Observation 146777: Helotiales Nannf. ex Korf & Lizon
When: 2013-09-27
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

31% (2)
Recognized by sight
31% (2)
Recognized by sight
31% (2)
Recognized by sight: the species ID obtained when American material of what was thought to be B. citrina was submitted to GenBank
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
-2% (2)
Recognized by sight
31% (2)
Recognized by sight: difficult to distinguish macroscopically from B. citrina, differing primarily in spore morphology.
28% (1)
Recognized by sight: easily confused with Bisporella in the absence of microscopy
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Well, I’m still wondering about…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-06 09:12:42 CST (-0500)

B. confluens, because I haven’t been able to find any info on this species; just a few photos (some of which I suspect may actually show B. citrina…!)

Byrain, awhile back I ran into this same type issue with the small turquoise cups (only one species according to some guides) and Alan took the opportunity to suggest a scope-upgrade to a particular model. I’ll spend some time this winter deciding what to buy.

Danny, thanks for taking the time to consider my arguments and update information relevant to this obs. I think we have reached the point where no more progress is possible on this ID. I still believe my obs most likely represents B. citrina. But I have been thoroughly convinced that, in the absence of additional info, I should refrain from calling it that.

Finally, I submit a general comment regarding my experience here on MO these past few years. When I first joined, a number of my proposals were downgraded in the absence of ANY explanation. This really got under my skin, and predictably, my posted comments occasionally took on a rather testy tone. There’s always going to be some tension when amateurs and professionals attempt to discuss fungi. But a discussion like this one represents a significant improvement over “could be”…. period.

Good detective work
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-05 23:39:21 CST (-0500)

I’m not in a position to do much follow up at the moment, but if everything you say is true, Helotiaceae would be an appropriate name for things which can somehow be confirmed to belong to either Phaeohelotium or Bisporella. I’m not sure what authority to trust on the familial placement of some if these genera, but Helotiales appears to encompass everything we’re discussing. Perhaps Hans-Otto or Nicolas can comment.

Dave
By: Byrain
2013-12-05 23:36:35 CST (-0500)

When are you getting a scope? You could make good use of it! It would be nice if we could get at least several of these yellow cup fungi observations scoped and identified properly with help of the nice people at ascofrance so that we can understand the possibilities better. Also, h.baral has lots of nice illustrations of asci at the end of his paper which he linked and are worth looking at. Unfortunately I don’t speak German so I can’t read it and its not so easy to copy/paste it into google translate…

And I think “Discomycetes” is currently the best name proposed, its clear there is more than one small yellow cup fungus on wood which are difficult to distinguish macroscopically and are also in entirely different families.

Lifted from a comment…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-05 23:03:44 CST (-0500)

by h.baral, regarding another of these controversial cup posts, “The most important character is the shape of the amyloid apical ring of the ascus (viewed in the dead state): Calycina-type in Bisporella, and Hymenoscyphus-type in Phaeohelotium.”

On the other hand, Oluna and Adolf Cesca write, “If I collect Bisporella, I just measure the spores.” The reliability of this criterion appears to be supported by the high level of confidence assigned to the B. citrina proposal in the following post.
http://mushroomobserver.org/128098?q=1fMMa
The basis appears to be spore size/shape.

The main reason for any potential doubt seems to result from the very close resemblance of B. citrina to Hymenoscyphus monticola (= Phaeohelotium flavum). The only source which I have found that indicates habitat for the latter is Fungipedia, which lists habitat as “Quercus branches in very wet areas.” Interestingly, the photos I have found (including… http://mushroomobserver.org/50863?q=1fPNI) which allegedly depict H. monticola show a fungus fruiting on mossy ground. There is no oak in the area where I made the collection seen in this obs (146777).

Spore lengths for the two species overlap on the high end of B. citrina and the low end of H. monticola, with each range of length sufficiently large to expect that viewing a spore sample would be sufficient to separate the two.

Bisporella sulfurina fruits on Pyrenomycetes.

The Calycellina photos I have found show a wrinkled/warted fungus which does not much resemble what is seen in 146777.

I have found nothing about genus Calycella.

I have found no information regarding B. confluens.

Thus, according to info I have found, one may confidently claim that the fungus seen here (146777) represents a classification significantly more specific than Discomycetes (= “cup fungus”)… either B. citrina or H. monticola.

Okay, Danny.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-05 07:46:34 CST (-0500)

Having a few species names to research provides me with the opportunity to learn a few new things, and to respond as per specifics.

Dave
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-05 00:46:05 CST (-0500)

see latest name proposals

None of the alternative names suggested…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-05 00:03:57 CST (-0500)

are specific. IMO, if one proposes, with a high degree of confidence, that a given obs does not represent X, and the object documented within the obs exhibits multiple features generally associated with X, then one should provide an alternative to X which is known to exhibit these same features.

Certainly, there are some species IDs that require micro analysis, or perhaps even molecular analysis. On the other hand, there are species for which examples consistently exhibit distinctive macro/habitat features that lend credence to IDs based solely upon these features. I’m not convinced of the usefulness of painting the taxonomic landscape with broad strokes such as “ascomycota may only be IDed microscopically.”

other possibilities
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-04 01:42:50 CST (-0500)

some other possibilities include other speices of Bisporella than B. citrina — which is erroneously listed in many NA guides as the only yellow cup fungus (not unlike Scutellinia scutellata) — Phaeohelotium, Hymenoscyphus, Calycina and Calycellina. micro is required to get this genus to sp., a truism for much of the ascomycota.

Danny, are there more specific possibilities?
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-03 23:54:57 CST (-0500)

These tightly clustered tiny lemon-yellow wood-inhabiting cups seem pretty distinctive. Hymenoscyphus monticola seems somewhat similar, but from what info I have managed to find, this seems to be more commonly terrestrial. Audubon mentions other look-alikes as favoring different habitat.

Created: 2013-09-29 22:29:13 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-12-06 09:13:11 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 202 times, last viewed: 2016-09-23 18:19:48 CDT (-0400)
Show Log