Observation 147926: Parasola conopilus (Fr.) Örstadius & E. Larss.
When: 2013-10-06
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Hello.
By: Europe-coprinologist
2013-10-21 15:11:35 CDT (-0400)

Hello Byrain.

Thanks for the intervention. Never heard talk of these taxa in Europe. ¿Has anyone done genetic analysis with Psathyrella atrospora and compared the sequences with those of Parasola conopilus and auricoma?

Obviously Psathyrella atrospora should be a variety or form within P. conopilus or recombine Parasola atrospora taxa.

If no genetic analysis, you should do it and report the results. If you want and send me some samples to Europe I do genetic sequence.

EC
By: Byrain
2013-10-21 13:53:27 CDT (-0400)

Thanks for the detailed reply! And there is no need to worry about the quality of your English, its good enough to understand what you are saying and you can always use your native language if you need to. With online translators most of us should still be able to figure out what you are saying. :)

And I agree with your assessment that this looks like Parasola conopilus, but without more info we can’t have a 100% correct identification. Still, I think North America has a lot more Psathyrellaceae than Europe and we should still consider other species in Smith’s Psathyrella subgenus Psathyrella. Some examples would be P. rudericola which should be similar, but with no setae on the pileus and maybe P. circellatipes? Do you have any experience with that taxon in Europe? In California I think many if not all of our “P. conopilus” are actually P. atrospora which you can find some observations of on MO.

Byrain and Andrew
By: Europe-coprinologist
2013-10-21 08:25:57 CDT (-0400)

Hello.

Byrain , sorry for not using either voting criteria . I do not speak well in English language and my language translation yet “as if” is like " sure" , for this reason my mistake . Thanks for correcting me .
I also know that without a complete study and a detailed description can not ensure 100 % good identification. But in this forum, most users only show a macroscopic picture , then we help as we can. We can not do more .

Andrew . The correct name is Parasola conopilus, Parasola conopila is formed a “conus” and “pilus” ( in Greek ) are two nouns, not adjective, and therefore does not have to match the name of the genre. I know that others have used and said that this epithet is wrong but it is not, many authors know the taxonomy but not the code of nomenclature, errors are common.. Both basionym conopilus Agaricus Fr : Fr . as their first combination in a feminine gender and as Psathyra conopilus ( Fr.: Fr ) P. Kumm , was with the epithet conopilus also Parasola conopilus combination ( Fr.: Fr ) Örstadius & E. Larss .

The reasons why this species is located Parasola today , is because the DNA analysis show that belongs to the clade P. auricoma , although it is known that their morphological characters are more coming to Psathyrella . The family Psathyrellaceae gives us many problems to cladogram and phenogram match .

For example … cordisporus Coprinus group is very well characterized morphologically in Coprinopsis, but genetic analyzes in Psathyrella puts us, for that reason we have not yet recombined in Coprinopsis name. How to explain this to the public?.

! sorry for speaking poor English language!

Yea
By: Byrain
2013-10-20 20:59:15 CDT (-0400)

I was curious about Europe-Coprinologist’s votes and reasoning.

As far as Parasola conopilus vs. Psathyrella conopilus/conopilea I agree with Parasola, but I still think it could be a different Psathyrella species. Unless EC has some good reason for thinking its not? Smith also described other species that look similar with different micro differences, but I’m no much use in telling you which name is right without microscopy :)

I guess I had too much to drink again :-)
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2013-10-20 19:32:29 CDT (-0400)

And Byrain’s comments were directed to Europe-Coprinologist. Oh, well – I hope the comments I posted will help sort this mess out :-) And by the way, I just renamed it to Parasola conopilus My friends be elated and my enemies tremble :-#

Reply to Byrain
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2013-10-20 19:17:55 CDT (-0400)

I don’t understand your question. I put the name P.conopilus in there and voted “promising” on it. Gilled mushrooms are not my strong side, and my only guidance in choosing P.conopilus was nearly exact match of my photos to the one in the book Mushrooms of Northeast North America by G.Barron. In general, I haven’t voted “as if” for a long time, so I don’t understand what you’re referring to :-( Actually, in that book they call it P.conopilea . Here is a page from Kuo talking on the subject:
http://www.mushroomexpert.com/parasolaconopilus.html
Kuo’s images are very different from mine; the ones at First Nature are very similar:
http://www.first-nature.com/fungi/parasola-conopilus.php
As far as Psathyrella versus Parasola, I’ll go with Kuo’s judgment since he is usually current on these issues.

Europe-coprinologist
By: Byrain
2013-10-20 10:38:18 CDT (-0400)

Do you mind sharing what gives it away to you that this is not Parasola conopilus? :)

Edit: Actually, all your recent votes are “As if” votes, did you mean to say this is what they are?

Spore print black. These are sizeable mushrooms – some are almost 10 inches tall.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2013-10-10 21:46:11 CDT (-0400)

Created: 2013-10-10 21:33:37 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-10-21 13:53:53 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 289 times, last viewed: 2017-04-30 11:00:23 CDT (-0400)
Show Log