Observation 116141: Mycena madronicola A.H. Sm.
When: 2012-11-08
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
37% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: A Key to Norwegian Mycenas shows the minor differences.
http://home.online.no/...
M. madronicola vs. M. cinerella really the only difference ASSUMING ALL ELSE IS THE SAME
1. “pronounced brown component” vs. “more gray-brown”
2. on Madrona vs. not

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Maybe M. subcana is a better one with which to compare
By: P. Hill (phill)
2013-10-01 01:05:29 CDT (-0400)

Maybe comparing _M. madronicola to M. subcana is a better near match than M. cinerella (as per the way Arne Aronsen keyed M. madronicola in the key to Norwegian Mycenas), both of theses later two are similarly gray, with M. subcana getting described as darker (and in the MO photos shows a darker center), but I’m not yet really understanding any real microscopic differences between those two.

It would be interesting to see if either of you (Tim or Danny) could see how these samples scope out as compared to M. subcana or M. cineralla.

This afternoon, in a very quick survey, I checked a half dozen Madronas in Northacres Park near my original observation, but didn’t see any Mycenas.

Save me some
By: Danny Miller (alpental)
2013-09-28 16:14:05 CDT (-0400)

OK, Smith says M. madronicola’s section is easy to recognize… clusters on naked bark (whatever that means) of tree trunks with naked stem bases (he seems to have loved the word naked). The common species in that section is M. subcana which has a hairy base, so I think given the Madrona habitat, we probably have M. madronicola on our hands. Save some for me. I’ll scope it.

Created: 2012-11-08 20:35:14 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2013-09-28 23:27:09 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 57 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 09:33:57 CDT (-0400)
Show Log