Observation 136617: Panaeolus (Fr.) Quél.
When: 2013-06-14
Collection location: Alva, Florida, USA [Click for map]
Project: Panaeolus

Notes: Brown bruising; found on aged cow dung


Spore average: 16.57 × 10.60 microns; Q-value average: 1.56
n=23
maxL-averageL(-stdev) – minL x maxW – avaregW(-stedv)- minW:
17.58-16.57(- 0.64) – 15.17 × 11.31 – 10.60(- 0.42) – 9.76; Q=1.66-1.56(+- 0.05)-1.48

Spore measurements raw data:

16.73 x 10.72
15.44 x 9.76
16.68 x 10.77
16.36 x 9.96
16.27 x 10.75
17.39 x 10.65
16.43 x 11.05
15.17 x 10.12
16.72 x 11.31
16.15 x 10.12
17.58 x 11.26
16.22 x 10.66
17.14 x 10.99
16.18 x 10.77
15.7 x 10.16
16.41 x 10.49
17.27 x 11.18
17.31 x 10.52
16.6 x 10.23
17.22 x 10.64
16.25 x 10.67
17.25 x 10.38

Having some trouble getting through the key here, mainly because there is no trace of a veil (no trace of any kind or remnants of anything on the cap, no appendiculate margin) and the caps really don’t look like they’ve experienced a

rain that would have washed them away either… also something about the cap cuticle looks different to me than other pictures of papilionaceus (these are yellowish and dull, other pictures of papilionaceus show it looking sort of “bronzed”?) Anyhow… here is my logic as I traversed through Gerhardt’s key, maybe where I went wrong will hopefully be easily spotted:

- cap cuticle mostly dry
- does not appear noticeably hygrophanous
- spores smooth
- sulphidia present
- metuloids absent/no blue staining
(easily getting to…. Panaeolus subgenus Panaeolus)
- no trace of having ever had a veil on these young/fresh caps
- spores for the most part very dark and opaque, but the germ pore is not extremely prominant [also, to me, they are for the most part they look like they are lacking that “grenade” shape (whith anglular “shoulders”) and seem to be more oval shaped, but maybe these are normal “papilionaceous-type” spores?? (If I say the germ pore is not prominant and that it does NOT have a veil, it makes this NOT section Panaeolus); If I say yes to a veil and yes to prominant germ pore it takes it sect. Panaeolus – a group that contains 3 speices and it doesn’t fit well with any of the descriptions for those except for maybe papillionaceus but that would mean that the veil completely and cleanly washed off with no trace, it would also mean that I still can’t recognize sulphidia (paps are not supposed to have sulphidia), in fact, the only Panaeolus in sect. Panaeolus with spores that large is papilionaceus!)
(if I continue in the key with no veil):
- spores smooth (not “fine asperulate”)
- cheilocystidia lack any secretion or distinction in any way
- sulphidia present
- spores without oil droplets
(I get to …. Panaeolus section Laevispora)
- sulphidia present
- germ pore not oblique
- spores are not less than 10 microns, but they are not 10-15 microns either, in fact they are 15-18! (so not microsporus or bernicis!)
If you then proceed through the key as if sulphidia are NOT present (an dismissing the refractive cells in the photos as contaminants):
- spores don’t quite reach 18-20 microns (so not alcidis or subfirmus)
- Spores always shorter than 18 μm
- spores not transparent and it’s not lignicolous (so its not fraxinophilus)
- its not terricolous….. but I’ll go to “7” anyway
- Spores are very dark and opaque, but they are not about 10-13 μm long (the average is 16.57! so not goossensiae)
- spores are not light and not transparent…..but I’ll go to “8” anyway
- Spores about 8-11 μm long (They are much larger, so not reticulatus)
- Spores could be about 11-16 μm (well 15-18)
- germ pore is not oblique at all (so this and many reasons make it not cinctulus)
- Germ pore never oblique in side view, cheilocystidia do look like they could be considered “slender”
- the spores are up to 10-11 μm wide, the cap is not really “acute” but could it be P. acuminatus?? (not if it was in dung right?)
- or maybe the bases of the cheilocystidia are a little more stout (more ventricose); but the spores are not normally less 10 microns wide (so not paludosus)…


Edit: CCB 08/08/13
Panaeolus sphinctrinus (=syn P. papilionaceus)(WA)- 98%; Panaeolus campanulatus (=syn P. papilionaceus)98%; “Panaeolus rickenii”- 98%

Species Lists

Images

338298
338299
347093
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Basidia were both 2 and 4-sterigmate but more commonly 4-sterigmate; KOH; 100X
347094
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Basidia were both 2 and 4-sterigmate but more commonly 4-sterigmate; KOH; 100X
347095
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Basidia were both 2 and 4-sterigmate but more commonly 4-sterigmate; KOH; 100X
347096
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Basidia were both 2 and 4-sterigmate but more commonly 4-sterigmate; KOH; 100X
347097
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CAULOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347098
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CAULOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347099
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CAULOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347100
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CAULOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347101
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CHEILOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347102
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CHEILOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347103
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CHEILOCYSTIDIA; KOH; 100X
347104
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
CLAMP; KOH; 100X
347105
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
PILEIPELLIS; 100X; KOH
347106
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
PILEIPELLIS; KOH; 40X (disregard measurements, they were taken when set to 100x and the photo was taken at 40x)
347107
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
PILEIPELLIS; 100X; KOH
347113
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
SULPHIDIA; KOH; 40X
347114
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
SULPHIDIA; KOH; 100X
347115
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
SULPHIDIA; KOH; 100X
347116
Copyright © 2013 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
SULPHIDIA; KOH; 100X

Proposed Names

62% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
3% (3)
Recognized by sight: Similar to Panaeolus papilionaceus, but without veil. I am not sure how taxonomically significant the veil really is, check DNA sequences.
Used references: Gerhardt 1996 page 20

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Byrain
By: Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
2013-07-12 13:58:40 PDT (-0700)

I’m still analyzing these, lets have some patience, I’d like to save something to publish :)

Christine?
By: Byrain
2013-07-12 13:00:20 PDT (-0700)

Can you elaborate on the DNA results? You say its closest to P. papilionaceus? How different is the sequence? What else has it been compared with so far? Maybe you can add the sequence to this observation too for safe keeping? :)

Another example of this Panaeolus
By: Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
2013-07-12 06:13:36 PDT (-0700)

may be here: http://mushroomobserver.org/135750?q=1MWD4
as those are also very small and have the same yellowish caps with some brownish colors on the stipe.

I don’t think this mushroom fits well with anything described in Gerhardt, but genetically appears to be closest P. papilionaceus.

so ummm…
By: Benjamin Dion (MykesLogos)
2013-07-11 19:23:06 PDT (-0700)

what are these then? I’m very intrigued…

I’ll find more soon and send em to ya!

They remind me of the conehead family hehe

spore shape
By: Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
2013-07-09 11:17:57 PDT (-0700)

Yes, those look a little more like grenades, these are more oval…

Christine
By: Byrain
2013-07-09 10:55:43 PDT (-0700)

Check out observation 128639 for an example of papilionaceus type spores.

Thanks
By: Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
2013-07-09 10:47:12 PDT (-0700)

and thanks for the link Byrain, P. papilionaceous var. parvisporus is ruled out by the large spore size. These were sequenced, we’ll see how it compares…

Edit: Thanks, I mentioned spore shape above " to me, they are for the most part they look like they are lacking that “grenade” shape (with anglular “shoulders”) and seem to be more oval shaped"… but I wasn’t that confident on how much they differed from papilionaceus-type spores, thanks for making that a little more clear…

Alan
By: Byrain
2013-07-09 10:44:33 PDT (-0700)

Wrong spore shape.

“spores in microscope always very dark, opaque, with prominent
germ pore, in face view often distinctly angular, with
nearly parallel sidelines (papilionaceus-type or similar,
fig. 2 e) "

Also, the spores are too small for var. parvisporus, would be a better fit with var. papilionaceus.

Panaeolus papilionaceus var. parvisporus – “Sporen 13-15(16) x 8-10 x (6)7-8 µm”
P. papilionaceus var. var. papilionaceus “Sporen (13)15-18(19) x (9,5)10-12(13) x (7)8-9,5(11)”

The closest
By: Byrain
2013-07-09 10:25:10 PDT (-0700)

seems to be Panaeolus subfirmus assuming that is not sulphidia, however I still don’t have a description for it…if that is sulphidia, I’m not sure there is a good name for it in Gerhardt’s book.

Also, have you seen this yet?
http://www.mycodb.fr/...

winters and Mykes…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-07-09 10:10:23 PDT (-0700)

incredible work!!

Created: 2013-06-16 13:13:48 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-08-08 14:03:22 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 175 times, last viewed: 2016-11-24 01:58:20 PST (-0800)
Show Log