Observation 120151: Cortinarius cumatilis var. haasii (M.M. Moser) Quadr.
When: 2012-10-03
(46.3488° 13.572° 600m)

Notes: Code: Bot_662/2012_DSC5247

Habitat: Pasture, a few meters off wood side, wood consisting of mainly broadleaved trees: dominant Ostrya carpinifolia, Fagus sylvatica, Corylus avellana and scattered small Juniperus communis bushes; south oriented warm mountain slope, calcareous ground, fairly sunny and dry place, exposed to direct rain, average precipitations ~ 3.000 mm/year, average temperature 7-9 deg C, elevation 600 m (2.000 feet), alpine phytogeographical region.

Substratum: shallow soil.

Place: Bovec basin, pastures East of ‘Plajerjeva skala’ place, north of Bovec, East Julian Alps, Posočje, Slovenia EC

Comments: About seven fruitbodies scattered around in different stage of development; pileus diameter 4.5-8(10) cm, fruitbodies 5.5-8 cm tall; pileus distinctly sticky to slimy; stipe distinctly bulbous but not marginate; SP abundant, rusty-brown (oac686); viola-blue color fades with time in refrigerator.

Three alternative determinations with similar appearance among phlegmaciums have been considered: C. sodagnitus, C. caerulescens and C. caesiocanescens. C. sodagineus seems to be ruled out because of its distinctly marginate bulb and somewhat smaller spores (Ref.: (4) 8-10,5/5-6 μ). Also filamentous cortina when young seems rather white, not lilac. It could easily be ruled out by blood red KOH reaction of pileus cuticle. Unfortunately, I didn’t make this test. C. caerulescens seems closer to my observation. Its spores correspond to the measured ones. Yet it also has a distinct up to 4.5 cm diameter (Ref.:(4)) marginate bulb and bluish edged gills. Both were not the case with my observation. C. caesiocanescens has smaller spores (8-10/5-5.5 μ Ref.:(4)) and grows under conifers, so it is most probably out. With respect to the stipe bulb my pictures may deceive a bit because of perspective. Bulbs were not so large as they may appear from pictures and had no rim. A picture of cross-section would make this clear, but I didn’t make it. If C. cumatilis s.lat. is correct decision then it is C. cumatilis var. haassii because of habitat (broad leaved trees) and clearly violet lamellae even when young.

Nikon D700 / Nikkor Micro 105mm/f2.8

Proposed Names

57% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
Used references: (1) Personal communication with Mr. Bojan Rot, www.gobenabovskem.com and Mr. Anton Poler.
(2) A.Poler, Veselo po gobe (in Slovene), Mohorjeva družba Celovec (2002), p 271.
(3) G.J.Krieglsteiner (Hrsg.), Die Grosspilze Bade-Württembergs, Band 5, Ulmer (2003), p 111.
(4) J.Breitenbach, F.Kraenzlin, Eds., Fungi of Switzerland, Vol.5. Verlag Mykologia (1984), p 176.
Based on microscopic features: Spores fairly coarsely warty. Dimensions: 10.6 (SD = 0.4) x 6.1 (SD = 0.2) μ, Q = 1.74 (SD = 0.09), n = 30. Olympus CH20, NEA 100x/1.25, magnification 1.000 x, oil, in water.
Based on chemical features: Taste indistinctive, slightly mushroomy; smell distinctive, fresh, not mushroomy, on what?
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
Used references: G.J.Krieglsteiner (Hrsg.), Die Grosspilze Bade-Württembergs, Band 5, Ulmer (2003), p 176.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-12-16 12:12:09 PST (-0800)

this maybe is a bit paler all over than eucaeruleus..
The name C. terpsichores has been used for that taxon, but is considered to have been misapplied on eucaeruleus, and is now associated with a species that grows with pine.

Could be C. eucaeruleus too
By: amadej trnkoczy (amadej)
2012-12-16 11:15:25 PST (-0800)

With respect to the name these seem to be two species. C. cumatilis is a valid name according to the Species Fungorum and MycoBank. There are no synonyms given (except Phlegmacium cumatile). C. cumatilis var. haasii is recorded in Index-Fungorum but is not stated as a valid name in Species-Fungorum. But, according to MycoBank it is a legitimated name. It is also treated in Krieglsteiner (Ref.:(4)) and Slovenian literature. Also C. eucaeruleus is treated in MycoBank and Index-Fungorum/Species-Fungorum as valid name (with no synonyms). By luck I found that Knudsen, H. & Vesterholt, J. (eds.) (2008) – Funga Nordica. ‘Agaricoid, boletoid and cyphelloid gener’a state the name Cortinarius terpsichodes Melot 1989 as a synonym of the C. eucaeruleus . This name is present in Slovenian Fungi Checklist (1997) and treated in Krieglsteiner (Ref.:(4)), p176, where its description is very, very similar (including spores) to the description of C. cumatilis var. haasii. The only eventual distinguishing parameters I can see are the color of the stipe and its marginate base. According to Krieglsteiner the stipe of C. cumatilis is white and of C. terpsichodes/eucaeruleus is intensive blue-violet. My observation is somewhere in between, but it seem to me it is closer to white than to intensive blue-violet (see 4. and 6. picture). Also the base of the stipe was not distinctly marginated in my observation. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if I really photographed C. eucaeruleus. A cort-expert would be needed for a more reliable determination. Anyway, it was a very beautiful mushroom. Thanks for your comment.

cumatilis var. haasii
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-12-16 08:33:28 PST (-0800)

Interesting name – how does it differ from Cortinarius eucaeruleus?

Created: 2012-12-16 08:20:31 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2012-12-16 11:17:48 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 381 times, last viewed: 2016-12-09 03:40:42 PST (-0800)
Show Log