Observation: Cantharocybe gruberi (A.H. Sm.) H. E Bigelow & A.H. Sm. (7791)

 

Observation: Cantharocybe gruberi (A.H. Sm.) H. E Bigelow & A.H. Sm. (7791)

When: 2008-05-31
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: This one was found with Ponderosa and Londgepole pine, and had a strong farinaceous odor. It was a bit confusing at the time, and there wasn’t a clear id on this one. I brought it to the SFSU field campus for the Spring Mushrooms of the Sierras course that was going on at the time. Dennis Desjardin put this under the scope, and was able to verify the suggested id of Cantharocybe gruberi. This one has been preserved for the SFSU herbarium.

For the people up there in the course, this was the first observation of this species that they has heard of in 10 years. This one is different than others seen before from this species in that the gills are a deeper yellow than before, and the cap margin was more inrolled before. Also the disc on the cap here display olive-tan tones, where in previous observations the colors were more consistant.

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 5c6eddec590837031337afa65c6dae3ed8064bcb49913610a8e8567612a7f4e4 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 f2fd2c9d8b69e743ac1ff2cb38c5633900ff9ac4c4a7c047078b9f1769373936 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
What question -
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-06-13 01:45:03 JST (+0900)

I’ve been saying, we looked under the scope, we did see things, the id has been verified, there isn’t a question in the id.

One look under the microscope will solve that puzzle
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2008-06-12 22:17:59 JST (+0900)

Guys, one look under the microscope will absolutely eliminate all guesswork. Look at the size of the spores — they should be huge. This does look like young C. gruberi, butt unless confirmed by a simple test, the id is questionable.

I don’t know…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-06-12 12:54:52 JST (+0900)

This was verified with some sources, it turns out this was first described as a Hygrophorus. The spore shape and the cheilocystidia presence, size and shape were compared to the lit. and it was a match. The desc. for the Hygrophorus gruberi mentioned that the lamellae are concolorous with the cap when young.

Why you didn’t see these, I have no idea really. They were just sitting near the stump where I was taking photos for most the night, but then again so were about 60 others. At the time, we weren’t sure what these were, or if they were anything to care about. I passed them under Dimi’s nose when he showed up, and he suggested perhaps the C. gruberi.

Your material is also similar to collection linked below, with its yellow, decurrent gills, no inrol
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-06-12 08:12:53 JST (+0900)

http://www.svims.ca/...

Dimitar Bojantchev also collected material similar to yours at Shasta, featured here: http://mushroomhobby.com/Gallery/Rare%20&%20Interesting/

Photo shown on Mykoweb for “10 year old” Cantharocybe gruberi fruit body (no description) shows a strongly inrolled margin and yellow staining on cap, altho gills are not yellow. Your youngest fruit body from Shasta does show strong inrolling of cap margin.

What about the differences between the Yuba Pass and Shasta/svims collections? Is it individual variation? Field conditions/age? A “local” variety? Or, another species? How was the ID determined, and what other possibilities were there? And more importantly, why didn’t I see this mushroom??!

Created: 2008-06-12 04:35:29 JST (+0900)
Last modified: 2008-06-12 05:14:09 JST (+0900)
Viewed: 181 times, last viewed: 2015-09-04 19:20:29 JST (+0900)