Observation 122622: Cuphophyllus lawrencei (Hesler & A.H. Sm.) comb. prov.

Common white species growing in redwood duff

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
C. lawrencei vs. C. russocoriaceus
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2017-02-14 14:52:55 NZDT (+1300)

Based on the MO name page, the information we have boils down to location. Apparently whatever occurs in the west US tends to be larger and have larger spores than C. russocoriaceus which was described from European material. Looking at GenBank there is only one potentially relevant sequence under the name Hygrocybe russocoriacea. The GenBank record says it’s from Kew Gardens, but I couldn’t find it in their database to determine where it was from, but it’s almost certainly European. Sounds like a great candidate for sequencing!

What is the evidence this is different from C. russocoriaceus?
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-01-23 11:34:24 NZDT (+1300)
Thanks for the update!
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2017-01-23 11:08:21 NZDT (+1300)
Wouldn’t it be fun
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-20 05:56:42 NZDT (+1300)

if MO votes could replace the Nomenclature Committee? I think it should save a lot of time :-)

If I had the opportunity to vote and could completely disregard the “Rules”, I’d vote for Cuphophyllus after all. That is simply because the genus, when it was circumscribed, had a better concept than the original Camarophyllus (not including the species that now is Hygrophorus camarophyllus).

what’s really scary…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2013-01-20 05:40:38 NZDT (+1300)

is that somebody is even keeping track of that sort of trivia! ;)

I suspect that the numbers are just indicative of the very opinionated crew that posts here, and a bit of blow-back from the oftimes seemingly willy-nilly nature of our frequent latin name changes.

Kinda like American Idol for geeks.

Most votes…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-01-19 13:14:16 NZDT (+1300)

Just checked and actually it’s in 8th place. The leader is observation 97518 with 71 votes. In case anyone is interested the other ones currently above this observation which is at 34 votes are observation 59556, observation 96369, observation 56210, observation 32950, observation 66625, observation 63699, and observation 97518.

I think
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-01-19 08:28:30 NZDT (+1300)

122622 is approaching a ‘most votes’ record

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2013-01-16 06:23:54 NZDT (+1300)

Although Donk created Cuphophyllus in 1962 as a subgenus of hygrocybe, Singer had already fixed the problem with Camarophyllus in 1951 by proposing Agaricus pratensis as the type species for the genus, thus negating the need to create Cuphophyllus at all. Camarophyllus sensu Singer non Fries

In regards to Camarophyllus virgineus; modern cladistics show that it is part of a separate clade within the genus Camarophyllus: Subsection Virginei Bataille.

C. pratensis and C. virgineus represent two divergent groups. The pileus in section virginei tends to be not as dry and they typically have larger spores.

I’m sticking w/Camarophyllus…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2013-01-16 05:10:47 NZDT (+1300)

until it gets pried from my cold dead hands.

This one was NEVER a Hygrophorus, a far more substantial genus with different gill trama: divergent rather than interwoven.

Next time you visit us Martin, try smelling these little guys…way cool odor of cedar or Russian leather, the specific latin name. Assuming that this is indeed russocoriaceus; it is the odor that is key.

Go back to Fries
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-15 22:06:00 NZDT (+1300)

That is where the name camarophyllus comes from, and if we follow the nomenclature rules, we may not be able to use Camarophyllus as the name of this genus.

But Herbert has a point in that Camarophyllus has been used for a long time, so it should be proposed to get conserved against Cuphophyllus, if that is what we want..?

And yes, I still think that virgineus was chosen as a kind of type by Kummer, since that was the one he mentioned first, AND very likely the one he depicted as a representative of the genus (pict no 39 in “Der Führer…”) – a type species according to the rules if you interprete them that way:

Need to update some previous writing…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-01-15 01:47:53 NZDT (+1300)

As Herbert points out, I have not updated some previous writing I’ve done in the comments on the Camarophyllus page. I did that before I was aware that Donk had a relevant argument. Else mentioned this to me last July and I haven’t had a chance to followup. However, I will at least go through and describe my current understanding, especially in light of what Mike pointed out.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2013-01-14 08:30:52 NZDT (+1300)

Singer chose a type species that wasn’t a synonym to Hygrophorus, how is that a mistake? Regardless, Camarophyllus is the older and more commonly used name and certainly isn’t invalid at this point in time. Instead of changing the name of the genus why not just recognize Singer’s type taxon? They didn’t throw Psilocybe away when they realized through molecular testing the type taxon (P. Montana) was actually in the Genus Deconica. They created a new type taxon that better represented the genus and moved the older type to its proper genus. Nomenclature is suppose to make things simpler and easier.


“There is no indication in the Code of nomenclature which would force us to choose the type species according to tautomony [NJW: like in Zoology where Gorilla gorilla implies the type] of the genus and a specific epithet once used in the genus. Since selection of a type species is not achieved by designating a first species (Earle, Murrill), the first selections which must be followed are Konrad’s (1934) and Singer’s (1951), the latter for Camarophyllus Kummer. Hesler & Smith (1963) base their section Camarophyllopsis on Camarophyllus ‘’(Fr.)’’ Kummer, again with the type species: C. pratensis. If A. camarophyllus A. & S. were acceptable as type species, the name of the genus now based on C. pratensis would be Aeruginospora Höhnel.” (1986 Singer) The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy, 4th edition

No record of the aroma
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2013-01-14 08:02:39 NZDT (+1300)

I was clearly in panic mode at this point, trying to keep up with the group while they missed all the good stuff. Wait, wait", I must have been shouting! An alarming number of my photos are out-of-focus, but I made the bus. Such are the problems of visiting mushroom Shangri-La.

I agree
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-14 01:48:14 NZDT (+1300)

MycoBank refers to Fries’ “Summa vegetabilium Scandinaviae” from 1849 as the publication with subgenus Camarophyllus, the basionym which the generic name was derived from. Fries does not use camarophyllus as a species name there, but he did that earlier, in “Systema Mycologicum” from 1820, where he already had separated the subtribe Camarophylli.
It’s not clear to me which the valid publications are, but if “Systema” counts, Cuphophyllus will probably be the winner..

Cuphophyllus russocoriaceus seems the best name to me…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-01-14 01:00:38 NZDT (+1300)

Regarding the genus name, based on reading Singer’s rational, I agree with the Mike that he was wrong about Camarophyllus especially given the rule that Mike cited. I haven’t read Donk yet (anyone have an online pointer to this?), but Else also suggested that Donk had it right. It’s not clear to me why Herbert is being so forceful here.

Regarding the species epithet, the odor is critical to confirming this one. From my experience it looks so much like C. russocoriaceus that I remember the smell just by looking at the photo, but that’s not good enough! :-)

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-13 22:27:02 NZDT (+1300)

You haven’t mentioned any particular smell..? The yellowish hue points towards russocoriaceus but Hygrocybe virginea is also possible if it doesn’t smell like cedar wood.

Sorry, no micro, just these photos
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2013-01-13 12:30:51 NZDT (+1300)
do you…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-01-13 11:53:24 NZDT (+1300)

have any micro available??

Because it’s not
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2013-01-13 11:52:03 NZDT (+1300)

Richard, this is a very common and distinct species in Central California, usually in forests where Redwoods dominate. It’s a species I expect to see late fall/early winter every time I am in its habitat. You can call if Cuphophyllus russcoriaceus or Hygrocybe russocoriaceous, but it’s not a Hygrophorus. At least not in any modern sense of the genus Hygrophorus.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-01-13 11:18:48 NZDT (+1300)

why are you so against Hygrophorus??

And by the way..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-13 10:22:44 NZDT (+1300)

The first mentioned species in the genus Camarophyllus by Paul Kummer was C. virgineus.

Camarophyllus is not invalid
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-13 09:44:19 NZDT (+1300)

until the IMA Nomenclature Committee says so :-)
There are two competing names here..

Singer was wrong
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2013-01-13 09:27:37 NZDT (+1300)

Singer clearly picked the wrong type. Contrary to Singer, A. camarophyllus was automatically the type of the subgenus named after it under Art. 22.6 of the Botanical Code. Donk & Bon recognized this, the code is quite clear:

“22.6 When the epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus is identical with or derived from the epithet in one of the originally included species names, the type of the higher-ranking name is the same as that of the species name, unless the original author of the higher-ranking name designated another type.”

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2013-01-13 09:10:29 NZDT (+1300)

The type species is C. pratensis per Singer. You don’t throw away a genus just because someone picked the wrong type species to exemplify the genus. A good example is the genus Psilocybe and the re-selection of the new type species Psilocybe semilanceata.

Camarophyllus is invalid
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2013-01-13 07:07:13 NZDT (+1300)

Camorophyllus is an invalid generic name for this species and the others in its clade (eg Cuphophyllus pratensis).

The type of the genus Camarophyllus is Agaricus camarophylus (=Hygrophorus camarophyllus) which morphological and molecular evidence places in Hygrophorus. That makes Camarophyllus invalid for the clade that includes C. russocoriaceus. Donk recognized this problem in 1962 when he created the subgenus Cuphophyllus in Hygrocybe. Bon (1985) recognized that the species in that subgenus were distinct from Hygrocbye and raised Cuphophyllus to generic rank. Modern molecular methods confirm that Cuphophyllus (and Gliophorus) are distinct from Hygrocybe and deserve generic rank.

Created: 2013-01-12 14:16:05 NZDT (+1300)
Last modified: 2017-02-14 14:31:12 NZDT (+1300)
Viewed: 580 times, last viewed: 2018-03-02 11:28:25 NZDT (+1300)
Show Log