Observation 134759: Pluteus Fr.
When: 2013-05-28
No herbarium specimen

Species Lists

Images

332170
Caps 3.5 to 4.5 inches across.
332171
Caps 3.5 to 4.0 inches across.
332172
Caps 3.5 to 5 inches across.
332173
Largest caps: to nearly 6 inches across the top.
333527
Have added spore prints of this collection for reference. First photo is of presumed Pluteus spore print after one day. Spores still moist.
333528
Have added spore prints of this collection for reference. First photo is of presumed Pluteus spore print after one day. Spores still moist.

Proposed Names

70% (8)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
22% (6)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
You’re right, Christian.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2013-05-31 21:36:24 CDT (-0400)

Apologies, all.

Spore print is massive, to 2mm deep, varying shades of brown to nearly black. Amount of humidity in spores affects color. I have added spore prints to the 5/29 collection.

Evidence
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-05-29 17:15:13 CDT (-0400)

Show me a picture of the white spore print.

Visicd does not equal watersoaked. “Water is visible on the cap.” has nothing to do with a glutinous layer, which none of these show in the pictures.

As for P. petasatus, I have no strong opinion (but you might take a more careful consideration of who Fredo is, and how he voted). But this is definitely a Pluteus. That, regardless of which one might be common in your area.. which is not P. cervinus, if we’re going to use that name accurately.

And it’s absolutely not Armillaria tabescens.

Some Pluteus have caps with fine hairs, some have granular caps, others have completely smooth caps, so it doesn’t really matter what you associate with the name.

According to Arora
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2013-05-29 17:06:44 CDT (-0400)

Pluteus petasatus is seldom viscid. This fungus today is viscid: watersoaked with water visible on the cap.

Arora says “whitish with a brownish to graish center or with darker (brown to grayish-brow) fibrils or scales; margin usually whitish.” This is not whitish or even mostly white. It is mostly honey-brown. There is white near the edge, but overall the color is honey-brown.

Arora says P. petasatus has “crowded, broad, free at least in age” gills. This does not have crowded gills in my opinion. Close, but not crowded.

I associate Pluteus with hairlike fibrils on the cap, giving it an impression of soft fur. This has scales which water saturation has caused to lie flat.

Spore print of Pluteus should be “pinkish to deep flesh-color”. This has white spore print.

Finally, Pluteus cervinus is the only common Pluteus in my area. I still believe this is Armillaria.

Just posted more photos of this at obs. 134856.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2013-05-29 15:29:13 CDT (-0400)
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-05-29 13:53:34 CDT (-0400)

is a pretty good match. Gills in the last photo are definitely crowded.

Or perhaps just a closer photo or two of the sporocarps.
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2013-05-29 13:38:39 CDT (-0400)

Existing photos were taken with telephoto lens from 10 feet away.

In two photos (2 & 4) a thick stipe can be seen, becoming more bulbous towards the base. Pluteus is not noted for that feature. Pluteus petasatus sort of matches, but the gills are not crowded.

higher image resolution
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-05-29 01:26:23 CDT (-0400)

might let us see spore deposit on the top of one or more pilei.

Created: 2013-05-28 19:25:20 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-06-02 22:47:05 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 184 times, last viewed: 2014-09-26 00:11:30 CDT (-0400)
Show Log