Observation 140131: Psilocybe stuntzii Guzmán & J. Ott
When: 1980-08-08

Notes: This is part of the type collection of Psilocybe stuntzii, collected by Daniel Stuntz in November of 1973.

There might be rare plerocystidia present, pictured in image # 11.

Species Lists

Images

349773
IMG_4250.JPG
349774
IMG_4251.JPG
349775
IMG_4253.JPG
Gill edge 400x
349776
IMG_4254.JPG
Cheilocystidia 400x
349777
IMG_4255.JPG
Cheilocystidia 400x
349778
IMG_4256.JPG
Cheilocystidia 400x
349779
IMG_4257.JPG
Cheilocystidia 400x
349780
IMG_4258.JPG
Basioles 400x, gill face
349781
IMG_4259.JPG
Spores 1000x
349782
IMG_4260.JPG
Spores 1000x
349783
IMG_4261.JPG
Possible pleurocystidia 1000x
349784
IMG_4263.JPG
Spores 1000x
349785
IMG_4264.JPG
Spores 1000x
349786
IMG_4266.JPG
Spores 1000x
349787
IMG_4267.JPG
Spores 1000x
349788
IMG_4268.JPG
Spores 1000x
349789
IMG_4269.JPG
Spores 1000x
349790
IMG_4270.JPG
Spores 1000x
349791
IMG_4271.JPG
Spores 1000x
349792
IMG_4272.JPG
Spores 1000x

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Yes
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2013-11-06 00:05:25 EST (-0500)

Psilocybe washingtonensis is a Deconica.

I find misidentified type collections often. I studied the type of Boletus rylii and found it was Harrya chromapes. That one never got published. The type collection of Gymnopilus palmicola contins some basidiomas with a different spore size and a good samaritan put those in a separate labeled envelope. The type collection of Psilicybe herrerae is a mix of P
subtropicalis and P. banderillensis, both of which are older valid names.

Often type collections are mixed because the collector puts all their finds from a days collecting into one collection, and does not realize that there are more than one species present.

Thank you
By: Hunter hunter
2013-11-05 20:18:38 EST (-0500)
So something like Ps. washingtonensis .. Should it become a depreciated name and the title would be Deconica washingtonensis?
Type collections
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-11-05 20:09:14 EST (-0500)

It’s sort of impossible to have a misidentified type collection… Rather all other mushrooms claimed subsequently to belong to that species are incorrectly identified – types are the ‘rock solid’ foundation of a species concept.

It is however, possible to have the same mushroom species represented by type collections with different names (in which case the earlier name takes priority).

It is also possible to have mixed type collections (with more than one species included)… that gets tricky.

It’s also also possible for people to put the wrong mushrooms in the wrong box after the box is labeled. That’s a big, big problem and should be very rare.

Keep in mind that dehydrated mushrooms (understandably) usually look radically different from fresh ones – many structures, colors, etc are destroyed or changed.

Positive ID?
By: Hunter hunter
2013-11-05 20:03:30 EST (-0500)
Is it just me or do some of the type collections hardly resemble some of the current finds? Have you spent time double checking type collections? Have you found any mis identified type collections?

Created: 2013-07-16 07:35:56 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-07-16 07:36:10 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 105 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 20:47:50 EDT (-0400)
Show Log