Observation 134327: Agrocybe praecox (Pers.) Fayod
When: 2013-05-23
Collection location: Washington, USA [Click for map]
0 Sequences


Spores in GSM.tiff
Spores in GSM 2.tiff
Pleurocystidium in GSM smash mount2.tiff
Pleurocystidium in GSM smash mount.tiff
Cheilocystidium in GSM smash mount2.tiff
Cheilocystidium in GSM smash mount.tiff
Basidium beside basidioles in GSM smash mount.tiff
Air bubbles dedicated to Mr. David Gilmour and The One Campaign.tiff

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Byrain
2013-06-05 17:09:46 PDT (-0700)

I agree, hence why I only used a ‘could be’ vote on my observation despite the good morphological and ecological (Forest margin) match, I have the specimens so its just a matter of getting DNA done and comparing it with the sequences in that paper. Nevertheless, fan6 is more or less useful in that I now know its close to A. ochracea Nauta. :)

Until there is an equally useful treatment on Agrocybe in the states I would suggest to continue using it, especially if Agrocybe can be cosmopolitan. Though you are very right that using European resources/names can be at times flawed.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-06-05 16:23:13 PDT (-0700)

My bad! I missed the woodchips (not to mention the invasive weeds)… don’t know why I assumed this was in the woods. I’ll change my vote.

Second, even if FAN6 got you to a good match on observation 131795, it just means that it’s a good morphological match. We have no evidence to suggest that these things are mating-compatible or similar in genetic sequence. Just look at what happened to A. praecox in the USA!

And if we keep operating by using ‘good match’ names from European resources, we keep perpetuating the problem that we all know we have already… Not that I’m not also guilty of it. It’s hard not to be when there is relatively little being done for most groups of fungi in the USA.

By: Byrain
2013-06-05 16:17:55 PDT (-0700)

for explaining that. I didn’t try to claim that paper used mating studies, they did cover morphology, ecology, and sequence data though, notice how they give notes on what each sequence represents.

I agree that including mating compatibility is good too, but I still don’t really know if mating studies should be as important with fungi as they are with animals. I guess I really should check out Elliot Sober’s book though. :)

And FAN6 has demonstrated to be more or less useful even with Agrocybe found high up in the mountains, see observation 131795, but then I clearly see wood chips in gsharpnolack’s pictures so I don’t know why this would be a ‘native’ habitat.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-06-05 15:55:31 PDT (-0700)

The answer is actually the same: depends on your priorities and working criteria.

In the BSC, mating incompatibility is the benchmark for considering two taxa distinct. So if you were operating in that framework, Flynn and Miller found numerous full species.

But there are other models of what a species is.

The paper you referenced didn’t perform mating studies. So they can’t comment on that aspect of it… They just did analysis of a phylogeny constructed using genetic markers presumed to be relevant to evolutionary history. They found non-random genetic structure within the group that correlated with morphology to some degree (but not to a great extent) so they published a new variety name.

What we really need are species concepts based on blended notions – morphology, ecology, sequence analysis, and mating compatibility.

Clearly that’s hard for mycorrhizal species, but for saprobes there’s really no excuse.

Elliot Sober’s book The Philosophy of Biology has interesting stuff on this and lots of other areas of evolutionary theory

And yeah, for things that act like invasives (A. putaminum, etc) FAN6 is great, but for things found in relatively ‘native’ habitats, I’d be much more wary.

Let me rephrase
By: Byrain
2013-06-05 15:37:36 PDT (-0700)

Could the incompatibilities indicate diverse sub-populations rather than distinct species? Similar to the A. pediades complex which is explained well in this paper. http://bit.ly/Ym03mJ

I’m rather ignorant to mating studies with fungi, so maybe it doesn’t work like this?

And yea, I meant FAN6 gives a good context for studying the genus, I also think we share some species with Europe which those keys are very helpful in identifying, such as A. putaminum. Not to mention the very in depth descriptions and illustrations.

That’s a complicated question…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-06-05 15:27:31 PDT (-0700)

“Do you know if mating studies always conclusive in differentiating between taxons in fungi?”

Since there is no universal definition of a taxon, this question has no answer.

But basically, in at least one framework (the Biological Species Concept), yes: a mating study that found incompatibility would meet the criteria for considering two taxa distinct.

Do you mean useful in that FAN6 gives you context for studying the genus? If so, then I agree. But yeah… it’s meant for Europe.

I believe Flynn and Miller included European taxa in their mating compatibility study.

Glad to help/share
By: Image Sharer (image sharer)
2013-06-05 15:12:25 PDT (-0700)

I believe this is Agrocybe praecox as well.

Agrocybe praecox (complexe)
By: Claude Kaufholtz-Couture (Claude Kaufholtz-Couture)
2013-06-05 14:32:17 PDT (-0700)

Exactly, I study in the microscope at the moment that I believe to be an Agrocybe praecox (complex). It is very interesting to follow you so!

By: Byrain
2013-06-05 14:22:33 PDT (-0700)

I’m using the keys in Flora Agaricina Neerlandica, Nauta’s work in it is quite useful even if its meant for Europe. Do you know if mating studies always conclusive in differentiating between taxons in fungi? Or has any DNA work been done to corroborate the Flynn and Miller paper? The European concept of Agrocybe praecox has a wide ecological role, I’m not sure we can rely on ecology alone to ID them confidently. Though, this observation might match the A. praecox in FAN6 more so than any other species it includes.

Edit: Except, if we are to trust that 20 µm bar in the spore photos, these spores seem a bit large for A. preacox, maybe its just my bad estimation…

I’m curious
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-06-05 14:03:44 PDT (-0700)

as to what names you are considering, Byrain.

I would’ve just called this A. praecox “Sp. II”
based on the Flynn and Miller paper.

Since it is from an apparently natural habitat in western USA.

Although I don’t necessarily have an opinion on whether it is appropriate to treat it as the same as the type represented in my observation 99147. A bit more robust, but also fruiting in very different habitat/conditions.

Any motivated cultivator out there could do mating studies between coastal and Sierra/Cascade fruitbodies…

So close…
By: Byrain
2013-06-05 13:45:36 PDT (-0700)

Could really come up with a name with spore measurements…
Nice cystidia shots though. :)

Pictorial only
By: Image Sharer (image sharer)
2013-06-05 13:12:47 PDT (-0700)

Hi Byrain! This is all I could muster. No measurements and no pileipellis observations to include here unfortunately.

Please scope these?
By: Byrain
2013-06-04 21:49:42 PDT (-0700)

Taste, spores including size and germ pore width, cystidia on the gills and on cap (if present) would help a lot.

Created: 2013-05-23 12:23:12 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-06-05 16:23:28 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 130 times, last viewed: 2017-06-15 21:53:16 PDT (-0700)
Show Log