Observation 146392: Hygrocybe (Fr.) P. Kumm.
When: 2013-09-24
(45.7896° -77.1333° 200m)
No herbarium specimen

Notes: A bright red-capped waxgill with yellow gills and stipe, found in D9B. Nearby trees mostly pine (P. strobus, P. resinosa) with maybe some Acer and Betula papyrifera around.

Proposed Names

-21% (4)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
74% (3)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
60% (2)
Recognized by sight: Given the large size and the fact that it is the most common of the large species
Used references: Kuo, M. (2007, January). Waxy caps: Hygrophorus and Hygrocybe. Retrieved from the MushroomExpert.Com Web site: http://www.mushroomexpert.com/hygrophoraceae.html

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I didn’t say all others
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-09-25 18:43:54 PDT (-0700)

but yes, many others. Even within mammals or birds, there are groups of taxa, or higher-level reshufflings that are almost as frustrating as mushrooms. And just be thankful you don’t study moths.

Doubtful
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-09-25 18:21:57 PDT (-0700)

“Other groups of organisms suffer the same way”? Seriously? I don’t see the Latin name for, say, the northern grey squirrel changing on a multiple-times-yearly basis.

I think we need a stable way to refer to, say, waxcaps, or inkcaps, or etc., that won’t be subject to frequent change or dispute, in addition to a more precise naming based on current phylogenetic knowledge. It used to be that that stable naming was the genus name, but if that isn’t going to be the case anymore, then there needs to be a substitute.

There’s a lot of things we could be doing
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-09-25 15:46:23 PDT (-0700)

but aren’t (publicizing new names, writing new keys, etc). I am trying to get some of the more basic aspects of this off the ground in a number of ways (websites, workshops, discussion boards that cover nomenclature changes).

But basically I think we’re all going to have to deal with the fact that mushroom taxonomy is kind of inherently difficult, changing, chaotic, hard to stay on top of.

Other groups of organisms suffer the same way, don’t know why we’d be any different.

Hygrocybe was not a good choice for this observation regardless of how difficult or changeable taxonomy is right now, and as for avoiding getting your IDs blasted – that’s not the point… If they’re wrong they’re wrong, and if the name changes, it changes. Just don’t take it personally.

It’s getting…
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-09-25 15:19:14 PDT (-0700)

It’s getting to the point where the names themselves, and the rules of thumb for identifying to genus, are becoming obsolete seemingly every month now. Are serious mycologists actually completely retraining every month? Is there some basis for all of this, or is it mostly just pointless churn? In the meantime what are “mere” observers to do, both to identify as much as they can and to avoid having their tentative IDs publicly blasted? Short of leaving everything as “Fungi sp.”, that is?

The actual differences
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2013-09-25 13:22:27 PDT (-0700)

are a bit more complicated (divergent vs. parallel or interwoven gill trama), nutritional strategy, colors and stature… Things are getting even more complicated as the traditional Hygrocybe are transferred to new or pre-existing bins (Cuphophyllus, Gliophorus, Porpolomopsis)… even the Hygrophorus are getting new genera (Albomagister, etc.).

This one, however, is a good match for Hygrocybe based on color alone. There is substantial size overlap between fruitbodies in the two genera, although in general fruitbodies of Hygrophorus are larger.

“that pesky matter”
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2013-09-25 12:34:44 PDT (-0700)

I hadn’t heard of it, at least the size part. I guess fragility is part of what I meant about the texture, though. Maybe someone else can explain the difference better.

On the other hand …
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-09-25 12:24:00 PDT (-0700)

… there’s that pesky “Hygrocybe = small, fragile; large, robust = Hygrophorus” matter, and also the imprecision of what you wrote, specifically, “wacky textures”. What did you mean, specifically, by “wacky textures”?

Hygrophorus vs Hygrocybe
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2013-09-24 22:44:25 PDT (-0700)

Hygrophorus don’t have super bright red & yellow and wacky textures like this. Check out Hygrocybe punicea…

Why did you vote against Hygrophorus?
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-09-24 21:38:01 PDT (-0700)

I was under the impression that Hygrocybe was created for the small, fragile waxcaps and the large, robust ones were kept in Hygrophorus. This one was quite large, like half my handspan or more, at maturity.

Created: 2013-09-24 19:56:18 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-09-25 13:26:39 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 80 times, last viewed: 2016-10-16 15:11:52 PDT (-0700)
Show Log