street Market in 

Seattle, Washington.

Photo by David Pilz Photo by Eric Danell Photo by Eric Danell

Photo by Eric Danell

Photo by Eric Danell

Photo by Lorelei Norvell
41

Plate 7—Danell’s elaborate laboratory setup for inoculating pine roots 

with chanterelle mycelium in pure culture.

Plate 8—The first chanterelle ever to fruit from a pure 

culture inoculation. Oregon State University greenhouse, Corvallis, OR, June 1996. 

Plate 9—Gomphus floccosus, woolly or scaly vase chanterelle. One of the 

more common nonedible species of Gomphus that looks similar to chanterelles.

Plate 10—A basket of chanterelles collected on the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest and for sale at a 

mushroom buying shed in Randle, Washington.

Plate 11—Field crew members Rita Claremont, Shannon Cleary, and 

Doni McKay mapping a chanterelle patch to study the effects of stand 

thinning.

Photos by Eric Danell (closeup inset) and © Wes Colgan (potted seedling) Photo by David Pilz

Photo by David Pilz Photo by Daniel Luoma Photo by David Pilz
42 

C. formosus C. cibarius var. roseocanus Cr. subalbidus Cr. neotubaeformis (and Cr. tubaeformis) Cr. cornucopioides (and Cr. fallax) G. clavatus P. multiplex 

Murrill 1910 T

Mounce and Jackson 1937 D, B

Shope 1938 D, B

Smith and Morse 1947 *Db T, B *K, D *K, D, B *K, D, B

Imazeki 1953 M

Corner 1966 T, K, W K, D *K, D K, D, W K, D, W

Smith 1968 *K, D, B *K, D, B, W *K, D, B

Peterson 1969 Db

Peterson 1971a D D, K, C

Peterson 1971b D

Peterson 1973 D

Peterson 1975 D, C

Bigelow 1978 *K, D, B D, B D, B

Peterson 1979 *K, D, C D, C

Smith and others 1981 K, D *K, D K, D K, D, B K, D, B

Thiers 1985 K, D K, D *K, D K, D K, D K, D

Tylutki 1987 K, D K, D, B *K, D K, D, B K, D

Feibelman and others 1994 G G G G

Largent 1994 *E

Danell and others 1995 G G G

Largent and Sime 1995 *E

Hibbett and others 1997 G G

Redhead and others 1997 D, K, B, G T, K, B, G K, G

Bruns and others 1998 G G

Bergemann and Largent 

 1998, 2000 E

Pine and others 1999 G G

Dahlman and others 2000 G G G G

Note: Consult appendix 1 for previous synonyms.

Legend: * = Discussed under a previous scientific name or alternate common name, T = type description (description of the specimen upon which 

the species is named), D = description, K = key provided, C = color photo, W = watercolor painting, B = black and white photo or drawing, M = 

morphological analysis (including nongenetic chemical tests), G = genetic (DNA) analyses, E = ecology or fruiting substrate discussed.

a Listed in chronological order to reflect evolving species concepts.

b Early discussions of C. formosus in western North America.

Table 6—Taxonomic and technical research papers a on Pacific Northwest chanterelles
43

Evidence that Native Americans ate chanterelles is scarce. Although it is possible that 

ethnographers simply neglected to ask about mushrooms or tribes were reluctant to 

reveal all their cultural traditions and foods, many North American tribes (referred to 

as First Nations in Canada) seem to ignore or disdain mushrooms as food (Kuhnlein 

and Turner 1991). Turner and others (1990) do, however, document the consumption 

of chanterelles by the Thompson Indians, a Salish-speaking tribe in southern interior 

British Columbia. Goodrich and others (1980) also report that the Kashaya Pomo, 

whose homeland is in northern Sonoma County, California, were known to bake chanterelles on hot rocks.

European Americans have harvested chanterelles for personal use ever since they 

arrived in the Pacific Northwest. Chanterelles and other edible forest mushrooms 

supplemented the subsistence diets of settlers and several generations of their descendents 26 (Love and others 1998). Many regional mushroom clubs and mycological 

societies were also organized during the last century; their members eagerly collect 

chanterelles and other edible mushrooms for food and recreation (Brown and others 

1985). 

For many decades, recreational and subsistence mushroom harvesters found an 

abundance of mushrooms in nearby forests, but competition for those mushrooms 

changed markedly in the 1980s. As a result of litigation arising from the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA 1973), timber harvesting was dramatically curtailed on public lands 

managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS) and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI-BLM). As a result, 

unemployed or part-time timber workers sought ways to supplement their incomes. 

Selling mushrooms came naturally to those who already had collected them for personal use and knew good harvest locations. Recent immigrants from Southeast Asia 

and Latin America also began harvesting mushrooms as international markets developed and demand increased. Love and others (1998) provide a thorough discussion 

of social, cultural, and economic aspects of chanterelle harvesting on Washington’s 

Olympic Peninsula. Salient findings from their research include: (1) no one gets rich 

harvesting chanterelles, but many people seasonally supplement their incomes; (2) 

the low value and broad distribution of chanterelles encourage harvest by local residents rather than by traveling harvesters; (3) most recreational, commercial, and subsistence harvesters share an ethic of careful harvesting and an interest in sustaining 

harvest opportunities; (4) most harvesters understand the importance of forest management in maintaining productive chanterelle habitats.

The fact that harvester groups shared common interests was not immediately recognized. The emergence of large-scale commercial harvesting during the 1980s (plate 

10) threatened many recreational harvesters who were disturbed by evidence that 

novice commercial harvesters disrespected both the chanterelles and their forest environment. They complained that commercial harvesters removed every mushroom in 

a patch, harvested small mushrooms before they matured, disturbed the forest floor to 

find young or hidden mushrooms, and littered. These problems gradually abated during the 1990s as landowners refined their harvest regulations and responsible commercial harvesters educated novices. Recreational harvesters came to realize that 

there are enough mushrooms for everyone, even if they had to search a little harder 

Management and 

Research in the 

Pacific Northwest 

Commercial Harvest 

26 Littke, Will. 1995. Personal communication. Forest Pathologist, 

Weyerhaeuser Company, Western Forestry Research, 505 N. 

Pearl St., Centralia, WA 98531.
44 

or further, and that they shared many concerns with commercial harvesters, such as 

encouraging forest landowners to adopt sensible regulations and manage forests for 

mushroom habitat (Love and others 1998).

The early conflicts among harvester groups, and efforts of federal land management 

agencies to provide mushroom harvesting opportunities, provided much of the impetus 

for the research projects discussed later. These issues are not unique to the Pacific 

Northwest. The international market for edible forest mushrooms is creating local harvesting opportunities throughout all northern temperate forest regions. Interactions between harvesters and landowners differ widely depending on local traditions and land 

tenure, but global competition increasingly affects local prices and harvester profits. 

The Pacific Northwest chanterelle harvest cannot be adequately understood outside of 

this context, and conversely, Pacific Northwest management issues and research are 

internationally applicable. 

Land tenure and management goals—Pacific Northwest forest lands include Native 

American reservation lands, national parks, national forests, USDI-BLM districts, state 

forests, state parks, county forests, corporate timberlands, and nonindustrial private 

timberlands. Consequently, forest management goals range from preservation through 

various multiple-use scenarios to industrial timber production. Although not all landowners have chanterelles on their property, each landowner category includes forests with chanterelles; therefore chanterelle-producing forests are subject to the full 

spectrum of management goals. Regardless of each landowner’s primary objectives, 

the commercial mushroom harvest is an issue that almost all Pacific Northwest forest 

managers must face. Managing the chanterelle resource and its harvest entails many 

of the same issues as management of other edible mushrooms (Acker and Russell 

1986, Amaranthus and Pilz 1996, de Geus and others 1992, Hosford and others 1997, 

Molina and others 1993, Pilz and others 1999, Redhead 1997b, Russell 1987) but 

differs in that chanterelles fruit in forests that span a larger geographic area than any 

other commercially collected mushroom in the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, commercial quantities of American matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) and western morel 

species occur predominantly on public lands, often in areas of low timber productivity 

or high elevation. Chanterelles, by contrast, fruit abundantly on both public and private 

lands, often in low-elevation forests that are highly productive for timber. The fact that 

chanterelles are so abundant and broadly distributed stimulates interest in their management among a wide range of stakeholders. For instance, the many cooperating 

landowners and volunteers in the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) chanterelle study on 

the Olympic Peninsula (Liegel 1998) exemplify this diversity of interest in chanterelles, 

their commercial harvest, and forest management activities that affect their abundance. The other research projects described in the next section also help illustrate 

the complex biological, ecological, silvicultural, social, and economic issues involved.

Northwest Forest Plan—Management of chanterelles in the Pacific Northwest 

United States has another interesting twist. The aforementioned Endangered Species 

Act litigation was resolved when the USDA-FS and USDI-BLM adopted management 

guidelines set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan, a product of President Clinton’s 1994 

Timber Summit (USDA and USDI 1994a, 1994b). A major goal was preservation of 

viable populations of species thought to depend on late-successional (“old-growth”) 

forest habitats or structural legacy elements of old forests, such as large woody debris 

or snags. Two hundred and thirty-four species of fungi were included on the original 

Management Issues
45

survey and manage list, each allocated to one or more of four categories with different 

requirements for field surveys and management mitigations. Pilz and Molina (1996) 

discuss management issues and Castellano and others (1999, 2002) describe survey and manage fungus species. Some edible chanterelles were among the species 

listed, namely: C. cibarius, C. formosus, C. subalbidus, Cr. tubaeformis (Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov.), G. clavatus, and P. multiplex. Cantharellus formosus and P. multiplex were placed in the highest priority survey category (strategy 1) because they 

were believed to be quite rare. At the time the list was created, mycologists erred on 

the side of caution and listed C. formosus as restricted to Corner’s original collection 

site on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Redhead and others (1997) subsequently 

reiterated the assertion by Petersen (1969), Thiers (1985), and Tylutki (1987) that C.

formosus was really much more common, and demonstrated that the name should 

actually be applied to the common Pacific golden chanterelle found in all-aged forests 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Revised guidelines for survey and manage species 

(USDA and USDI 2001) have recently been adopted, including procedures for removing or adding species. Cantharellus cibarius and C. formosus have been removed 

from the list, and C. subalbidus, Cr. tubaeformis (Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov.), and 

G. clavatus are being reevaluated as more survey records are compiled. Polyozellus

multiplex, on the other hand, is still considered uncommon and old-growth associated 

in the region. Newly identified chanterelle species might become objects of further surveys to evaluate their range, abundance, and habitats. 

Harvesting impacts—One of the earliest concerns about commercial chanterelle harvesting was whether heavy harvesting would diminish subsequent fruiting. 

Although early research 27 with small-scale picking treatments applied to chanterelle 

patches does not support such a conclusion, the potential long-term or large-scale 

impacts of intensive commercial harvesting remain uncertain. Will harvesters bolster 

chanterelle reproduction and fruiting by spreading chanterelle spores and thus aiding the establishment of more colonies than would become established naturally? Or 

might they instead hamper chanterelle reproduction and fruiting by removing chanterelles before they disperse enough spores to replace colonies that die out? Such 

questions can only be addressed with long-term, broad-scale monitoring programs 

(Pilz and Molina 1998, 2002) or by a much better understanding of the reproductive biology, ecology, and population dynamics of chanterelles. Conducting statistically valid 

comparisons of chanterelle productivity across various forest habitats and alternate silvicultural regimes will further our understanding of how chanterelles respond to forest 

management decisions. Meanwhile, most interested parties agree on the importance 

of maintaining appropriate habitat to sustain chanterelles and their harvest. 

Silviculture—Tree species composition, overall stand age, distribution of age classes, 

growth rates, and stand density can all influence chanterelle productivity because 

these factors affect the amount of energy (carbohydrates) allocated to mycorrhizal 

fungi by their host trees. Forest floor factors such as brush, debris, exposure, and soil 

compaction interact with weather patterns to create more or less favorable microenvironments for mushroom growth. Timber management activities routinely alter stand 

structure and forest floor conditions in Pacific Northwest chanterelle habitat; indeed, 

large areas of the region have been converted from old native forests to young timber 

plantations that often produce abundant chanterelles. When forests are managed for 

timber production by using clearcut harvesting, the intervals between clearcut log27 See section on “Declining European Production.”
46 

ging are called timber rotations. Because chanterelles do not to fruit for the first 10 to 

20 years of stand growth, conditions suitable for chanterelle fruiting exist for a greater 

portion of long rotations than of short rotations. For instance, if chanterelles start fruiting at 15 years of age in stands managed on a 45-year rotation, 66 percent of the rotation would be suitable for chanterelle production, but if the same stand were managed 

on a 75-year rotation, 80 percent of the rotation would be suitable for chanterelle fruiting. Stands managed for timber on longer rotations are often commercially thinned, 

and depending on the number, dominance, and species of the trees removed, temporary declines in chanterelle productivity levels are possible. Depending on the logging 

methods, frequent thinning can also result in more compacted soil than will infrequent 

thinning or clearcut harvesting. This is a concern for chanterelle productivity because 

compacted soils worsen conditions for the growth and development of ectomycorrhizae (Amaranthus and others 1996).

Even forests managed for preservation (such as parks) change over time, however, 

and will eventually be replaced after natural disturbances such as fire or windstorms. 

A better understanding of optimal chanterelle habitat conditions will provide forest 

managers with the knowledge needed to sustain or enhance chanterelle production while accomplishing primary management goals. On industrial timberlands, 

this could mean providing harvesting opportunities in conveniently located areas to 

promote favorable public relations with local communities or employees. On public 

lands managed for multiple use, modified thinning regimes or longer timber rotations 

could be used to augment chanterelle production in popular harvest locations. On 

lands managed for preservation or recreation (without timber harvests), understanding how forest conditions influence chanterelles could enable managers to determine 

human impacts on protected or rare chanterelle populations and regulate accordingly. 

Regardless of who owns the land, or what the management goals, a better understanding of the ecological relations between chanterelles and their forest habitats will 

be essential to sustaining chanterelle production and, eventually, to obtaining maximum production from artificially inoculated chanterelle plantations.

Recent Pacific Northwest chanterelle research encompasses taxonomy, population 

genetics, ecology, habitat modeling, harvesting methods and impacts, determinants 

of fruiting, productivity estimates, economic valuation, harvester sociology, and forest 

management activities. In this section we briefly describe some of these studies, cite 

available publications, and provide information for learning more about topics of particular interest. Describing ongoing research is problematic because citations are often 

lacking, research plans and personnel change, and we are not aware of all the research currently underway. Our intent is to portray the broad scope of current research 

devoted to chanterelles.

The Oregon Mycological Society (OMS) Cantharellus Project—In 1986, OMS 

members launched the first and oldest continuous chanterelle research and monitoring 

project in North America. Society members were concerned that chanterelles might 

decline in the Pacific Northwest, as had been noted in Europe. The research project 

was initiated by a small group of dedicated volunteers,28 who approached the Mount 

Hood National Forest and City of Portland Water Bureau for permission to conduct a 

Recent Research

28 Frank Kopecky [Coordinator 1986-1988], Janet Lindgren, 

Lorelei Norvell [Project designer, Coordinator 1989–1991], and 

Maggie Rogers.
47

long-term chanterelle study in the Bull Run Watershed. The location, several miles 

behind locked gates and off limits to the general public, makes it one of the more secure mushroom study sites in the region.

The primary goal of the ongoing project is to determine whether harvesting chanterelles affects subsequent fruiting. Additional goals are to assess the impact of different harvest methods (pluck or cut), to correlate fruiting with weather patterns, and 

to inventory vegetation and other mushrooms on the 10 permanent study plots. The 

researchers have published methods and preliminary results in many publications 

(Norvell 1988, 1992a, 1992b, 1995; Norvell and Roger 1998; Norvell and others 

1995, 1996; Roger 1998), and the study has been widely cited.

Thirteen years of data provide no evidence that plucking chanterelles has suppressed 

fruiting; indeed, the data suggest a slight stimulation of fruiting. Until 1999, no statistical correlation was noted between chanterelle productivity and harvest method, 

but since then a slight depression of chanterelle biomass and abundance has been 

detected in the “cut” plots relative to the pluck and control plots. Sixteen years of 

weather observations show a statistically significant positive correlation between 

chanterelle abundance and average summer temperature. A weaker correlation also 

exists with the amount of autumn rainfall. These results agree with similar studies 

(Bergemann and Largent 1998, 2000; Danell 1994a; Kotilova-Kubickova and others 

1990; Ohenoja 1993; Straatsma and others 2001; Vogt and others 1992). 

Since 1986, each chanterelle has been measured and flagged in place by using plastic sticks color coded by year. Casual observation of computer-generated maps and 

these highly clustered markers reveals that chanterelles generally fruit in the same 

spot year after year, the patches expanding only slightly as the forest ages. Slowly 

maturing chanterelles have persisted at the site for up to 90 days. Chanterelles in 

some of the plots consistently fruit earlier than others, perhaps in response to different microenvironmental conditions or as an expression of physiological differences 

between genetically unique mycelial colonies. From 1986 to 2001, 310 species of 

macrofungi (122 mycorrhizae, 119 soil saprobes, 61 wood saprobes or plant parasites, 8 fungal parasites) and 56 species of plants (40 vascular, 16 nonvascular) were 

recorded.

Opportunities for new studies have arisen from the long-term detailed data that have 

been collected. For instance, all harvested chanterelles have been dried and retained, 

and these voucher specimens are now undergoing DNA analysis to scrutinize colony 

size, interbreeding, and population diversity. Additionally, OMS is cooperating with 

Simon Egli 29 to correlate annual tree growth with chanterelle productivity, and then to 

compare the results with similar correlations derived from a long-term mushroom research site in Switzerland (Straatsma and others 2001). Educational applications also 

exist; given the detailed weekly mapping of every chanterelle location, each year’s 

flux of fruiting patterns could be visually illustrated by making a short film clip with 

frames composed of weekly fruiting maps.

Notably, this study demonstrates that volunteers can make significant contributions to 

the advancement of scientific knowledge by conducting long-term research and monitoring activities. The OMS field mycologists and collaborating academic researchers 

29 Simon Egli, Researcher, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, 

Snow and Landscape Research, Section Biodiversity, 

Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
48 

have donated expertise, materials, and over 7,000 hours of labor. The current OMS 

volunteer research team 30 continues to monitor the site every 2 weeks from May 

through December.

The MAB Chanterelle Study—Sponsored in part by the United Nations Man and 

the Biosphere (MAB) program, this 2-year study examined the biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle harvesting on the Olympic Peninsula of 

Washington. The study was reported as six articles in a special issue of Ambio (Liegel 

1998).

Several aspects of the study are noteworthy. It was designed as an integrated, multidisciplinary study with the cooperation of stakeholders and landowners who represented almost 31 the full range of harvesting interests and forest management goals on the 

Olympic Peninsula (Liegel and others 1998a). The biological component documented 

the first nonbiased landscape-level estimates of chanterelle productivity (kilograms of 

fresh chanterelles produced per hectare per year) in the Pacific Northwest (Pilz and 

others 1998b). The first careful analysis comparing mushroom and timber values was 

derived from the typical chanterelle productivity values, local buying station prices for 

chanterelles, assumptions about harvester costs, and several timber management 

scenarios (Pilz and others 1998a). This was also the first sociological examination of 

the backgrounds, opinions, and concerns of recreational, commercial, and subsistence 

harvester groups, as well as the interactions among these groups and with landowners 

(Love and others 1998). The process of cooperative research improved communications among stakeholders and culminated in a public meeting to explore the meaning and usefulness of the research findings. Lastly, results were integrated across 

disciplines to develop management recommendations (Liegel and others 1998b) and 

to produce a university-level teaching case study about how to conduct integrated 

research and evaluate multidisciplinary sustainable forestry issues (McLain and others 

1998).

Young Stand Thinning and Diversity Study (YSTDS)—Thinning young forest 

stands for timber production and other management goals is becoming increasingly 

common in the Pacific Northwest as planted trees grow together and become too 

dense for sustained vigorous growth. Thinning studies are expensive, but managers are interested in how their decisions influence wildlife, vegetation, stand development, and other forest products, such as chanterelles. In 1994, the Willamette National 

Forest (located in the central Cascade Range of Oregon) implemented a long-term 

cooperative32 research project to examine how a variety of young stand thinning regimes and silvicultural treatments could be used to produce timber, enhance biological diversity, and speed the development of old-growth stand structure. Chanterelle 

30 Adrian Beyerly, Mel Brink, Janet Lindgren, Kathy Patrick, Judy 

Roger [Coordinator 1992 to present].

31 Unfortunately Native American tribal interests and lands were 

not included.

32 Cooperators include Oregon State University, the Pacific 

Northwest Research Station (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service), the Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management, 

and Evergreen State College, WA. More information may be found 

on the Internet at http://www.fsl.orst.edu/mycology/youngstndthin/

Yss.html.
49

mushroom productivity was included as an environmental response variable to examine the impact of thinning on recreational harvesting opportunites and their availability 

as nontimber forest products.

Four study sites (blocks of replicate stands) were chosen on the Blue River, McKenzie, 

and Middle Fork Ranger Districts. At each site, chanterelles were sampled in three 50-

year-old stands: control stands (no thinning, 615 trees per ha), lightly thinned stands 

(270 residual trees per ha), or heavily thinned stands (125 residual trees per ha). 

Prethinning productivity was obtained for all 12 stands in 1994 to improve interpretation of the relative changes in productivity among stands after thinning. Control stands 

were sampled every following autumn (except 1998) through 2001. Postthinning chanterelle productivity was sampled in the thinned stands in the autumns of 1996, 1997, 

1999, and 2001. Complete results will be published soon.33

Few published values exist for chanterelle productivity (reported here as fresh weight 

or numbers of fruiting bodies per hectare per year). Slee (1991), based on personal 

observations, estimated that 50 kg•ha-1• yr -1 34 was possible in some Scottish forests. 

The MAB chanterelle project noted values from 0.076 to 21.947 kg•ha-1• yr -1 (1 to 1180 

chanterelles•ha-1• yr -1), averaging 2.520 kg•ha-1• yr -1 (305 chanterelles•ha-1• yr -1).35 In 

the YSTDS, chanterelle production across all the sites and years sampled ranged from 

0 to 33.5 kg•ha-1• yr -1 (0 to 2251 chanterelles•ha-1• yr -1). Average production across 

all control stands for the 6 years they were sampled was 9.785 kg•ha-1• yr -1 (432 

chanterelles•ha-1• yr -1). Importantly, almost all the stands sampled in the MAB project 

and the YSTDS were selected without prior knowledge of whether chanterelles grew 

in the stands or not, and the sample plots were delimited without prior knowledge 

of where chanterelles might fruit within the stands; hence these productivity values 

are unbiased landscape-level estimates of typical chanterelle productivity in Pacific 

Northwest forests. In the year immediately following thinning, productivity in lightly 

thinned stands was about 33 percent of controls and in the heavily thinned stands 

about 10 percent of controls, but fruiting appears to be rebounding after 7 years.

Selected patches of chanterelles and nearby ectomycorrhizal trees also are being 

mapped to examine how chanterelle fruiting patterns might shift in response to the 

removal of some adjacent host trees (plate 11). A few of these patches also have been 

sampled for genetic relatedness of the mushrooms (see “Taxonomy and genetics” 

below).

Bureau of Land Management fungal diversity studies—Since 1998, PNW 

Mycology Service and USDI-BLM Salem District researchers have conducted two 

concurrently running 5-year fungal diversity studies in Oregon’s Coast Range (Norvell 

33 For more information, contact Randy Molina, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service), 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 

97331. Information is also available on the Internet at 

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/mycology/youngstndthin/Yss.html.

34 See “English Equivalents” at the end of the text for conversions 

to “pounds per acre” or “numbers per acre” values.

35 One of the highly productive chanterelle sites in this study had 

weight data, but not count data; therefore average chanterelle 

weights cannot be validly derived from these productivity values.
50 

2000a, 2000b; Norvell and Exeter 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).36 The Benton County 

density management study was designed to investigate species richness of ectomycorrhizal fungi in adjacent 65-year-old Douglas-fir stands undergoing five different 

thinning regimes: nonthinned control (420 trees per ha), three thinning intensities (300, 

200, and 100 residual trees per ha), and a clearcut (no residual trees). The Pacific 

golden chanterelle, winter craterelle, and pig’s ear gomphus were among 219 ectomycorrhizal mushroom species identified during 1998–2001. Preliminary post-thin 

(2000–2001) data show surprisingly early reestablishment of pretreatment (1998–

1999) chanterelle fruiting patterns. Abundance was depressed in the heavily thinned 

stand, however, and only two chanterelles were obtained from the end of a clearcut 

transect within 20 m of live trees. 

Chanterelles were also among 284 mycorrhizal species identified from the Polk 

County chronosequence study. The 1998–2001 data from 25-year-old, 55-year-old, 

and 150-year-old Douglas-fir/hemlock stands show that Pacific golden and white 

chanterelles fruit in both young and old-growth stands, whereas the winter craterelle 

has been collected only from the old-growth stand. Given the abundance of craterelles 

in the 65-year-old Benton County stands, however, their absence in this study’s 50-

year-old stand might simply be coincidental.

Other thinning studies—We know of four additional unpublished field assessments 

that examined chanterelle fruiting responses to stand thinning in the Pacific Northwest. 

Consistently, stand thinning does not eliminate chanterelle fruiting. Although reductions in fruiting after thinning are highly variable, general trends suggest that the 

more ectomycorrhizal host trees removed, the greater the reduction in fruiting and 

the longer the dip in production seems to last.

Ecological studies—One of the most thorough sets of studies to describe habitat 

and fruiting conditions for C. formosus (as C. cibarius) and C. subalbidus was conducted in northern California.37 Researchers have documented and analyzed (1) 

correlations between the environment and fruiting (Largent 1994); (2) plant associations, stand characteristics, fruiting seasons, fruitbody lifespans, and spore production 

(Largent and Sime 1995); (3) plant associations and stand characteristics of montane 

Pacific golden and white chanterelle habitats (Steiger 1997); and (4) site-specific silvicultural and soil variables (Bergemann and Largent 2000). Among their many findings, they noted the long lifespan of chanterelle sporocarps, lengthy fruiting seasons, 

long periods of sporulation, C. subalbidus occurring on higher pH soils and in areas of 

deeper duff than C. formosus sites, and the preference of C. formosus for soils with 

low exchangeable acidity.

Taxonomy and genetics—We described earlier taxonomic research in our introduction to chanterelles, but much work continues. New insights continue to emerge as 

characters revealed through DNA analysis are used to refine taxonomic distinctions 

that were originally based on morphological characters alone. The Northwest Forest 

36 For more information, contact author Lorelei Norvell or botanist Ronald Exeter, Salem District Office, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1717 Fabry Road SE, 

Salem, OR 97306. Information is also available on the Internet at 

http://www.pnw-ms.com.

37 Professor David Largent (and graduate students), Humboldt 

State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521-4957.
51

Plan has funded many of the recent taxonomic, habitat, and distribution studies of 

Cantharellus,

38 Craterellus,39 and Gomphus 40 species in the Pacific Northwest because clear species distinctions are required to judge whether a listed fungus actually 

requires old-growth forest habitat. 

In addition to applying DNA analyses to species distinctions, researchers are using 

similar techniques to understand genetic variation and interbreeding dynamics within 

chanterelle populations. For example, figure 1 illustrates the genetic diversity found 

in one chanterelle patch measuring only 16 m in diameter. University of Washington 

researchers41 are investigating spatial and temporal variation in the genetic diversity of 

chanterelle colonies on the Olympic Peninsula and how that diversity might respond to 

chanterelle harvesting. 

38 Susie Dunham and Kelly Collins, Ph.D. students, Department 

of Forest Science, 321 Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR 97331-5752.

39 Matt Trappe, Ph.D. student, Department of Forest Science, 321 

Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-

5752.

40 Admir Giachini, Ph.D. student, Department of Forest Science, 

321 Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

97331-5752.

41 Rusty Rodriguez, Researcher, Biological Resources Division, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Service, Seattle, 

WA 98115 and Professor Joseph Ammirati, Department Chair, 

Department of Botany, University of Washington, Box 355325, 

Seattle, WA 98195-5325.

Figure 1—Genetic diversity of 

chanterelles fruiting in proximity (results of DNA analysis by 

Susie Dunham, Department of 

Forest Science, 321 Richardson 

Hall, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR 97331-5752).
5

2

Habitat modeling—We use the term “model” to denote a conceptual or mathemati-

cal representation of our knowledge about the natural world. Although often designed 

as predictive tools, models also clarify the importance of what we already know, how 

items of information relate to each other, and what information still needs to be ac-

quired to make predictions that are accurate enough to be useful. The Northwest 

Forest Plan has fostered habitat modeling research to predict where chanterelles 

are likely to occur and what habitat attributes are important for their reproduction 

and growth. Cantharelloid fungi were selected as prototypes for efforts to model the 

habitat requirements of other old-growth-associated fungi because chanterelles range 

from common and widespread (C. formosus) to rare and found only in old forests (P. 

multiplex). Chanterelle habitat information has been derived from published literature, 

herbarium records, research, and new surveys (Dreisbach and others 2002). 

For instance, Cr. tubaeformis (Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov.) is a survey and man-

age species typically found fruiting from well-rotted coarse woody debris, a structural 

component of old-growth forests that can be found in young stands if logs are left after 

logging or remain after stand replacement disturbances such as fire. Although recently 

confirmed as a mycorrhizal species, the winter craterelle also has been confirmed as 

a close associate of well-decayed coarse woody debris (Trappe 2001). Mass spec-

trometry of C13/C12 isotope ratios suggests that the winter craterelle obtains carbohy-

drates from decomposition as well as from its mycorrhizal association with live trees 

(Hobbie and others 1999, 2001; Trappe 2001). Paired sets of old and young stands 

with high and low levels of coarse woody debris are being surveyed in the Coast and 

Cascade Ranges of Oregon to test potential association with coarse woody debris for 

survey and manage fungus species other than the winter craterelle.42 Chanterelles are 

frequently encountered on these survey sites and will be included in a habitat model 

that predicts the likelihood that a given species will occupy habitat with known levels of 

coarse woody debris.

A frequent criticism of academic or government research is that scientists too often 

disregard the expertise of skilled harvesters who are keen observers of variation in 

mushroom characteristics, preferred mushroom habitats, ideal stand conditions, and 

environmental factors that induce fruiting. Obtaining, evaluating, and publishing such 

data, however, can be challenging. Many harvesters hesitate to share information they 

have worked long and hard to accumulate, particularly when scientists have neglected 

to acknowledge or compensate them for information they previously shared. In addi-

tion, harvester information is often intuitive or anecdotal, and sometimes contradictory. 

In spite of these difficulties, “expert” models can be designed that combine qualitative 

information (expert opinions of scientists or harvesters) with quantitative data (field 

surveys). Such models use rules and probability-based decision trees to calculate the 

likelihood of resulting predictions. For example, the probability that a particular species 

of chanterelle would occur in a habitat with certain features could be predicted. The 

models might be interactive, responding to queries submitted by users. Alternately, 

data about the probability of occurrence could be fed into geographic information sys-

tem databases to produce maps of probable distributions. Probability of chanterelle 

42 Efrén Cázares-Gonzalez, Assistant Professor, Department of 

Forest Science, 321 Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR 97331-5752 and Tina Dreisbach, Interagency 

Regional Mycologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
53

Future Research

occurrence then could be combined with productivity estimates to predict landscape 

or regional abundance. Much of this work remains developmental, but such models 

will help planners evaluate the chanterelle resource, especially in the context of largescale multiple-resource management plans.

Taxonomy, augmented by DNA analysis, will remain an essential underpinning of all 

chanterelle studies. Until clear taxonomic classifications, habitat preferences, and 

distributions are developed for chanterelle species, other investigations will be hampered by ignorance of the precise organism being studied. How chanterelles have 

evolved and dispersed over geologic time will become more apparent as genetic and 

physiological research begins to explain adaptations to changing habitats and hosts. 

In combination with studies of population dynamics and reproductive strategies, such 

research will better equip us to sustain viable chanterelle populations despite mounting human pressures such as habitat degradation or increased harvesting.

Equally essential to sustainable harvests is a monitoring program that evaluates 

potential large-scale, long-term changes in chanterelle populations or productivity.

Declines in edible mushroom productivity in Europe and Japan were only documented 

after several decades had passed and fruiting had decreased so much the change became obvious. Because widespread mushroom harvesting, discernible pollution, and 

intensive forest management are more recent phenomena in the Pacific Northwest 

than in Europe, we have an opportunity to evaluate chanterelle productivity before major changes occur. By initiating a statistically valid regional monitoring program 

(Pilz and Molina 1998) with tested and standardized sampling protocols, small changes should be detectable earlier than was the case in Europe and Japan. The monitoring program could be frugal, but it must be long term.

Habitat quality and available food are critical factors affecting the range and abundance of any species. Predicting how forest management activities influence the quantity and quality of future chanterelle habitat will allow managers to plan for continuous 

chanterelle harvesting opportunities as the mosaic of forest conditions shifts across 

the landscape through time. Future research, still in the planning stages (Pilz and 

others 2002), is designed to investigate how silvicultural conditions of a stand (tree 

species composition, stand age, size class distribution, stand density, tree species 

dominance, growth rates) interact to determine the quantity of carbohydrates allocated 

underground to ectomycorrhizal fungi for their growth and fruiting. Sample estimates 

of the percentage of chanterelle ectomycorrhizae in a stand (relative to ectomycorrhizae of other fungi) could then be used to calculate the proportion of such carbohydrates that are available specifically to chanterelles for their growth and fruiting. Efforts 

are underway to develop monoclonal antibody marker systems that would facilitate 

quick quantification of chanterelle ectomycorrhizae for this purpose. Although annual 

productivity is strongly influenced by seasonal weather patterns, this approach will 

allow managers to predict how their silvicultural choices affect multiyear average chanterelle productivity.

Chanterelles will be harvested from forests for the indefinite future, but efforts to grow 

them in plantations likely will also proceed apace. As humanity seeks more resources 

from a fixed or shrinking forest land base, intensive multiple-resource management 

and domestication of additional species are often-used strategies that already are being applied to chanterelles. Chanterelles are harvested from a spectrum of habitats 

that range from natural native forests to intensively managed exotic timber plantations. 

Chanterelles can, and will be, intentionally encouraged in all these types of habitats 
54 

because humankind has learned to appreciate their aesthetic, culinary, and commercial values. Knowledge about the interactions between chanterelles, their ectomycorrhizal tree hosts, and the habitats where they grow will be useful in any context where 

chanterelles are managed, cultivated, or harvested. 

Many aspects of chanterelle research and management are likely to remain interdisciplinary and cooperative. As this publication has illustrated, the topic of chanterelles is 

multifaceted and the list of interested parties is long. Only a comprehensive and inclusive approach can do the subject justice, to say nothing of the organisms themselves.

“Suitable for cooking.”

—Linnaeus, Flora Oeconomica, 1748

Carl von Linné was, intentionally or not, a master of understatement. Nevertheless, 

few North Americans or Swedes ate mushrooms 250 years ago when the founder 

of modern taxonomy was developing his system of botanical nomenclature. Since 

then, the reputation of chanterelles as safe, vitamin rich, and delicious mushrooms 

has flourished globally as cultures interact, people migrate, and trade expands. The 

economic and culinary future appears bright for chanterelles. Abundant, widely distributed, and highly valued, chanterelles are a resource more resilient and sustainable than 

many other natural products that humans harvest, sell, and use. Edible forest mushrooms are increasingly being integrated into forest management plans wherever they 

occur. Commercial harvesters, distributors, retailers, chefs, consumers, subsistence 

harvesters, recreational harvesters, members of mycological societies and mushroom 

clubs, artists, scientists, foresters, environmentalists, and the general public all have 

a common interest in guaranteeing the perpetual availability of chanterelles. Working 

together, we can enjoy them for a long time to come. 

See Kirk and others (2001) for a complete glossary of mycological terms.

basidia—Microscopic clublike structures that form on the hymenium of fungi in the 

Basidiomycetes and are the site of meiosis and spore development.

basidiospores—Spores (for sexual reproduction) produced on basidia by fungi in the 

Basidiomycetes.

clade—A group of organisms (regardless of taxonomic ranking) that evolved together 

through time. Recent DNA analyses frequently delineate clades of genetically similar 

fungi that include some species that were previously placed (based on morphological 

distinctions) in dissimilar genera, families, and orders.

clamp connections—Distinctive microscopic structures that form a secondary bridge 

or connection between two adjacent hyphal cells. Found only, but not always, in fungi 

of the class Basidiomycota.

ectomycorrhiza—A type of mycorrhiza where the fungus covers the root tip with an 

outer (“ecto”) mantle of hyphae, penetrates between the outer cells of the root tip, but 

does not penetrate into the root’s cells. Ectomycorrhizae (plural) are common with 

trees in temperate forests and with fungi that produce mushrooms and truffles.

fungivore—An organism (typically animals, insects, or mollusks) that eats fungi.

Glossary

Closing Remarks
55

hymenium—Spore-bearing surface of a mushroom. The hymenium can take the form 

of gills (as in button mushrooms), ridges (as in chanterelles), tubes (as in boletes), or 

other structures.

hyphae—One-cell-wide filaments of cells that constitute the “body” of multicellular 

fungi and converge to form structures such as mycorrhizae or mushrooms.

mycelium—A web of hyphae that colonizes a substrate such as soil or decaying organic matter. Sometimes used in reference to a “colony” of a fungus individual.

mycology—The study of fungi.

mycophagy—Eating fungi.

mycophilic—Fond of fungi (especially eating them).

mycophobic—Fearful of fungi (especially eating them). 

mycorrhiza—From Greek, “mykes” = fungus and “rhiza” = root. The structure formed 

when the mycelium of a fungus associates symbiotically with the roots of a plant. The 

fungus acts as the fine root system for the plant, providing it with water and mineral 

nutrients absorbed from the surrounding soil, and the plant in return provides the fungus with carbohydrates produced through photosynthesis. Mycorrhizae is the plural 

form commonly used in North America; mycorrhizas often is used elsewhere.

pileus—Mushroom cap.

saprobes, saprobic—Decomposers, decomposing.

sensu lato—Latin for “in a broad sense.” The term is used after species names to 

indicate that the definition of a species is being interpreted broadly or loosely in that 

specific context. It is abbreviated “s.l.” When “sensu” is used between a scientific 

name and a citation, it means taxonomic criteria or distinctions should be considered 

in the sense described in the publication.

stipe—Mushroom stem.

We acknowledge the many mycologists who have contributed to our understanding 

of chanterelles and appreciate the personal communications cited in the footnotes. 

Tina Dreisbach, Susie Dunham, Efrén Cázares, Francisco Camacho, Ronald Exeter, 

and Judy Roger provided additional consultation in preparation of the manuscript, but 

the authors assume responsibility for any errors. Susie Dunham and Kermit Cromack, 

Jr., shared unpublished data. Admir Giachini and Matt Trappe reviewed the species 

descriptions for G. clavatus and Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov., respectively. Scott 

Redhead, Ian Hall, and Susie Dunham graciously reviewed the entire manuscript. We 

are privileged to be associated with the many individuals worldwide who are dedicated 

to the sustainable management of chanterelles for the benefit of all.

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Microns, micrometers (μm) 0.000039 inches

Millimeters (mm) 0.039 inches

Centimeters (cm) 0.394 inches

Meters (m) 3.281 feet

Kilometers (km) 0.62 miles

Hectares (ha) 2.471 acres

Acknowledgments

English Equivalents
56 

Kilograms (kg) 2.205 pounds (lb)

Metric ton (t) 1.1023 short (US) ton

Metric ton (t) 2204.6 pounds

Kg per ha 0.8922 pounds per acre

Chanterelles per ha 0.404 chanterelles per acre

Celsius (°C) 1.8, then add 32 Fahrenheit

Acker, R.; Russell, K. 1986. Harvesting wild edible mushrooms in Washington: 

an issue paper. Olympia, WA: Department of Natural Resources. Prepared for: 

Wild Edible Mushroom Task Group. 44 p.

Aho, L.; Kurkela, R. 1978. Freie Fettsäuren einiger Waldpilze. Die Nahrung. 

22: 603–607. English summary.

Ainsworth, G.C. 1976. Introduction to the history of mycology. Cambridge, MA: 

Cambridge University Press. 359 p.

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.; Blatner, K.A. 2002. Nontimber forest product 

commerce. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

115–150.

Alexopoulos, C.J.; Mims, S.W.; Blackwell, M. 1996. Introductory mycology. 

4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 869 p.

Allen, M.F. 1991. The ecology of mycorrhizae. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 184 p.

Amaranthus, M.; Pilz, D. 1996. Productivity and sustainable harvest of wild 

mushrooms. In: Pilz, D.; Molina, R., eds. Managing forest ecosystems to conserve 

fungus diversity and sustain wild mushroom harvests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-371. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 42–61.

Amaranthus, M.P.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Harvey, A. [and others]. 1996. Soil 

compaction and organic matter affect conifer seedling nonmycorrhizal and 

ectomycorrhizal root tip abundance and diversity. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-494. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 12 p.

Arnolds, E. 1985. Veranderingen in de paddestoelenflora (mycoflora) 

Wetenschappelijke Medeling van de Koninklijke. Nederlandse Natuurhistorische 

Vereiniging. 167: 1–101. 

Arnolds, E. 1988. The changing macromycete flora in The Netherlands. Transactions 

of the British Mycological Society. 90: 391–406.

Arnolds, E.J.M. 1990. Mycologists and nature conservation. In: Hawksworth, D.L., 

ed. Frontiers in mycology. New York: CAB International: 243–264.

Arnolds, E.J.M. 1991. Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Europe. Agriculture, 

Ecosystems, and Environment. 35: 209–244.

Arnolds, E.J.M. 1992. Mapping and monitoring of macromycetes in relation to 

nature conservation. McIlvainea. 10(2): 4–28.

Literature Cited
57

Arnolds, E.J.M. 1995. Conservation and management of natural populations of 

edible fungi. Supplement to Canadian Journal of Botany. 73(1): 987–998.

Arnolds, E.J.M. 2001. Hoop vor de Hanekam. Coolia. 44: 48-56. English summary.

Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms demystified. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. 

959 p.

Arora, D. 1991. All that the rain promises and more...: a hip pocket guide to 

western mushrooms. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. 263 p.

Arora, D. 1999. The way of the wild mushroom. California Wild. 52(4): 8–19.

Arpin, N.; Fiasson, J.L. 1971. The pigments of Basidiomycetes: their 

chemotaxonomic interest. In: Petersen, R.H., ed. Evolution in the higher 

Basidiomycetes. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press: 63–99.

Baar, J.; Kuyper, T.W. 1993. Litter removal in forests and effect on mycorrhizal 

fungi. In: Pegler, D.N.; Boddy, L.; Ing, B.; Kirk, P.M., eds. Fungi of Europe: 

investigation, recording and conservation. Kew, United Kingdom: Royal Botanic 

Gardens: 275–286. 

Ballero, M.; Rescigno, A.; Sanjust di Teulada, E. 1991. Osservazioni 

sull’enzimologia di Cantharellus cibarius Fries. Micologia Italiana. 2: 9–12. 

Bandala, V.M.; Montoya, L.; Chapela, I.H. 1997. Wild edible mushrooms in México: 

a challenge and opportunity for sustainable development. In: Palm, M.E.; Chapela, 

I.H., eds. Mycology in sustainable development: expanding concepts, vanishing 

borders. Boone, NC: Parkway Publishers, Inc.: 76–92.

Bandoni, R.J.; Szczawinski, A.F. 1976. Guide to common mushrooms of British 

Columbia. Handbook 24. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 242 p.

Bano, Z.; Rajarathnam, S. 1988. Pleurotus mushrooms. Part II. Chemical 

composition, nutritional value, post-harvest physiology, preservation and role 

as human food. Food Science and Nutrition. 27: 86–158.

Barron, G. 1999. Mushrooms of Ontario and eastern Canada. Lone Pine Field 

Guide. Edmonton, AB: Lone Pine Publishing. 336 p.

Bendiksen, E. 1994. Fennoscandian forestry and its effects on fungus flora, 

especially with regard to threatened species. Agarica. 13(22): 61–86.

Bendiksen, E.; Høiland, K. 1996. Red list of threatened macromycetes in Norway. 

In: Report 1992–1996. Trondheim, Norway: Directorate of Nature Management: 

31–42.

Benjamin, D.R. 1995. Mushrooms: poisons and panaceas: a handbook for naturalists, 

mycologists, and physicians. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. 422 p.

Berbee, M.L.; Taylor, J.W. 1993. Dating the radiations of the true fungi. Canadian 

Journal of Botany. 71: 1114–1127.

Bergemann, S.E.; Largent, D.L. 1998. The ecology of the Pacific golden chanterelle, 

Cantharellus formosus. Inoculum. 49(2): 8.

Bergemann, S.E.; Largent, D.L. 2000. The site specific variables that correlate 

with the distribution of the Pacific golden chanterelle, Cantharellus formosus. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 130(1-3): 99–107.
58 

Bergius, N.; Danell, E. 2000. The Swedish matsutake (Tricholoma nauseosum syn. 

T. matsutake): distribution, abundance, and ecology. Scandinavian Journal of Forest 

Research. 15: 318–325.

Bessette, A.; Sundberg, W. 1987. Mushrooms: a quick reference guide to 

mushrooms of North America. Macmillan Field Guide Series. New York: 

Collier Books. 170 p.

Bessette, A.E.; Bessette, A.R.; Fischer, D.W. 1997. Mushrooms of northeastern 

North America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 582 p.

Biek, D. 1984. Mushrooms of northern California. Redding, CA: Spore Prints. 302 p.

Bigelow, H.E. 1978. The cantharelloid fungi of New England and adjacent areas. 

Mycologia. 70: 707–756.

Blatner, K.A.; Alexander, S. 1998. Recent price trends for non-timber forest products 

in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 28–34.

Blattny, C.; Králík, O. 1968. A virus disease of Laccaria laccata (Scop. ex Fr.) Cooke 

and some other fungi. Ceska Mykologie. 22: 161–166.

Bordeaux, Q. 1996. Approche intégré des champignons comestibles dans la province 

du Copperbelt, Zambie. Mémoire de fin d’études. Gembloux, Belgium: Département 

d’Ingenierie des biosystemes, Faculté universitaire des sciences agronomiques de 

Gembloux. 94 p. [plus appendix]. M.S. thesis.

Breheret, S. 1997. Etude des arômes produits par des carpophores de champignons 

supérieurs sauvages et par des cultures mycéliennes de Morchella et de Pleurotus. 

Toulouse, France: Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse. 277 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Brown, D.; Goetz, C.; Rogers, M.; Westfall, D. 1985. Mushrooming in the Pacific 

Northwest: In: Litten, W., ed. NAMA XXV. Charleston, WV: The North American 

Mycological Association. (25th anniversary issue): 29–35.

Bruns, T.D.; Szaro, T.M.; Gardes, M. [and others]. 1998. A sequence database 

for the identification of ectomycorrhizal Basidiomycetes by phylogenetic analysis. 

Molecular Biology. 7: 257–272.

Buchbauer G.; Jirovetz, L.; Wasicky, M.; Nikiforov, A. 1993. Zum Aroma von 

Speisepilzen. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel Untersuchung und Forschung. 197: 

429–433.

Buyck, B. 1994. Ubwoba: les champignons comestibles de l’Ouest du Burundi. 

Publication Agricole No 34. Brussels, Belgium: Administration Generale de la 

Cooperation au Developpement. 124 p. 

Buyck, B.; Eyssartier, G. 1999. Contributions to the mycological inventory of 

Madagascar. 2. New taxa from the genus Cantharellus. Mycotaxon. 70: 203–211.

Buyck, B.; Eyssartier, G.; Kivaisi, A. 2000. Addition to the inventory of the genus 

Cantharellus (Basidiomycotina, Cantharellaceae) in Tanzania. Nova Hedwigia. 

71(3-4): 491–502.

Buyck, B.; Thoen, D.; Watling, R. 1996. Ectomycorrhizal fungi of the Guinea-Congo 

region. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section B104: 313–333.
59

Carlile, M.J. 1970. The photoresponses of fungi. In: Halldal, P., ed. Photobiology of 

microorganisms. London; New York: Wiley-Interscience: 309–344.

Castellano, M.A.; Cázares, E.; Fondrick, B.; Dreisbach, T. 2003. Handbook to 

additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-572. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p.

Castellano, M.A.; Smith, J.E.; O’Dell, T. [and others]. 1999. Handbook to strategy 

1 fungal species in the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-476. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 199 p.

Chamberlain, M. 1996. Ethnomycological experiences in South West China. The 

Mycologist. 10: 173–176.

Chapela, I.H.; Osher, L.J.; Horton, T.R.; Henn, M.R. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal fungi 

introduced with exotic pine plantations induce soil carbon depletion. Soil Biology 

and Biochemistry. 33: 1733–1740.

Chen, H.; Tappel, A.L. 1996. Protection of multiple antioxidants against heme protein 

oxidation and lipid peroxidation induced by CBrCl-3 in liver, lung, kidney, heart and 

spleen. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 44: 854–858.

Chevalier, G.; Barbotin, P.; Beaucamp, F. [and others]. 2001. Avancees sur la 

culture de la truffe de Bourgogne (Tuber uncinatum Chatin). Proceedings of the fifth 

international congress on the science and cultivation of truffles and other edible 

hypogeous mushrooms. Paris, France: Federation Française des Trufficulteurs: 

7.387–7.392.

Chevalier, G.; Frochot, H. 1997. La truffe de Bourgogne. Levallois-Perret, France: 

Éditions Pétrarque. 257 p. 

Clusius, C. 1601. Rarorium Plantarum Historia. Fungorum in Pannoniis observatorum 

brevis historia: A brief account of my observations of fungi in Panonia. Antwerp, 

The Netherlands: Joannes Moretus, Officina Plantiniana: 261–295.

Corner, E.J.H. 1957. Craterellus Pers., Cantharellus Fr. and Pseudocraterellus gen. 

nov. Beihefte zur Sydowia. 1: 266–276.

Corner, E.J.H. 1966. A monograph of cantharelloid fungi. Oxford, United Kingdom: 

Oxford University Press. 255 p.

Courtenay, B.; Burdsall, H.H., Jr. 1982. A field guide to mushrooms and their 

relatives. New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold. 144 p.

Czarnecki, J. 1986. Joe’s book of mushroom cookery. New York: MacMillan. 

340 p.

Czarnecki, J.; Wallach, L.B. [photographer]. 1995. A cook’s book of mushrooms: 

with 100 recipes for common and uncommon varieties. New York: Artisan. 

208 p.

Dahlberg, A. 1991. Ectomycorrhiza in coniferous forest: structure and dynamics of 

populations and communities. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural 

Sciences. 38 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
60 

Dahlman, M.; Danell, E.; Spatafora, J.W. 2000. Molecular systematics of 

Craterellus: cladistic analysis of nuclear LSU rDNA sequence data. Mycological 

Research. 104: 388–394.

Danell, E. 1994a. Cantharellus cibarius: mycorrhiza formation and ecology. Acta 

Universitatis Upsaliensis. Comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from 

the faculty of science and technology 35. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of 

Agricultural Sciences. 75 p. http://www.mykopat.slu.se/mycorrhiza/kantarellfiler/

texter/thes.phtml. (December 12, 2002).

Danell, E. 1994b. Formation and growth of the ectomycorrhiza of Cantharellus

cibarius. Mycorrhiza. 5: 89–97.

Danell, E. 1995. Comparisons between Swedish Cantharellus cibarius and 

Cantharellus spp. in the Pacific Northwest, based on differences in RFLP 

patterns of the ITS region [Abstract]. Inoculum. 46(3): 10.

Danell, E. 1997. Les progrès dans la maîtrise de la culture de la chanterelle, 

Cantharellus cibarius. Revue Forestiere Francaise. 49 (Special issue): 215–221. 

English summary.

Danell, E. 1999. Cantharellus. In: Cairney, J.W.G.; Chambers, S.M., eds. 

Ectomycorrhizal fungi: key genera in profile. Berlin: Springer Verlag: 253–267.

Danell, E. 2001 (January 16). Chanterelle mycelium. U.S. Patent 6,173,525. 

Danell, E.; Alström, S.; Ternström, A. 1993. Pseudomonas fluorescens in 

association with fruit bodies of the ectomycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus

cibarius. Mycological Research. 97: 1148–1152.

Danell, E.; Camacho, F.J. 1997. Successful cultivation of the golden chanterelle. 

Nature. 385: 303.

Danell, E.; Eaker, D. 1992. Amino acid and total protein content of the edible 

mushroom Cantharellus cibarius (Fries). Journal of the Science of Food and 

Agriculture. 60: 333–337.

Danell, E.; Fries, N. 1990. Methods for isolation of Cantharellus species, and the 

synthesis of ectomycorrhizae with Picea abies. Mycotaxon. 38: 141–148.

Daniewski, W.M.; Kroszczynski, W.; Schmidt-Szalowska, A. 1987. Constituents 

of higher fungi. Part XVII. Fatty acids contents in mushrooms as characteristic 

chemotaxonomic features. Polish Journal of Chemistry. 61: 99–102.

de Geus, P.M.J. 1995. Botanical forest products in British Columbia: an overview. 

Victoria, BC: Integrated Resources Policy Branch, British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests. 51 p.

de Geus, P.M.J.; Redhead, S.; Callan, B. 1992. Wild mushroom harvesting 

discussion session minutes; March 3, 1992, Victoria, BC. Victoria, BC: Integrated 

Resources Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 45 p.

de Vries, B.W.L.; Jansen, E.; van Dobben, H.F.; Kuyper, T.H.W. 1995. Partial 

restoration of fungal and plant species diversity by removal of litter and humus 

layers in stands of Scots pine in The Netherlands. Biodiversity and Conservation. 

4: 156–164.
61

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Mykologie e. V.; Naturschutzbund Deutschland e. 

V. 1992. Rote Liste der gefahrdeten Grosspilze in Deutschland. Eching, Germany: 

IHW-Verlag. [Unknown pagination].

Dhancholia, S.; Bhatt, J.C.; Pant, S.K. 1991. Studies of some Himalaya agarics. 

Acta Botanica Indica. 19: 104–109.

Doak, K.D. 1934. Fungi that produce ectotrophic mycorrhizae of conifers. 

Phytopathology. 24: 7.

Donk, M.A. 1964. A conspectus of the families of Aphyllophorales. Persoonia. 

3: 199–324.

Donk, M.A. 1969. Notes on Cantharellus sect. Leptocantharellus. Persoonia. 

5: 265–284.

Dreisbach, T.; Smith, J.E.; Molina, R. 2002. Challenges of modeling fungal habitat: 

When and where do you find chanterelles? In: Scott, J.M.; Heglund, P.J.; Morrison, 

M.L. [and others], eds. Predicting species occurrences, issues of scale and 

accuracy. Washington, DC: Island Press: 475–481.

Dunham, S.; O’Dell, T.; Molina, R.; Pilz, D. 1998. Fine scale genetic structure 

of chanterelle (Cantharellus formosus) patches in forest stands with different 

disturbance intensities [Abstract]. In: Ahonen-Jonnarth, U.; Danell, E.; Fransson, P. 

[and others], eds. Programme and abstracts, second international conference on 

mycorrhiza. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: 55.

Dyke, A.J.; Newton, A.C. 1999. Commercial harvesting of wild mushrooms in 

Scottish forests: Is it sustainable? Scottish Forestry. 53(2): 77–85.

Ebert, H.-J. 1992. Zur Situation des Pilzschutzes und des Handels mit Pilzen in 

Vergangenheit und Gegenwart—Gedanken über den Werdegang bestehender 

Gesetze in Deutschland und deren Inhalt. Beilage zur Zeitschrift für Mykologie. 

2(2): 30–39.

Egli, S.; Ayer, F.; Chatelain, F. 1990. Der Einfluss des Pilzsammelns auf die Pilzflora. 

Mycologia Helvetica. 3: 417–428. English summary.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1536, 

1538–1540.

Evenson, V.S. 1997. Mushrooms of Colorado and the southern Rocky Mountains. 

Englewood, CO: Westcliffe Publishers. 207 p.

Eyssartier, G. 1997. Contribution à la systématique et à la phylogénie du genre 

Cantharellus Fr. en Afrique tropicale et Madagascar. Paris, France: Muséum 

National d’Histoire Naturelle, D.E.A. de Systématique Animale et Végétale. 39 p. 

M.S. thesis. English summary.

Eyssartier, G.; Buyck, B. 1999a. Contributions à un inventaire mycologique 

de Madagascar. 2. Nouveaux taxa dans le genre Cantharellus. Mycotaxon. 

70: 203–211.

Eyssartier, G.; Buyck, B. 1999b. Notes nomenclaturales et taxinomiques sur deux 

espèces françaises de Cantharellus (basidiomycotina). Cryptogamie Mycologie. 

20: 107–111.
62 

Eyssartier, G.; Buyck, B. 2000. Le genre Cantharellus en Europe. Nomenclature et 

taxinomie. Bulletin de la Societé Mycologique du France. 116: 91–137.

Eyssartier, G.; Buyck, B. 2001a. Note nomenclaturale et systématique sur le genre 

Cantharellus. Documents Mycologiques. 31: 55–56.

Eyssartier, G.; Buyck, B. 2001b. Notes on the Australian species described in the 

genus Cantharellus (Basidiomycetes). Australian Systematic Botany. 14: 587–598.

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002; Public Law 107-171, Sec. 10816.

Farr, M.L. 1973. An annotated list of Spegazzini’s fungus taxa. Bibliotheca 

Mycologica. 35: 1–1661.

Feibelman, T.; Bayman, P.; Cibula, W.G. 1994. Length variation in the internal 

transcribed spacer of ribosomal DNA in chanterelles. Mycological Research. 98(6): 

614–618.

Feibelman, T.P.; Doudrick, R.L.; Cibula, W.G.; Bennett, J.W. 1997. Phylogenetic 

relationships within the Cantharellaceae inferred from sequence analysis of the 

nuclear large subunit rDNA. Mycological Research. 101(12): 1423–1430.

Fischer, D.W.; Bessette, A.E. 1992. Edible wild mushrooms of North America: a 

field-to-kitchen guide. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press. 254 p.

Fogel, R.; Trappe, J.M. 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by small animals. 

Northwest Science. 52: 1–31.

Fries, E. 1821–1832. Systema mycologicum, sistens fungorum ordines, genera et 

species. Vols. I–II, Lund, Sweden: Berlingiana; Vols. III and Index, Greifswald, 

Germany: Ernesti Mauritiji. 520 p.

Fries, E. 1836–1838. Epicrisis sytematis mycologici: synopsis hymenomycetum. 

Uppsala, Sweden: Typographia Academica. 610 p. [1989 Reprint: Dehra Dun, India: 

Shiva Offset Press.] 

Fries, E. 1874. Hymenomycetes Europaei sive Epicriseos systematis mycologici. 

2nd ed. Uppsala, Sweden: Berligiana. 755 p.

Fries, N. 1979. Germination of spores of Cantharellus cibarius. Mycologia. 

71: 216–219.

Frömming, E. 1954. Biologie der mitteleuropäischen Landgastropoden. Berlin, 

Germany: Duncker and Humblot. 404 p.

Garbaye, J.; Duponnois, R.; Wahl, J.L. 1990. The bacteria associated with 

Laccaria laccata ectomycorrhizas or sporocarps: effect on symbiosis establishment 

on Douglas-fir. Symbiosis. 9: 267–273.

Gärdenfors, U., ed. 2000. The 2000 red list of Swedish species. Uppsala, Sweden: 

Artdatabanken, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 397 p.

Garza-Ocañas, F. 1991. Competition between ectomycorrhizal fungi during 

establishment on the roots of tropical pines. Oxford, United Kingdom: University 

of Oxford. 357 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Gast, C.H.; Jansen, E.; Bierling, J.; Haanstra, L. 1988. Heavy metals in 

mushrooms and their relationship with soil characteristics. Chemosphere. 

17(4): 789–800.
63

Gerber, P. 1989. Mushroom ileus without previous intestinal obstruction. 

Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift. 119: 1479–1481.

Gill, M.; Steglich, W. 1987. Pigments of fungi (macromycetes). Fortschritte der 

Chemie organischer Naturstoffe 51. Vienna; New York: Springer Verlag. 317 p.

Giovannetti, G.; Roth-Bejerano, N.; Zanini, E.; Kagan-Zur, V. 1994. Truffles and 

their cultivation. Horticultural Reviews. 16: 71–107.

Glick, B.R.; Pasternack, J.J. 1998. Molecular biotechnology: principles and 

applications of recombinant DNA. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for 

Microbiology. 683 p.

Glick, P.G. 1979. The mushroom trail guide. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston. 247 p.

Gonzalez, J. 1982. Notas sobre la Etnomicologia Nahuatl. Boletin de la Sociedad 

Mexicana de Micologia. 17: 181–186. English summary.

Goodrich, J.; Lawson, C.; Parrish, V.P. 1980. Kashaya Pomo Plants. Berkeley, CA: 

Heyday Books. 176 p.

Gray, S.F. 1821. A natural arrangement of British plants (London). 1: 638.

Greuter, W.; McNeill, J.; Barrie, E.R. [and others]. 2000. International code of 

botanical nomenclature (St. Louis Code). Regnum Vegetabile 131. Königstein, 

Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books. 474 p.

Grönwall, O.S. 1982. Aspects of the food ecology of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris

L.). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University. 109 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Groves, J.W. 1979. Edible and poisonous mushrooms of Canada. Publication 

1112. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 326 p. [Addendum by 

Redhead, S.A.]. 

Grüter, A.; Friedrich. U.; Würgler, F.E. 1990. Antimutagenic effects of mushrooms. 

Mutation Research. 231: 243–249.

Grüter, A.; Friedrich, U.; Würgler, F.E. 1991. The mutagenicity of edible mushrooms 

in a histidine-independent bacterial test system. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 

29: 159–165.

Grzybek, J.; Janczy, B. 1990. Quantitative estimation of lead, cadmium and nickel 

contents by means of atomic absorption spectroscopy in fruitbodies of some 

macromycetes in Poland. I. Acta Mycologia. 26: 17–23.

Gulden, G.; Høiland, K.; Bendiksen, K. [and others]. 1992. Macromycetes and air 

pollution: mycoceonological studies in three oligotrophic spruce forests in Europe. 

Bibliotheca Mycologica. Band 144. Stuttgart, Germany: J. Cramer. 82 p.

Hackman, W.; Meinander, M. 1979. Diptera feeding as larvae on macrofungi in 

Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 16: 50–83.

Hall, I.R.; Buchanan, P.K.; Yun, W.; Cole, A.L.J. 1998. Edible and poisonous 

mushrooms: an introduction. New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research 

Limited. Christchurch, New Zealand: Caxton Press. 189 p.

Hall, I.R.; Yun, W. 2000. Edible mushrooms as secondary crops in forests. Quarterly 

Journal of Forestry. 94(4): 299–304.
64 

Hallgren, A.; Hansson-Hallgren, M. 1990. Kantarellsök med hund. Vagnhärad, 

Sweden: Jycketryck AB. 80 p.

Halling, R.E.; Mueller, G.M. 2000. Macrofungi of Costa Rica. http://www.nybg.org/

bsci/res/hall/. (December 12, 2002).

Hansen, L.; Knudsen, H. 1997. Nordic macromycetes. Copenhagen: Nordsvamp. 

444 p. Vol. 3. 

Härkönen, M.; Saarimäki, T.; Mwasumbi, L. 1995. Edible mushrooms of Tanzania. 

Karstenia. 35 (Supplement). 92 p.

Hattula, M.L.; Gyllenberg, H.G. 1969. Adaptability to submerged culture and amino 

acid contents of certain fleshy fungi common in Finland. Karstenia. 9: 39–45.

Haugen, J. 2001. U.S. wholesale market prices. The Mushroom Grower’s Newsletter. 

10(5): 6; 10(6): 4; 10(7): 4.

Heckman, D.S.; Geiser, D.M.; Eidell, B.R. [and others]. 2001. Molecular evidence 

for the early colonization of land by fungi and plants. Science. 293: 1129–1133.

Hedger, J. 1986. Suillus luteus on the equator. Bulletin of the British Mycological 

Society. 20: 53–54.

Helfer, W. 1991. Pilze auf Pilzfruchtkörpern. Libri Botanici 1. Eching, Germany: 

IHW-Verlag. 157 p. English summary.

Hibbett, D.S.; Gilbert, L.B.; Donoghue, M.J. 2000. Evolutionary instability of 

ectomycorrhizal symbioses in Basidiomycetes. Nature. 2000: 506–508.

Hibbett, D.S.; Grimaldi, D.; Donoghue, M.J. 1995. Cretaceous mushrooms in 

amber. Nature. 377: 487.

Hibbett, D.S.; Pine, E.M.; Langer, E. [and others]. 1997. Evolution of gilled 

mushrooms and puffballs inferred from ribosomal DNA sequences. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 94: 

12002–12006.

Hibbett, D.S.; Thorn, R.G. 2000. Basidiomycota: Homobasidiomycetes. In: 

McLaughlin, D.J.; McLaughlin, E.G.; Lemke, P.A., eds. The mycota. Vol. VII. 

Part B. Systematics and evolution. New York: Springer Verlag: 121–168.

Hobbie, E.A.; Macko, S.A.; Shugart, H.H. 1999. Insights into nitrogen and carbon 

dynamics of ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi from isotopic evidence. 

Oecologia. 118: 353–360.

Hobbie, E.A.; Weber, N.S.; Trappe, J.M. 2001. Mycorrhizal vs. saprotrophic status 

of fungi: the isotopic evidence. New Phytologist. 150: 601–610.

Hobbs, C. 1995. Medicinal mushrooms: an exploration of tradition, healing, & culture. 

Santa Cruz, CA: Botanica Press. 251 p.

Horton, T. 1997. High sporocarp production of Suillus luteus and a simplified 

ectomycorrhizal community in Ecuadoran Pinus radiata plantations. In: The below 

ground view of ectomycorrhizal fungi in three conifer communities. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California: 58–96. Chap. 3. Ph.D. dissertation. 
65

Hosford, D.; Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Amaranthus, M. 1997. Ecology and management 

of the commercially harvested American matsutake mushroom. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-412. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Humpert, A.J.; Muench, E.L.; Giachini, A.J. [and others]. 2001. Molecular 

phylogenetics of Ramaria and related genera: evidence from nuclear large subunit 

and mitochondrial subunit rDNA sequences. Mycologia. 93(3): 465–477.

Imazeki, R. 1953. Polyozellus multiplex and the family Phylacteriaceae. Mycologia. 

45: 555–561.

Itävaara, M.; Willberg, H. 1988. Establishment of a Cantharellus cibarius culture 

collection in Finland. Karstenia. 28: 34.

Jahn, H.; Jahn, M.A. 1986. Konstanz und Fluktuationen der Pilzvegetation in Norra 

Warleda (Uppland). Beobachtungen auf einem schwedishen Bauernhof 1945–1980. 

Westfälische Pilzbrief. 10–11: 352–378.

Jansen, A.E. 1990. Conservation of fungi in Europe. The Mycologist. 4: 83–85.

Jansen, A.E. 1991. The mycorrhizal status of Douglas-fir in The Netherlands: its 

relation with stand age, regional factors, atmospheric pollutants and tree vitality. 

Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 35: 191–208.

Jansen, E.; van Dobben, H.F. 1987. Is decline of Cantharellus cibarius in The 

Netherlands due to air pollution? Ambio. 16: 211–213.

Jensen, W.A.; Salisbury, F.B. 1984. Botany. Belmont, MD: Wadsworth Publishing 

Co. 699 p.

Jentschke, G.; Godbold, D.L.; Hütterman, A. 1991. Culture of mycorrhizal 

tree seedlings under controlled conditions: effects of nitrogen and aluminum. 

Physiologia Plantarum. 81: 408–416.

Jones, E.B.G.; Whalley, A.J.S.; Hywel-Jones, N.L. 1994. A fungus foray to 

Chiang Mai market in northern Thailand. The Mycologist. 8: 87–90.

Jonsson, L.; Dahlberg, A.; Brandrud, T.E. 2000. Spatiotemporal distribution of an 

ectomycorrhizal community in an oligotrophic Swedish Picea abies forest subjected 

to experimental nitrogen addition: above- and belowground views. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 132: 143–156. 

Juel, D. 1916. Cytologische Pilzstudien. I. Die Basidien der Gattung Cantharellus, 

Craterellus und Clavaria. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsala. 

4: 3–34. 

Jülich, W. 1984. Die Nichtblätterpilze, Gallertpilze und Bauchpilze. Stuttgart; New 

York: Gustav Fischer Verlag. 626 p.

Kälin, I.; Ayer, F. 1983. Sporenabwurf und Fruchtkoerper-entwicklung des 

Goldstieligen Pfifferlings (Cantharellus lutescens) im Zusammenhang mit 

Klimatfaktoren. Mycologia Helvetica. 1: 67–88. English summary.

Kardell, L.; Persson, O.; Carlsson, E.; Eriksson, L. 1980. Skogsmarkens 

produktion av marksvampar. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift. 74: 91–102. English 

summary.
66 

Kasparavičius, J. 2000. Influence of some environmental factors on the growth 

of fruit bodies of chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius). Botanica Lithuanica. 6(4): 

435–442.

Kibby, G. 1992. American nature guides: mushrooms and other fungi. New York: 

Smithmark Publishing. 192 p.

Kirk, P.M.; Cannon, P.F.; David, J.C.; Stalpers, J.A. 2001. Dictionary of the fungi. 

9th ed. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing. 655 p.

Kocór, M.; Schmidt-Szalowska, A. 1972. Constituents of higher fungi. The 

sterols from Cantharellus cibarius. Polish Academy of Sciences Bulletin, 

Chemistry. 20: 515–520.

Kotilova-Kubickova, L.; Ondok, J.P.; Priban, K. 1990. Phenology and growth of 

Dermocybe uliginosa in a willow carr. I. Phenology of fruiting; II. Fruiting duration 

and performance; III. Fruit-body growth and biomass production. Mycological 

Research. 94(6): 762–780.

Kreisel, H. 1990. Concepts of mushroom protection in the German Democratic 

Republic. In: Jansen, A.; Lawrinoviwicz, M., eds. Conservation of fungi and other 

cryptogams in Europe. Lodz, Poland: Lodz Society of Science and Arts: [Pages 

unknown].

Kuhnlein, H.V.; Turner, N.J. 1991. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous 

peoples: nutrition, botany, and use. In: Katz, S.H., ed. Food and nutrition in 

history and anthropology [series]. Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach Science 

Publishers. Vol. 8. 633 p.

Kuyper, T.W. 1990. Nomenclatural notes on two species of Cantharellus. Revista di 

Mycologia. 3: 245–249.

Lacy, R.C. 1984. Ecological and genetic responses to mycophagy in Drosophilidae 

(Diptera). In: Wheeler, Q.; Blackwell, M., eds. Fungus-insect relationships. New 

York: Columbia University Press: 286–301.

Largent, D.L. 1994. Influence of environmental factors on fruiting of edible, 

mycorrhizal mushrooms. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection. 32 p. 

Largent, D.L.; Sime, A.D. 1995. A preliminary report on the phenology, sporulation 

and lifespan in Cantharellus cibarius and Boletus edulis basidiomes in Patrick’s 

Point State Park. In: Adams, D.H.; Rios, J.E.; Stere, A.J., eds. Symposium 

proceedings, 43rd annual meeting of the California Forest Pest Council. 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: 

Appendix: xxxii–xliv.

Larsson, K.H. 1997. Swedish red data book of fungi 1997. Uppsala, Sweden: 

Artdatabanken, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 547 p.

Laub, E.; Lichtenthal, H. 1985. Zur Differentierung zwischen dem echten und 

falschen Pfifferling. Lebensmittel und Gerichtliche Chemie. 39: 101–103.

Lehrer, S.B.; Lopez, M.; Butcher, B.T. [and others]. 1986. Basidiomycete mycelia 

and spore-allergen extracts: skin test reactivity in adults with symptoms of 

respiratory allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 78: 478–485.
67

Leichter, J.; Bandoni, R.J. 1980. Nutrient content of mushrooms grown in 

British Columbia. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal. 

13: 122–124.

Liegel, L.; Pilz, D.; Love, T. 1998a. The MAB mushroom study: background and 

concerns. In: Liegel, L.H., comp. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial 

aspects of chanterelle mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington 

State, U.S.A. Ambio Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish 

Academy of Sciences: 3–7.

Liegel, L.; Pilz, D.; Love, T.; Jones, E. 1998b. Integrating biological, socioeconomic, 

and managerial methods and results in the MAB mushroom study. In: Liegel, 

L.H., comp. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle 

mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, U.S.A. Ambio 

Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 

26–33.

Liegel, L.H., comp. 1998. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects 

of chanterelle mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, 

U.S.A. Ambio Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of 

Sciences. 35 p.

Lincoff, G.H. 1981. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mushrooms. 

New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 926 p.

Linnaeus, C. 1747. Wästgöta-resa, förrättad år 1746. Stockholm, Sweden: [Publisher 

unknown]. 304 p. 

Linnaeus, C. 1748 [1971 facsimile]. Flora oeconomica. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist 

and Wiksell. 16 p.

Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum. 2 vols. [Reprinted 1957-1959. Stearn, W.T., 

ed. Series number 140. London: Ray Society].

Linnaeus, C. 1755. [1986 reprint] Svensk flora = Flora svecica. [Utgiven i samarbete 

med Svenska Linné-sällskapet] Stockholm, Sweden: Forum. 482 p.

Lizon, P. 1993. Decline of macrofungi in Europe: an overview. Transactions of the 

Mycological Society of the Republic of China. 8(3/4): 21–48.

Lizon, P. 1995. Preserving the biodiversity of fungi. Inoculum. 46(6): 1–4.

Lobelius, M. 1581. Plantarum seu stirpium icones. Tomus II. Antwerp, Belgium: 

Christophori Plantini: 273–276.

Love, T.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate rainforest: wild 

mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula Biosphere Reserve. In: Liegel, L.H., 

comp. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle 

mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, U.S.A. Ambio 

Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 

16–25.

Magnusson, T. 1992. Temporal and spatial variation of the soil atmosphere in forest 

soils of northern Sweden. Umeå, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural 

Sciences. 25 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
68 

Maire, R. 1902. Recherches cytologiques et taxonomiques sur les Basidiomycètes. 

Supplement, Bulletin de la Societé Mycologique de la France. 2(18): 1–209.

Mata, M. 1999. Macrohongos de Costa Rica. Santa Domingo de Heredia, Costa 

Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad. 253 p.

Mattila, P.H.; Piironen, V.I.; Uusi-Rauva, E.J.; Koivistoinen, P.E. 1994. Vitamin 

D contents in edible mushrooms. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 

42: 2449–2453.

McLain, R.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. The MAB mushroom study as a teaching 

case example of interdisciplinary and sustainable forestry research. In: Liegel, 

L.H., comp. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle 

mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, U.S.A. Ambio 

Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 

34–35.

McLaughlin, D.J. 1970. Environmental control of fruit body development in Boletus 

rubinellus in axenic culture. Mycologia. 62: 307–331.

McKenny, M.; Stuntz D.E.; Ammirati, J.F. 1987. The new savory wild mushroom. 

Seattle: University of Washington Press. 249 p.

McKnight, K.H.; McKnight, V.B. 1987. Peterson field guides: a field guide to 

mushrooms. North America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 429 p.

Menge, J.A.; Grand, L.F. 1978. Effect of fertilization on production of epigeous 

basidiocarps by mycorrhizal fungi in loblolly pine plantations. Canadian Journal of 

Botany. 56: 2357–2362.

Miller, O.K., Jr. 1978. Mushrooms of North America. New York: E.P. Dutton. 360 p.

Miller, O.K., Jr.; Miller. H.H. 1988. Gasteromycetes—morphological and development 

features with keys to the orders, families, and genera. Eureka, CA: Mad River 

Press. 157 p.

Molina, R.; O’Dell, T.; Luoma, D. [and others]. 1993. Biology, ecology and social 

aspects of wild edible mushrooms in the forests of the Pacific Northwest: a preface 

to managing commercial harvest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-309. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 42 p.

Moore, L.M.; Jansen, A.E.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1989. Pure culture synthesis 

of ectomycorrhizas with Cantharellus cibarius. Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 38: 

273–278.

Moser, M.; Jülich, W. 2000. Farbatlas der Basidiomyceten. V. Cantharellus. Port 

Jervis, NY: Lubrecht and Cramer. 

Mounce, I.; Jackson, H.A.C. 1937. Two Canadian collections of Cantharellus

multiplex. Mycologia. 29: 286–288.

Mui, D.; Feibelman, T.; Bennett, J.W. 1998. A preliminary study of the carotenoids 

of some North American species of Cantharellus. International Journal of Plant 

Science. 159: 244–248.

Murrill, W.A. 1910. Agaricales, Family 7: Agaricaceae (Pars), Tribe 1: Chantereleae. 

North American Flora. 9(3): 163–172.
69

Murrill, W.A. 1912. The Agaricaceae of the Pacific Coast—I. Mycologia. 4: 205–217.

Nohrstedt, H.-Ö. 1994. Fruit-body production and 137Cs-activity of Cantharellus

cibarius after nitrogen- and potassium-fertilization. Report 2. Uppsala, Sweden: 

The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. 19 p.

Noordeloos, M.E. 1992. Entoloma s. l. Fungi Europaei. Saronno, Italy: Giovanna 

Biella: 626 p. Vol. 5. 

North, M.; Trappe, J.; Franklin, J. 1997. Standing crop and animal consumption of 

fungal sporocarps in Pacific Northwest forests. Ecology. 78: 1543–1554.

Norvell, L.L. 1988. Charting the chanterelle. Mushroom, The Journal of Wild 

Mushrooming. 6(1): 19–21.

Norvell, L.L. 1992a. Fungus-tree partnership provokes innovative study. Western 

Forester. 37(2): 22.

Norvell, L.L. 1992b. Studying the effects of harvesting on chanterelle productivity in 

Oregon’s Mt. Hood National Forest. In: de Geus, P.M.J.; Redhead, S.; Callan, B., 

eds. Wild mushroom harvesting discussion session minutes. Victoria, BC: British 

Columbia Ministry of Forests, Pacific Forestry Centre: 9–15.

Norvell, L.L. 1995. Loving the chanterelle to death? The ten-year Oregon chanterelle 

project. McIlvainea. 12: 6–25.

Norvell, L.L. 2000a. PNW-MS [Pacific Northwest Mycology Service] and BLM 

cooperative Douglas-fir density management—fungal community study: 1998–

1999 annual report. 33 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd. 

SE, Salem, OR 97306.

Norvell, L.L. 2000b. PNW-MS [Pacific Northwest Mycology Service] and BLM 

cooperative Oregon-fir fungal community chronosequence study: 1998–1999 

annual report. 29 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd. SE, Salem, 

OR 97306.

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 1999. 1161—The Oregon Douglas-fir fungal community 

[Abstract]. XVI International Botanical Congress: 486.

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2002a. The epigeous ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete 

Douglas-fir fungal community in “peace” and “war” [Abstract]. Inoculum. 53(3): 47.

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2002b. Oregon’s Douglas-fir ectomycorrhizal fungal 

communities: the Green Peak density management study: year 2 (1999–2000) and 

year 3 (2000–2001). 72 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd. SE, 

Salem, OR 97306.

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2002c. Oregon’s Douglas-fir ectomycorrhizal fungal 

communities: the Polk County chronosequence study: year 2 (1999–2000) and 

year 3 (2000–2001). 70 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd. SE, 

Salem, OR 97306.
70 

Norvell, L.L.; Kopecky, F.; Lindgren, J.; Roger, J. 1995. The chanterelle 

(Cantharellus cibarius): a peek at productivity. In: Schnepf, C., comp.; ed. 

Dancing with the elephant: Proceedings, the business and science of special 

forest products—a conference and exposition. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho 

Extension Service: 117–128. 

Norvell, L.L.; Roger, J. 1998. The Oregon Cantharellus study project: Pacific golden 

chanterelle preliminary observations and productivity data (1986–1997). Inoculum. 

49(2): 40.

Norvell, L.L.; Roger, J.; Lindgren, J.; Kopecky, F. 1996. Study 8: Oregon 

Cantharellus study project, 1986–1996. In: Pilz, D., Molina, R., eds. Managing 

forest ecosystems to conserve fungus diversity and sustain wild mushroom 

harvests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-371. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 69–72.

Nuhamara, S.T. 1987. Mycorrhizae in agroforestry: a case-study. Biotropia. 1: 53–57.

Obst, J.; Coedy, W.; Bromley, R.G. 2001. Heavy metal analysis of wild edible 

mushrooms in the North Great Slave Lake Region Northwest Territories, Canada. 

Yellowknife, NT: Arctic Ecology and Development (AED) Consulting. 71 p.

O’Dell, T.E.; Luoma, D.L.; Molina, R. 1992. Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities 

in young, managed and old-growth Douglas-fir stands. Northwest Environmental 

Journal. 8: 166–168.

Ohenoja, E. 1993. Effect of weather conditions on the larger fungi at different forest 

sites in northern Finland in 1976–1988. Acta Universitalis Ouluensis A2443. Oulu, 

Finland: University of Finland. 69 p. [plus 28 p. appendix]. Ph.D. dissertation.

Orr, R.T.; Orr, D.B. 1979. Mushrooms of western North America. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 293 p.

Overholts, L.O. 1929. Mycological notes for 1926-27. Mycologia. 21: 279–280.

Pachlewski, R.; Strzelczyk, E.; Kermen, J. 1996. Studies of Cantharellus cibarius—

a mycorrhizal fungus of pine and spruce. Acta Mycologica. 31: 143–150.

Pang, Z.; Sterner, O. 1991. Cibaric acid, a new fatty acid derivative formed 

enzymatically in damaged fruit bodies of Cantharellus cibarius (chanterelle). 

Journal of Organic Chemistry. 56: 1233–1235.

Pang, Z.; Sterner, O.; Anke, H. 1992. (8E)-10-Hydroxydec-8-enoic acid: its isolation 

from injured fruit bodies of Cantharellus tubaeformis, and synthetic preparation. 

Acta Chemica Scandanavica. B46: 301–303.

Patouillard, N. 1900. Essai taxonomique sur les familles et les genres des 

Hyménomycètes. Paris, France: University of Paris. 184 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Pegler, D.N.; Roberts, P.J.; Spooner, B.M. 1997. British chanterelles and tooth fungi. 

Kew, United Kingdom: Royal Botanic Gardens. 114 p.

Persoon, C.H. 1825. Mycologia europaea. Vol 2. Erlangae, impensibus I. I. Palmii.

Persson, H.; Karlsson-Stiber, C. 1993. Svampförgiftning—klinik och behandling. 

Läkartidningen. 90: 2857–2864.
71

Persson, O.; Mossberg, B. 1997. The chanterelle book. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed 

Press. 120 p.

Petersen, R.H. 1969. Notes on cantharelloid fungi. II. Some new taxa, and notes 

on Pseudocraterellus. Persoonia. 5: 211–223.

Petersen, R.H. 1971a. The genera Gomphus and Gloeocantharellus in North 

America. Nova Hedwigia. 21: 1–112.

Petersen, R.H. 1971b. Interfamilial relationships in the clavarioid and cantharelloid 

fungi. In: Petersen, R.H., ed. Evolution in the higher Basidiomycetes. Knoxville, 

TN: University of Tennessee Press: 345–374.

Petersen, R.H. 1973. Aphyllophorales II: the clavarioid and cantharelloid 

Basidiomycetes. In: Ainsworth, G.C.; Sparrow, F.K.; Sussman, A.S., eds. 

The fungi. New York; London: Academic Press: 351–368. Vol. IVB. 

Petersen, R.H. 1975. Notes on cantharelloid fungi. VI. New species of Craterellus

and intrageneric rearrangement. Ceská Mykologie. 29(4): 199–204 [plus 1 plate].

Petersen, R.H. 1979. Notes on cantharelloid fungi. IX. Illustrations of newly or poorly 

understood taxa. Nova Hedwigia. 31: 1–23.

Petersen, R.H. 1985. Notes on clavarioid fungi. XIX. Colored illustrations of selected 

taxa, with comments on Cantharellus. Nova Hedwigia. 42: 151–169.

Petersen, R.H.; Ryvarden, L. 1971. Notes on cantharelloid fungi. IV. Two new 

species of Cantharellus. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift. 65: 399–405.

Phillips, R. 1991. Mushrooms of North America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co. 

319 p.

Pilz, D.; Brodie, F.D.; Alexander, S.; Molina, R. 1998a. Relative value of 

chanterelles and timber as commercial forest products. In: Liegel, L.H., comp. 

The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle mushroom 

harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, U.S.A. Ambio Special Report 

9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 14–16.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R., eds. 1996. Managing forest ecosystems to conserve fungus 

diversity and sustain wild mushroom harvests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-371. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 104 p.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 1998. A proposal for regional monitoring of edible forest 

mushrooms. Mushroom, the Journal of Wild Mushrooming. Issue 60. 16(3): 19–23.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 2002. Commercial harvests of edible mushrooms from the forests 

of the Pacific Northwest United States: issues, management, and monitoring for 

sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management. 155(1-3): 3–16.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Danell, E. [and others]. 2002. SilviShrooms: predicting 

edible mushroom productivity using forest carbon allocation modelling and 

immunoassays of ectomycorrhizae. In: Hall, I.R.; Wang, Y.; Zambonelli, A.; Danell, 

E., eds. Edible mycorrhizal mushrooms and their cultivation. Proceedings of the 

second international conference on edible mycorrhizal mushrooms [CD-ROM]. 

Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research 

Limited.
72 

Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Liegel, L. 1998b. Biological productivity of chanterelle 

mushrooms in and near the Olympic Peninsula Biosphere Reserve. In: Liegel, 

L.H., comp. The biological, socioeconomic, and managerial aspects of chanterelle 

mushroom harvesting: the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, U.S.A. Ambio 

Special Report 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 8–13.

Pilz, D.; Smith, J.; Amaranthus, M.P. [and others]. 1999. Mushrooms and timber: 

managing commercial harvesting in the Oregon Cascades. Journal of Forestry. 

97(3): 4–11.

Pine, E.M.; Hibbett, D.S.; Donoghue, M.J. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of 

cantharelloid and clavarioid Homobasidiomycetes based on mitochondrial and 

nuclear rDNA sequences. Mycologia. 91: 944–963.

Pirozynski, K.A.; Hawksworth D.L., eds. 1988. Coevolution of fungi with plants 

and animals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 285 p.

Pyysalo, H. 1976. Identification of volatile compounds in seven edible fresh 

mushrooms. Acta Chemica Scandinavica. B30: 235–244.

Quélet, L. 1888. Flore mycologique de la France et de pays limitrophes. Paris, 

France: O. Doin.

Rainey, P.B. 1991. Effect of Pseudomonas putida on hyphal growth of Agaricus 

bisporus. Mycological Research. 95: 699–704.

Rammeloo, J.; Walleyn, R. 1993. The edible fungi of Africa south of Sahara: a 

literature review. Scripta Botanica Belgica. 5: 1–62.

Rangel-Castro, J.I. 2001. Eco-physiology of the ectomycorrhizal mushroom 

Cantharellus cibarius. Silvestria 224. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of 

Agricultural Sciences. 40 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Rangel-Castro, J.I.; Danell, E.; Pfeffer, P.E. 2002a. A 13C-NMR study of exudation 

and storage of carbohydrates and amino acids in the ectomycorrhizal edible 

mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Mycologia. 94(2): 190–199.

Rangel-Castro, J.I.; Danell, E.; Taylor, A. 2002b. Nitrogen utilization by the edible 

ectomycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Mycorrhiza. 12: 131–137.

Rangel-Castro, J.I.; Staffas, A.; Danell, E. 2002c. The ergocalciferol content of 

dried pigmented and albino Cantharellus cibarius fruitbodies. Mycological 

Research. 106: 70–73.

Redhead, S.A. 1979. A study of the sphagnicolous fleshy Basidiomycetes in the 

eastern sections of the Canadian boreal forest. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. 

495 p. [111 plates]. Ph.D. dissertation.

Redhead, S.A. 1997a. Macrofungi of British Columbia: requirements for inventory. 

Working Paper 28. Victoria, BC, Canada: Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests; 

Wildlife Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 119 p.

Redhead, S.A. 1997b. The pine mushroom industry in Canada and the United States: 

why it exists and where it is going. In: Palm, M.E.; Chapela, I.H., eds. Mycology 

in sustainable development: expanding concepts, vanishing borders. Boone, NC: 

Parkway Publishers, Inc.: 15–55.
73

Redhead, S.A.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E. 1997. Cantharellus formosus and the Pacific 

golden chanterelle harvest in western North America. Mycotaxon. 65: 285–322.

Redhead, S.A.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E.; Ryman, S. 2002. Proposals to conserve 

the names Cantharellus lutescens Fr. : Fr. and Cantharellus tubaeformis Fr. : Fr. 

(Basidiomycota) with conserved types. Taxon. 51: 559–562.

Reijnders, A.F.M. 1963. Les problèmes du dévelopment des carpophores des 

agaricales et de quelques groupes voisins. Hague, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Dr. 

W. Junk. 412 p.

Reijnders, A.F.M.; Stalpers, J.A. 1992. The development of the hymenophoral trama 

in the Aphyllophorales and the Agaricales. Studies in Mycology. 34: 1–109.

Riffle, J.W. 1971. Effects of nematodes on root-inhabiting fungi. In: Hacskaylo, E., ed. 

Mycorrhizae. Proceedings of the first North American conference on mycorrhizae. 

Misc. Publ. 1189. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 

97–113.

Roger, J. 1998. The Oregon chanterelle study: eleven years and still going strong. 

MushRumors [Newsletter]. Portland, OR: Oregon Mycological Society. 37(2): 1–4.

Romagnesi, H. 1995. Prodrome a une flore analytique des hymenomycetes 

agaricoides III. Fam. Cantharellaceae Schroeter. Documents Mycologiques. 

25 (98–100): 417–424.

Rowe, R.F. 1997. The commercial harvesting of wild edible mushrooms in the

Pacific Northwest region of the United States. The Mycologist. 11: 10–15.

Russell, K.W. 1987. What we need to know about commercial harvesting. McIlvainea. 

8(1): 37–41.

Sanon, K.B.; Bâ, A.M.; Dexheimer, J. 1997. Mycorrhizal status of some fungi 

fruiting beneath indigenous trees in Burkina Faso. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 98: 61–69.

Schalkwijk-Barendsen, H.M.E. 1991. Mushrooms of western Canada. Edmonton, 

AB: Lone Pine Publishing. 414 p.

Schellmann, B.; Rohmer, E.; Schaller, K.H.; Weltle, D. 1984. Cadmium- und 

Kupferkonzentration in Stuhl, Urin und Blut nach Aufnahme Wildwachsender 

Champignons. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und Forschung. 178: 

445–449. English summary.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Journal of Forestry. 93: 31–36.

Schneider, E. 1999. Favored fungi: part one. Food Arts. 12(8): 158–167.

Schouten, S.P.; Waandrager, M.H. 1979. Problems in obtaining pure cultures of 

Cantharellus cibarius. Mushroom Science. 10: 885–890.

See, L.S.; Besl, H.; Ujang, S. 1995. Some fungi of the Sungai Halong and 

surrounding areas, Temengor forest reserve, Hulu Perak, Malaysia. Malayan 

Nature Journal. 48: 147–155.

Seeger, R. 1982. Toxische Schermetalle in Pilzen. Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung. 

122: 1835–1844.
74 

Selosse, M.-A.; Le Tacon, F. 1998. The land flora: a phototroph-fungus partnership? 

TREE. 13: 15–20.

Shoeman, M. 1991. The importance of fungi to the people of Papua New Guinea. The 

Mycologist. 5: 199–201.

Shope, P.F. 1938. Further notes on Cantharellus multiplex. Mycologia. 30: 372–374.

Siehr, D.J.; Chang, C.-K.; Cheng, H.L. 1969. The transformation of tryptamine 

and D-tryptophan by Basidiomycetes in submerged culture. Phytochemistry. 

8: 397–400.

Slee, R.W. 1991. The potential of small woodlands in Britain for edible mushroom 

production. Scottish Forestry. 45: 3–12.

Smith, A.H. 1949. Mushrooms in their natural habitats. Portland, OR: Sawyer’s Inc. 

626 p. Vols. 1 and 2.

Smith, A.H. 1953. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. 

38: 54.

Smith, A.H. 1968. The Cantharellaceae of Michigan. Michigan Botanist. 7: 143–183.

Smith, A.H. 1975. A field guide to western mushrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of 

Michigan Press. 280 p.

Smith, A.H.; Morse, E.E. 1947. The genus Cantharellus in the western United States. 

Mycologia. 39: 497–534.

Smith, A.H.; Smith H.V.; Weber, N.S. 1981. How to know the non-gilled mushrooms. 

2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co. 324 p.

Smith, A.H.; Weber, N.S. 1980. The mushroom hunter’s field guide. Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan Press. 316 pages.

Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. 1997. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. London: Academic Press. 

605 p.

Steiger, M.E. 1997. Ecology of the montane chanterelles Cantharellus cibarius and 

Cantharellus subalbidus. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. 57 p. M.S. thesis.

Stijve, T. 1993. Mushrooms do accumulate heavy metals. Mushroom, the Journal of 

Wild Mushrooming. Issue 38. 11(1): 9–14.

Straatsma, G. 1998. Slow growth of Cantharellus cibarius mycelium in culture 

inevitable? In: Ahonen-Jonnarth, U.; Danell, E.; Fransson, P. [and others], eds. 

Programme and abstracts, second international conference on mycorrhiza. 

Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: 161.

Straatsma, G.; Ayer, F.; Egli, S. 2001. Species richness, abundance, and phenology 

of fungal fruit bodies over 21 years in a Swiss forest plot. Mycological Research. 

105(5): 515–523.

Straatsma, G.; Bruinsma, J. 1986. Carboxylated metabolic intermediates as 

nutritional factors in vegetative growth of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus

cibarius Fr. Journal of Plant Physiology. 125: 377–381.

Straatsma, G.; Konings, R.N.H.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1985. A strain collection 

of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Transactions of the British 

Mycological Society. 85: 689–697.
75

Straatsma, G.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1986. Growth requirements of mycelial 

cultures of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Transactions of the 

British Mycological Society. 87: 135–141.

Straatsma, G.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D.; Bruinsma, J. 1986. Root influence on in 

vitro growth of hyphae of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius replaced 

by carbon dioxide. Physiologia Plantarum. 67: 521–528.

Stryer, L. 1988. Biochemistry. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. 1089 p.

Strzelczyk, E.; Dahm, H.; Pachlewski, R.; Rozycki, H. 1997. Production of indole 

compounds by the ectomycorrhizal fungus Cantharellus cibarius. Fr. Pedobiologia. 

41: 402–411.

Sugihara, T.F.; Humfeld, H. 1954. Submerged culture of the mycelium of various 

species of mushroom. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2: 170–172.

Tedder, S.; Mitchell, D.; Farran, R. 2000. Seeing the forest beneath the trees: 

the social and economic potential of non-timber forest products and services 

in the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii. Final report to the South Moresby 

Forest Replacement Account. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forest Service. 136 p. 

http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/programs/smfra/library_e.html. (December 12, 2002).

Thiers, H.D. 1985. The Agaricales (gill fungi) of California. 2. Cantharellaceae. 

Eureka, CA: Mad River Press. 34 p. 

Thoen, D.; Bâ, A.M. 1989. Ectomycorrhizas and putative ectomycorrhizal fungi of 

Afzelia africana Sm. and Uapaca guineensis Müll. Arg. in southern Senegal. New 

Phytologist. 113: 549–559.

Torev, A. 1969. Submerged culture of higher fungi mycelium on an industrial scale. 

Mushroom Science. 7: 585–589.

Trappe, M. 2001. Ecology of Craterellus tubaeformis in western Oregon. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science. 55 p. M.S. thesis. 

Turner, N.J.; Thompson, L.C.; Thompson, M.T.; York, A.Z. 1990. Thompson 

ethnobotany: knowledge and uses of plants by Thompson Indians of British 

Columbia. Memoir 3. Victoria, BC: Royal British Columbia Museum. 335 p.

Tylutki, E.E. 1987. Mushrooms of Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. Non-gilled 

Hymenomycetes. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press. 232 p. Vol. 2. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact 

statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 

[Irregular pagination]. Volumes 1, 2, and Appendix J2. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of decision for amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 74 p. [plus Attachment A: 

standards and guidelines].
76 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and 

guidelines for amendments to survey and manage, protection buffer, and other 

mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR. 86 p. 

Vetter, J. 1993. Chemische Zusammensetzung von acht essbaren Pilzarten. 

Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und Forschung. 196: 224–227. 

English summary.

Villareal-Ruiz, L. 1994. Analisis ecologico-silvicola de la productividad natural de 

hongos comestibles silvestres en los Bosques de Cofre de Perote, Veracruz. 

Montecillo, México: Colegio de Postgraduados, Institucion de Enseñaza e 

Investigacion en Ciencias Agricolas: Centro de Genetica. 158 p. M.S. thesis.

Villegas, M.; De Luna, E.; Cifuentes, J.; Torres, A.E. 1999. Phylogenetic studies 

in Gomphaceae sensu lato (fungi: Basidiomycetes). Mycotaxon. 70: 127–147.

Vogt, K.A.; Bloomfield, J.; Ammirati, J.F.; Ammirati, S.R. 1992. Sporocarp 

production by Basidiomycetes, with emphasis on forest ecosystems. In: Carroll, 

G.C.; Wicklow, D.T., eds. The fungal community. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 

Inc.: 563–581.

Volz, P.A. 1972. Nutritional studies on species and mutants of Lepista, Cantharellus, 

Pleurotus and Volvariella. Mycopathologica et Mycologia Applicata. 48: 175–185.

Wallander, H.; Nylund, J.E. 1992. Effects of excess nitrogen and phosphorus 

starvation on the extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizas of Pinus sylvestris L. 

New Phytologist. 120: 495–503.

Wang, Y.; Hall, I.R.; Evans, L.A. 1997. Ectomycorrhizal fungi with edible fruiting 

bodies. 1. Tricholoma matsutake and related fungi. Economic Botany. 51(3): 

311–327.

Watling, R. 1997. The business of fructification. Nature. 385: 299–300.

Watling, R.; Abraham, S.P. 1992. Ectomycorrhizal fungi of Kashmir forests. 

Mycorrhiza. 2: 81-87.

Watling, R.; Turnbull, E. 1998. Cantharellaceae, Gomphaceae and amyloid-spored 

and xeruloid members of Tricholomataceae (excl. Mycena). In: Henderson, D.M.; 

Orton, P.D.; Watling, R., eds. British fungus flora: Agarics and Boleti. Edinburgh, 

United Kingdom: Royal Botanic Garden. 190 p. Vol. 8. 

Weber, N.S. 2001. Musings on “Mushrooming.” McIlvainea. 15(1): 63–76.

Weber, N.S.; Smith, A. 1985. A field guide to southern mushrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan Press. 280 p.

Weigand, J.F. 2000. Wild edible mushroom harvests in North America: market 

econometric analyses. In: Fortin, J.A.; Pichét, Y., eds. Les champignons 

forestiers: récolte, commercialisation et conservation de la resource: collection, 

commercialization, and conservation of the resource. Centre de recherché en 

biologie forestiére, Université Laval, Québec, February 22–23, 1999. Sainte-Foy, 

PQ: Université Laval: 35–43.

Worthen, W.B. 1988. Slugs (Arion spp.) facilitate mycophagous drosophilids in 

laboratory and field experiments. Oikos. 53: 161–166.
77

Wu, Q.X.; Mueller, G.M. 1995. The genus Craterellus (Basidiomycetes, 

Aphyllophorales) in Costa Rica and Colombia. Documents Mycologiques. 

98–100: 487–496.

Ying, J.-Z.; Mao, X.-L.; Ma, Q.-M. [and others]. 1987. Icones of medicinal fungi 

from China. Beijing: Science Press. 272 p.

Yun-Chang, W. 1987. Mycology in ancient China. The Mycologist. 1: 59–61.
78 

Appendix 1—Common Names, Scientific Names, and Synonyms

We use unique common names in this text, but other common names (indented) overlap among 

some species. Only English common names are listed; common names might well exist in other languages. Additional common names do not necessarily correspond to the additional synonyms that 

are sometimes listed opposite under the scientific name. Entries are alphabetical by scientific name. 

Citations are provided for recent names or name changes. The currently accepted name is listed 

first. Synonyms follow, prefixed by an “=”.

Common English names Scientific names

Cantharellus (C.) species:

Chanterelles (inclusive Species of the genera Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, 

 or broad usage) and Polyozellus

true chanterelles Species of the genus Cantharellus (Dahlman and others 2000)

Appalachian chanterelle C. appalachiensis Petersen

none C. atrolilacinus nom. prov. (Halling and Mueller 2000)

boreal chanterelle C. borealis (Petersen and Ryvarden 1971)

golden chanterelle C. cibarius Fr.

 European golden chanterelle

amethyst chanterelle C. cibarius var. amethysteus Quél.

 wine-colored chanterelle = C. amethysteus (Quélet) Saccardo

American pale chanterelle C. cibarius var. pallidifolius A.H. Smith

rainbow chanterelle C. cibarius var. roseocanus (Redhead and others 1997)

cinnabar chanterelle C. cinnabarinus Schw.

 red chanterelle

Australian chanterelle C. concinnus Berk (Eyssartier and Buyck 2001b)

 yellow chanterelle = C. cibarius var. australiensis Cleland

none C. congolensis Beeli

Pacific golden chanterelle C. formosus Corner (Redhead and others 1997) (often 

 Pacific chanterelle erroneously called C. cibarius Fr., but not a synonym)

 golden chanterelle

 yellow chanterelle

orange chanterelle C. friesii Welw. & Curr.

none C. ianthinus Corner

smooth chanterelle C. lateritius (Berk.) Sing. 

 = Cr. cantharellus (Schw.) Fr.

none C. longisporus Heinem.

blackening chanterelle C. melanoxeros Desm. 

 = C. ianthinoxanthus (Maire) Kühner 

 = C. ianthinoxanthus Corner

small chanterelle C. minor Peck
79

Common English names Scientific names

none C. ochraceoravus Grgurinovic

European pale chanterelle C. pallens Pilàt 

 = C. ferruginascens Orton

none C. platyphyllus Heinemann

none C. pseudocibarius Hennings

none C. pseudominimus (Eyssartier and Buyck 1999b)

none C. pudorinus Corner

none C. romagnesianus (Eyssartier and Buyck 1999b)

white chanterelle C. subalbidus A.H. Smith & Morse

none C. subcibarius Corner

none C. symoensii Heinemann

none C. viscosus Berk

Craterellus (Cr.) species:

none Cr. boyacensis Singer

black craterelle Cr. cinereus (Pers. : Fr.) Persoon

 black or gray chanterelle = C. cinereus Pers. : Fr.

none Craterellus cinereus var. multiplex (Smith) Smith 1968 

 = Cantharellus cinereus f. multiplex Smith 1953

horn of plenty Cr. cornucopioides (L. : Fr.)Pers.

 fairy’s loving cup = Cr. konradii Bourdot & Maire (yellow variety)

 trumpet of death

 black chanterelle

black trumpet = Cr. fallax Smith

 horn of plenty

 deceptive horn of plenty

 angel of death

 trumpet of death

none Cr. costaricensis Wu

fragrant black trumpet Cr. foetidus Smith

flame-colored craterelle Cr. ignicolor (Peters.) (Dahlman and others 2000)

 flame-colored chanterelle = C. ignicolor Peterson

yellow foot [craterelle] Cr. lutescens (Fr.) Fr. 

 yellow-stemmed chanterelle = C. lutescens Fr.

 = C. aurora (Batsch) Kuyper

 = C. xanthopus (Pers.) Donk

fragrant craterelle Cr. odoratus Schw.

 fragrant chanterelle = C. odoratus (Schw.) Fr.

none Cr. pseudoclavatus Smith
80 

Common English names Scientific names

winter craterelle Cr. neotubaeformis nom. prov.

 winter chanterelle

autumn chanterelle (British name) Cr. tubaeformis (Fr. : Fr.) Quélet

 funnel chanterelle = C.tubaeformis Fr. : Fr.

 trumpet chanterelle = C. infundibuliformis (Scop.) Fr.

wavy capped craterelle Cr. undulatus (Pers. : Fr.) Rausch

 wavy capped chanterelle = Pseudocraterellus sinuosus (Fr.) Corner

 = Pseudocraterellus pertenuis (Skovst.) Reid

Gomphus (G.) species:

Bonar’s gomphus (a “scaly G. bonarii (Morse) Singer

 vase” chanterelle)

pig’s ear gomphus G. clavatus (Pers.) S.F. Gray

scaly vase chanterelle G. floccosus (Schw.) Singer

 wooly chanterelle = C. floccosus Schweinitz

Kauffman’s gomphus G. kauffmanii (A.H. Smith) R.H. Petersen

 (a “scaly vase” chanterelle)

Polyozellus (P.) species:

blue chanterelle Polyozellus multiplex (Underwood) Murrill

 black chanterelle = C. multiplex Underwood

Other fungi:

agaricus Agaricus species

button mushroom Agaricus bisporus (Lange) Imbach

 = Agaricus brunnescens Peck

boletes Boletus species

woolly pine spike Chroogomphus tomentosus (Murrill.) O.K. Miller

none Chrysomphalina chrysophylla (Fr.) Clémençon

fairy clubs Clavaria species

club and coral fungi Clavariaceae family

club corals Clavariadelphus species

various names for Clitocybe species

 particular species

none Entoloma parasiticum (Quel.) Kreisel

 = Claudopus subdepluens Fitzp.

none Entoloma pseudoparasiticum Noordeloos

spreading hedgehog Hydnum repandum L. : Fr.

 sweet tooth = Dentinum repandum (L. : Fr.) S.F. Gray

belly-button hedgehog Hydnum umbilicatum Peck

 = Dentinum umbilicatum Peck
81

Common English names Scientific names

waxy caps Hygrocybe species

waxy caps Hygrophoraceae

false chanterelle Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca (Wulf. : Fr.) Maire

lobster mushroom Hypomyces lactifluorum (Schw.) Tul. & Tul.

none Hypomyces odoratus G.R.W. Arnold

none Hypomyces semitranslucens G.R.W. Arnold

morel Morchella esculenta (L.) Pers.

none Paxillus involutus (Batsch) Fr.

stinkhorns Phallus species

coral mushrooms Ramaria species

slippery jack Suillus luteus (L. : Fr.) S.F. Gray

Japanese matsutake Tricholoma matsutake (Ito & Imai) Sing.

 Swedish matsutake = Tricholoma nauseosum (Blytt) Kytövuori (Bergius and 

 Danell 2000)

American matsutake Tricholoma magnivelare (Peck) Redhead

 white matsutake = Tricholoma ponderosum (Peck) Singer

 pine mushroom = Armillaria ponderosa Peck

 tanoak mushroom

Microorganisms:

unicellular gram-positive Bacillus

 aerobic bacteria

unicellular gram-negative Pseudomonas

 aerobic bacteria

mycelial gram-positive Streptomyces

 aerobic bacteria

wilt disease Verticillium lecanii (Zimm.) Viégas

unicellular gram-negative Xanthomonas

 aerobic bacteria

Trees:

true firs Abies species

birches Betula species

miombo (forests) Forests dominated by ectomycorrhizal trees of 

 Caesalpiniaceae such as Brachystegia, 

 Julbernardia, and Isoberlinia species

hornbeams Carpinus species

chestnuts Castanea species
82 

Common English names Scientific names

hazelnut, filbert Corylus species

dipterocarp Dipterocarpus species

eucalyptus Eucalyptus species

beeches Fagus species

tanbark oak, tan oak Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehder

spruces Picea species

Norway spruce Picea abies (L.) Karst.

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii Engelm.

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.

Himalayan spruce Picea smithiana (Wall.) Boiss

pines Pinus species

lodgepole or shore pine Pinus contorta Loudon var. contorta

ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Laws

Scots pine Pinus sylvestris L.

Cottonwoods, poplars Populus species

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga species

coastal Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco var. menziesii

oaks Quercus species

none Shorea species (Dipterocarpaceae)

hemlocks Tsuga species

western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.
83

Appendix 2—Description of the Genus Cantharellus

Based on the descriptions of Corner (1966), Dahlman and others (2000), Danell 

(1994a), Feibelman and others (1997), Pegler and others (1997), Petersen (1971b, 

1973, 1985), and Smith and Morse (1947), Cantharellus can be described as an ectomycorrhizal homobasidiomycete genus, with terricolous, fleshy, solid, and long-lived 

but not perennial gymnocarpic sporocarps. The pileus has a sterile top, which distinguishes it from the Clavariaceae. The hymenium is either smooth or folded, with ridges 

on the stem and pileus. The gill-like ridges differ from true gills of the order Agaricales. 

The Cantharellus hymenium thickens as new basidia develop over the layer of older 

ones. By contrast, in the Agaricales the basidia form a monolayer. Cantharellus basidia are stichic (Juel 1916) and long, bearing long curved sterigmata. Spores are 

smooth, white or yellow, and of variable size. The number of spores per basidium 

varies between two and eight within the same carpophore (nuclear migration studied 

by Maire 1902). The haploid chromosome number in C. cibarius Fr. is 2 (Juel 1916). 

No cystidia are present. Hyphae are monomitic and clamp connections are present. 

The species studied so far within Cantharellus sensu Feibelman and others (1997) 

have large internal transcriber spacer (ITS) sequences (Danell 1994b, Feibelman 

and others 1997) 1400 to 1600 base pairs, and Danell and others 1 have revealed a 

sequence in the beginning of ITS1, which is unique to the genus Cantharellus sensu 

Feibelman and others (1997) (fig 1., GenBank #AF 044688, AF 044690, AF 044692, 

AF 044694).

1 Danell, E.; Camacho, F.; Liston, A. [and others]. [In preparation]. 

RFLP and sequencing of rDNA ITS of the ectomycorrhizal edible 

mushrooms Cantharellus cibarius, C. pallens, C. formosus and C. 

subalbidus. On file with: Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, 

Norbyv.16, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of 

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests 

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300