Notes: Found growing on lawn. Caps 1/2" across or smaller; up to 1" across when fully expanded. The dark brown caps are extremely hygrophanous from the center outwards giving the impression of a “belt” at times, but isn’t really a lasting feature.
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||19.67||4||(Derek D,Dave W,Herbert Baker)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
that the highest level of confidence in using a mushroom name almost never applies simply because the possibility exists that new evidence may emerge which undermines this confidence.
The MO highest level of MO confidence is labeled “I’d Call It That”, and not “What It Is.” I think that if a collector uses a well-established name with a high level of confidence and there is no criteria available specifically related to the observation at hand which undermines the use of the name, then the name should (perhaps temporarily) be allowed to stand. I see no problem with one observation showing “I’d Call It That” applied to one name and “Could Be” applied to another name.
Although I understand what you mean, mushroom identification is something invented by, structured by, pursued by, and validated only by humans. In the realest way possible, every mushroom identification is accurate only because we agree it is (or not).
I never said they were important, I asked why they are not important. Is Gerhardt’s work with them meaningless? And no, I never claimed mushroom identification starts or ends with microscopy, that would be silly. Still, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that these Panaeolus can look a lot a like macroscopically. As for the field guides, you may as well just ignore them with most lbms unless the authors actually investigated the species themselves instead of copying someone else…
Also, your argumentum ad populatum saddens me, I don’t come here to argue popular opinion, but mushroom identification instead. :(
I think it is reasonable to entertain the notion that these mushrooms that follow humans and thier lawns and landscaping around the world really are all the same and capable of interbreeding, and therefore having at least some regular gene flow between separate populations. It may not be something that should be referred to as a a “group” at all, they may really all be P. foenisecii, or if not, it would be really interesting to find out why not.
you seem to suggest that oil droplets on the spores are a meaningful feature used to delineate species in Panaeolina. Can you please explain why? The size of the epicutis cells? Can you please explain why that is important? If two mushrooms look, taste, smell, feel and sound the same and fill the same ecological niche, can you tell me why the size of the epicutis cells are an important deliniating factor? And if the physical features aren’t exactly the same or the habit or habitat differs, then one should be able to infer species to at least some degree from photos alone. Mushroom identification doesn’t begin OR end with micro features!
I have little need of being convinced that these are P. foenisecii because Doug said so and I trust him and nobody here seems to disagree too much and when I open my dozen or so field guides that’s what they tell me these are! I’m open to the idea that these aren’t P. foenisecii: but I’m not convinced the idea is worth pursuing and apparently most mycologists agree. I’m a simple man with a complex hobby and I try to not make it any harder than it already is, so I decline to debate about distinguishing characteristics of Entomophthora spp.
Are guttules on the spores not meaningful? Its often very important with ascos. How about the size of the epicutis cells? And as long as you need to be convinced, why do you not need to be convinced that Panaeolina foenisecii is a good name? :)
As I see it, its still unresolved, should we call all unidentified annulate Pholiotina spp. P. rugosa? And all unidentified Entomophthora spp. are of course E. muscae even though you need to see the nucleus on the spores to accurately identify them…
my opinion on the Panaeolina thing. I did a little research on the name Panaeolina castaneifolia, and found that it has been collected in New York City. But as you suggest, delineating P. foenisecii from P. castaneifolia is difficult; macroscopically they are very similar. One difference in the spores is that P. foenisecii spores occasionally show oil drops. But it takes a pretty good scope to see the drops inside these dark spores. Byrain tells me that in CA P. castaneifolia may actually be the more common species. So that’s why I’m wondering if “Panaeolina foenisecii group” may represent a way to arrive at a consensus for naming this type. But, for the time being, I’ll continue to name my observations “Panaeolina foenisecii.”
I’d need to be convinced that there actually are other Panaeolina species that grow around here that can be delineated in a meaningful way…and then I’d need to be convinced that Panaeolina really should be separated from Panaeolus; so, no, I do not agree that “Panaeolina foenisecii group” might be a better name.
Panaeolus cinctulus doesn’t grow on lawns around here unless they’ve been sodded within the last two years or are fertilized with horse manure. I’ve printed literally hundreds of specimens of this mushroom and don’t generally need a print to make an ID with 100% accuracy. The prints are dark purple-brown.
I’m wondering if “Panaeolus foenisecii group” may be a better name to use for this type?
To be certain that you don’t have a look-alike Panaeolus (like P. cinctulus) a spore print can be helpful. Panaeolina print is very dark brown, but not quite pure black.
Created: 2013-06-19 04:54:20 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2015-03-03 20:46:46 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 153 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 01:39:49 CEST (+0200)