On further review that Picea requirement seems too strong. Hessler & Smith specified conifers and I have material of subviscidus, which is from under pine. But it does like to fruit on top of rotten wood quite frequently..

D.

Per the original description Lactarius subviscidus is associated
with Picea. I’d reconsider renaming all observations of
L. subviscidus from Los Trancos to something else.

For this one hear I’d compare against L. manzanitae… But if you
didn’t get even latex or microscopy it’s like chasing a black cat
in a dark room when the cat is not inside.

Why do I even care — cause I’m, trying to sort out those small
red acrid Lactarii from our area. And it is not an easy task..

I expect you are applying the name appropriately, I just know I would have just called it L. xanthogalacteus in the field and throw it away. I’ll look more carefully in the future.

I find these from time to time, they sometimes are small, only 1-2 cm in the cap. But they can be the same size as the L. xanthogalactus, or L. rubidus. And often with the same features and color. But these are nicely viscid, and very smooth capped. Not the fine velvety roughness of the L. rubidus (also lacking any odor).

They are never umbonate, and pretty flat capped. There is also the L. subflammeus, which is supposed to look the same as these but bright orange. (Come to think of it these are kinda orange, but whatever.) I find a very viscid bright orange one up in Mendocino each year, and I got into an argument about those, because I’ve been calling them L. subflammeus, but they are umbonate, and the description isn’t umbonate. So, there are more brownish-red-orange Lactarius out there to try and differenciate yet.

I think I would have called them L. xanthogalacteus if I just looked at them casually, but if they are viscid that pretty much rules that id out.