Observation 130292: Psathyrella uliginicola McKnight & A.H. Sm.

Original Herbarium Label: Psathyrella uliginicola McKnight & A.H. Sm.
Collected by Buck McAdoo
Locality on the label: Canyon Creek, Wenatchee Forest, Tall Timbers, …
Smaller sporocarp sent to Alan Rockefeller on January 28, 2016
Please correct our ID if you are sure that it is wrong, but do it as a Comment, NOT by changing our observation names. Thanks!

Species Lists



Proposed Names

37% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Please correct our ID if you are sure that it is wrong, but do it as a Comment, NOT by changing our observation names. Thanks!
-6% (3)
Recognized by sight: Based on DNA sequence data, I don’t think this is a Psathyrella. Seems to fit in better with Coprinopsis.
Used references: http://a.pomf.se/lrywsb.pdf
Based on microscopic features

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
P. uliginicola was moved to Coprinopsis
By: Danny Miller (alpental)
2016-01-29 09:01:27 EET (+0200)

Great paper, I’ve always been a fan of Psathyrella. It seems Alan is not disagreeing with the identification, he agrees, and the paper is saying that P. uliginicola is actually not a Psathyrella, but a Coprinopsis.

Re: Based on DNA sequence data
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-29 04:07:22 EET (+0200)

This specimen has not been sequenced yet.

Donj’t touch our original MO Observation Name
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-26 19:35:21 EET (+0200)

Mushroom Observer is totally useless for any serious work in mycofloristics, unless this uncontrolled changing of MO Observation names is stopped. This practice is OK in the Citizen Science (which CA mycology unfortunately is), but banned in the real professional field. DNA in the hands of a Citizen Scientist is a dangerous tool!
Get rid of Consensus and similar Nonsensus. Leave the Proposal section in MO and use it for suggesting different IDs, but leave it on the original user (who posted that observation) to change the name. That’s how it is done in other databases, such as herbarium databases or in GenBank. This way, the original user does not lose the tie between the MO Observations and the supporting herbarium specimen. If the original users would not be able to react on the proposals (i.e., if they are pushing daisies), name the moderator of each taxonomic group and give him/her the same privilege. In fact, MO already has one such as quiet moderator in Rod Tulloss for Amanitaceae.
Let’s keep it simple!

Wheeeeeeeeee! And off we go!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-01-26 18:28:17 EET (+0200)

Here’s a thought, Alan. why not request THIS specimen for DNA analysis?

Seems pretty silly to use as your ID reasoning such a sophisticated method of determination (well, insofar as relatedness if not species breaks) by glancing at a photo and sketch and making an assumption that they are the same.

DNA and DNA advocates are not the end-all be-all of mycology. It is a tool.
Use it wisely, and don’t overextend your reach.

Re: Based on DNA sequence data, I don’t think this is a Psathyrella.
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-26 05:59:27 EET (+0200)

This has to be a mistake! we don’t have any DNA data on this specimen!

Thanks for the suggestion and for the article
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-05-18 13:09:29 EEST (+0300)

You exposed the most vulnerable side of Mushroom Observer, i.e, the identification by Consensus. It works fine for those observations that don’t have the supporting herbarium specimens. When there are herbarium specimens, I would suggest to implement normal herbarium practices, i.e., annotations rather than crossing out the original name and writing some other name there instead. I.e., it would be nice, if in the MO observations supported by the specimens, MO would accept the well established herbarium practices and old naming conventions. As it is now, professional mycologists would not use Mushroom Observer. This is a pity, since MO has many beautiful features. Never mind, something like crossing out one’s names and replacing them with other names is not acceptable in normal herbarium practices.
I did not look at the article you sent us in detail, since I got distracted when I realized that their newly described genus Kauffmania might be homonymous with the older name Kaufmannia (Primulaceae) and should be rejected. Accidents happen. Cheers, Adolf

This is a Coprinopsis
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-05-18 08:49:05 EEST (+0300)
Or maybe..
By: Byrain
2014-03-03 19:50:49 EET (+0200)

The spores really look like img 292092, or maybe not, someone needs to get around to finding out (Eventually)…

old sighting but pertinent discussion…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-03-03 19:11:36 EET (+0200)

when I recently put psath spores under my scope (not knowing at the time that they were psaths) in a water mount, I too did not at first see the germ pore. it was subtle.

I also never got above 400x magnification, since I am currently out of immersion oil.

That may have also been the case for Oluna with this sighting.

By: Byrain
2014-01-11 23:06:33 EET (+0200)

I really should do that & also should look at the type to see if the description is flawed or not (I’d be curious on how Smith could mess up both the description and illustration?), but first I’m way too behind on my own collections/images (Including some more micrographs of Alan’s collection) and I’m a little apprehensive about working on herbarium specimens when I still have so much more to learn with my own. Its amazing how you manage to work on so many different collections. :)

I was just trying to add Smith’s illustration to the comments here for comparison, especially considering the other possible P. uliginicola-like taxon without a germ pore. Of which your & Alan’s observations seem to be the only with microscopy.

Pores are easily missed,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-01-11 22:49:19 EET (+0200)

as we have discussed before. My illustrations are only sketches that should go with the original collections. You can request a loan of the specimen through the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, BC) herbarium. Oluna

By: Byrain
2014-01-11 21:33:43 EET (+0200)

Your spore illustrations differ from Smith’s by lack of a germ pore.

Previous occurrence at Spring Key Council
By: Brian McNett (KitsapMycologist)
2013-05-28 15:08:04 EEST (+0300)

Psathyrella uliginicola turned up at a previous Key Council foray in the Blue Mountains of Oregon several years back. That was a fairly wet spring as I recall. Orson K. Miller handed me a “Tricholoma” to do some microscopy on. Any apical pore on these is quite easy to overlook, and my dim recollection is that I didn’t see that feature. Even without observing such, the combination of micro-features to the “remarkably robust for a Psathyrella” stature allowed me to hand Dr. Miller a completely different mushroom from the one he handed me.

At any rate, these are a great find, and I appreciate the illustration. It’s like seeing an old friend.

Hyaline spores?
By: Byrain
2013-03-17 09:15:23 EET (+0200)

I think you might of misunderstood me, I meant the color under magnification. Obs 123283 which I looked at today may be the same, it has hyaline spores in H2O + KOH and no visible germ pore as Alan’s images show. My understanding is that only a few Psathyrella species have this and P. uliginicola is not one of them. From Smith’s description on P. uliginicola:

“Spores 10-12 (-15) x 5-6 μ, smooth, apical pore rather inconspicuous, shape in
face view elliptic to oblong, in profile more or less bean-shaped, in KOH sordid
cinnamon to pale cocoa-color but soon with a dark-chocolate cast, in Melzer’s
tawny, wall about 0.3p, thick.”

Smith’s illustrations for P. uliginicola also show clear apical germ pore, P. luteopallida has similar micro with the hyaline spores without a germ pore, but its described from only the type and the macro description is not too convincing.

I wonder how many of these P. uliginicola observations from coastal states are truly that? Smith never looked at any collections from here at least. It’d probably be helpful to look at the spores from one of the collections Smith called P. uliginicola. :)

Spores were mounted in water
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-03-17 07:54:12 EET (+0200)

Spores were mounted in water and I did not notice any germ pore. Spore print was dark purple brown. Mind you, it was almost ten years ago. OC

Nice drawing.
By: Byrain
2013-03-17 07:05:51 EET (+0200)

Did you happen to note what color the spores were mounted in H2O or KOH? And was there a visible germ pore? There seems to be another species here in CA with a similar appearance to P. uliginicola, but different spore features.

Created: 2013-03-17 06:28:56 EET (+0200)
Last modified: 2016-01-29 04:03:37 EET (+0200)
Viewed: 331 times, last viewed: 2018-04-07 14:02:51 03 (0300)
Show Log