Observation 145816: Cuphophyllus russocoriaceus (Berk. & Jos.K. Mill.) Bon

When: 2013-09-17

Collection location: Perry, Maine, USA [Click for map]

Who: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)

No specimen available

On ground under white cedar, balsam fir and beech. White cap up to 5 cm., irregular, wavy margin. Gills white, decurrent. Stem up to 2.5 cm. × 8 mm, white. I get an odd odor, almost fishy. References I checked say leathery or cedar-like for C. russocoriaceus which fits in other respects including cedar habitat. Arora says west coast but it is on the Mushrooms of Quebec website.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2015-01-12 14:06:03 EST (-0500)

Then all we have to do is look at MO names to find close look alikes. If those suggestions are not in the data base than crytic species complexes can not be as easily delineated down the road. Adding a “could be” proposal is just that; it could be C. “lawrencii”. The odor of this observation was described as “odd”, “almost fishy”, that doesn’t seem right for C. russocoriaceus. I found a similar species, perhaps the same, in Maine, with a very odd burnt rubber smell.

Edit* We don’t put the genus name in quotations when a species is moved from one genus to another. The quotes are meant to highlight the combination. If we put Cuphophyllus in quotes the full binomial will not come up under a search for Cuphophyllus species. The quotes would effectively change the genus name in regards to the search feature here at MO.

One more thing
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-01-12 14:02:52 EST (-0500)

The species name is valid; it’s the genus that should be in quotations.

In this case
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-01-12 14:01:32 EST (-0500)

you are adding to the confusion. I have no problem using lawrencei for western NA “russocoriaceus”. But I don’t think you should be using it for eastern NA. I don’t agree with using the argument “we’ll just change it later”. Because if is is different from Europe (russocoriaceus) and western NA (lawrencei), why call it a second wrong name, rather then leave it as russocoriaceus until one knows for sure?

Hi Noah,
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2015-01-12 13:40:55 EST (-0500)

I see no harm in using the name C. “lawrencei” for east coast collections. If western collections turn out to be different, and they probably are, we’ll just change it later. We are not going to get a good grasp of our known look-a-likes unless we start applying names to these taxa. Forward progress, not stagnation. Best wishes.

P.S. No one needed “proof” over the last one hundred years when most of our American species were deprecated without molecular evidence in favor of European names.

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-01-12 12:31:11 EST (-0500)

is a west coast name. I wouldn’t apply it to eastern NA collections without proof that’s it the same as the western one, and different from the European species.

Created: 2013-09-18 09:03:06 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-01-12 15:38:34 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 82 times, last viewed: 2017-06-16 14:39:58 EDT (-0400)
Show Log