Observation 130358: Psathyrella (Fr.) Quél.

Original Herbarium Label: Panaeolus fimicola (Pers.) Gillet
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F25606 [as Panaeolus fimicola]

Species Lists



Proposed Names

52% (6)
Recognized by sight
-38% (4)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-07-17 12:45:16 PDT (-0700)

The strength of the reaction changes with the strength of the solution. 98% will have an immediate and profound bleaching affect.

You are right!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-07-17 08:06:38 PDT (-0700)

It is the specimen, not the MO observation, one should work on. Adolf

You should work on your own specimens
By: Byrain
2014-07-17 07:43:04 PDT (-0700)

This is not Panaeolus and this observation is not useful at all as the only obs of Agaricales sensu stricta or as one of the many obs of Agaricales sensu lato when its clearly at the very least Psathyrella sensu lato. If you want a better name, you are without the doubt in the best position to find one, you should re-read the earlier discussion about the difficulty in finding one though. All mycologists are prone to mistakes sooner or later, there is no reason to be so resistent to the possibility that Oluna made one, its not like its set in stone and cannot be remedied…

The specimen is deposited in the UBC herbarium
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-07-16 10:03:12 PDT (-0700)

under the name Panaeolus fimicola (Pers.) Gillet and it’s accession number is UBC F25606
Before you change the MO observation name again, request the loan and examine the specimen. We would greatly appreciate your help!

Details for: F25606

Accession No. F25606
Scientific Name Panaeolus fimicola
Country Canada
Province/State British Columbia
Location Victoria, Saanich Peninsula, Observatory Hill; along the paved road at the hairpin curve
Latitude 48.526299999999999° N – 48.5167° N
Longitude 123.40900000000001° W – 123.422° W
Grid Reference
Host Substratum in grass
Date 11/12/2012
Collector(s) O. Ceska
Collection No.
Determined by O. Ceska

How concentrated
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2013-03-19 01:34:45 PDT (-0700)

should the H2SO4 be? 98%?

Re: Panaeolus vs Psathyrella
By: Byrain
2013-03-18 18:58:10 PDT (-0700)

I don’t see the spotted mottled pattern Panaeolus gills have in your image and your specimens appear more fragile and with a rudimentary outer veil on the pin next to the specimen third to the left. That is common in Psathyrella and I think non-existent in Panaeolus. Mushroom expert also shows a key that could help in this instance. http://www.mushroomexpert.com/panaeolus.html

“Spores fading when mounted in concentrated sulfuric acid
. . . . Psathyrella
Spores not fading when mounted in concentrated sulfuric acid
. . . . Panaeolus”

Using Gerhardt’s Panaeolus monograph, the lack of both sulphidia and a distinctly oblique germ pore in the side view should rule out P. fimicola. None of the other options seem any better either.

And yes, I unfairly skipped passed Psathyrella sect. Atomatae because Smith’s key says that section should be “Either coprophilous or growing on very well fertilized soil”. Ignoring that, P. prona is a possibility, however Smith’s key indicates it has larger spores and cheilocystidia. Spores, 13-15 X 7-8.5 µm and cheilocsytidia, 38-56 X 10-16 µm. In addition to that he describes it with brachybasidioles in later maturity and the habitat as, “Scattered on soil and straw in barnyards and on fertilized soil.” I don’t think any of the other species in the sect.Atomatae key fit as well either.

Other then that, I think the only other subgenus Psathyrella key we could try is sect. Subatratae with absent pleurocystidia. Which has both P. debilis and P. sepulcreti which I am not exactly sure we should fully trust Smith’s descriptions that were based on a single collection. I think your reported pileus size of 2 cm fits well into the range reported for P. debilis “Pileus 1.5-3.5 cm broad” and the small difference in cheilocystidia width doesn’t seem very significant, but it should also have brachybasidioles…

Lastly, you are right that Smith didn’t report cystidia for P. sepulcreti, but I’m not sure if I trust that. Are there any well represented Psathyrella species with no cheilocystidia?

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-03-18 17:46:40 PDT (-0700)

I used Moser to identify this collection to the genus and the uneven ripening of spores took me to Panaeolus. Within that genus, I passed Panaeolus ater (=P. fimicola var. ater) because our collection did not have chrysocystidia. After that, P. fimicola was the only option.

In our area, the only Psathyrella that grows in this habitat (grassy forest margin, by the trail) would be Psathyrella prona that we had collected before. However, Psathyrella prona is smaller and has a white stipe. On the other hand, Psathyrella prona has “pleurocystidia only rarely” and our collection had none, i.e., it might be a possibility, if we would consider Psathyrella.
Psathyrella debilis that you suggested as a possibility does not fit to our material, since Psathyrella debilis had pileus bigger (up to 3.5 cm across), stipe is white without changing and the cheilocystidia are wider (9-12[-15] µm vs. 6-9 µm in our collection). Psathyrella sepulcreti has no pleuro- nor cheilocystidia.

Best guess…
By: Byrain
2013-03-18 14:34:01 PDT (-0700)

Looking in North American Species of Psathyrella, if this has no pleurocystidia and no fulvous-walled setae on the pileus I’m led to Psathyrella debilis or P. sepulcreti, two species described from only the type and known from Kansas…

Edit: Also, this observation can still be found by going to the Panaeolus fimicola name page and pressing “Similar Observations”.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-03-18 14:32:53 PDT (-0700)

Haven’t you thought of making a note of the MO observation number on the herbarium label? Much easier to find the obs on MO by number than by name.

Re: You should be keeping track of your collections by MO observation number
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-03-18 14:15:07 PDT (-0700)

I admire you, if you remember your MO observations by their observation numbers. That would be too much for me. Adolf

I added the illustration later
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-03-18 14:13:17 PDT (-0700)

It was my fault. I posted the drawing much later. Adolf

By: Byrain
2013-03-18 14:00:23 PDT (-0700)

Are we going to discuss the identification or not? I’m not really interested in that other discussion…

Edit: Just saw the added illustration after I hit enter. :)

You should be keeping track of your collections by MO observation number
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2013-03-18 13:53:26 PDT (-0700)

Not by name. Names change, observation numbers are always the same.

How to lose your observation in 2 min. 09 sec.
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-03-18 13:39:39 PDT (-0700)

This is a nice example of the Achilles’ heel Mushroom Observer has. I posted this MO observation as Panaeolus fimicola and in less than 3 minutes I was not able to find it, since the observation’s name has been changed. We have been using MO for all the “visual” material that goes with our real herbarium specimens. If somebody would cross out the name on the real herbarium label, he or she would be banned from all herbaria for life, but in MO this is quite normal. Since the very beginning we have been using MO, I was calling for the “annotation field”, where the comment to the ID or indications of misID would be placed. Quite often those new ID suggestions are valid and should be welcome, providing that the MO observation does not disappear from the view of the people who originally posted it.

More info?
By: Byrain
2013-03-18 09:57:11 PDT (-0700)

The non-mottled gills and gestalt point away towards Panaeolus, P.fimicola should have sulphidia on the gill face, did you observe such a feature? I’d love to see more info on this collection. :)

Created: 2013-03-18 09:51:25 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-09-05 07:48:04 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 329 times, last viewed: 2017-06-15 17:14:15 PDT (-0700)
Show Log