Observation 151472: Gymnopilus viridans (Murrill) Hesler
When: 2013-11-07
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Rough spore measurements.

8.03 5.23
7.95 5.56
7.96 5.09
7.15 5.12
7.56 5.47
7.88 4.76
7.14 4.67
8.23 5.74
7.34 4.88
8.30 5.65
8.11 4.99
7.38 5.25
7.37 4.75
7.28 5.20

6.9 [7.5 ; 7.9] 8.5 × 4.5 [5 ; 5.3] 5.8 µm
Q = 1.3 [1.4 ; 1.5] 1.7 ; N = 14 ; C = 95%
Me = 7.7 × 5.2 µm ; Qe = 1.5

Species Lists

Images

383081
383082
383083
384704
384705
450651
450652
458259
Quick spore measurements, Not from print,
458260
Spore ornementation
458261
Basidia
458262
Clamp Connection
458263
Cheilocystidia 800x
458264
Cheilocystidia 800x
458265
Cheilocystidia 800x
458266
Cheilocystidia 800x
458403
Cross section KOH
458404
Pileus trama interwoven KOH
458405
Lamellar trama KOH
458406
Pileus trama interwoven KOH
458414
Cheilocystidia 400x KOH
458415
lamellar crush mount KOH
458416
Gill trama KOH
458417
cross section

Proposed Names

-32% (3)
Recognized by sight: this isn’t viridans.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
caleb…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-22 07:15:53 CEST (+0200)

the spores you posted are way too wide and too ornamented for G. viridans…

im still confused…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-22 07:00:20 CEST (+0200)

photo 18: is definitely NOT the gill trama.
Photo 19: clearly shows a radial pileus trama.

also, that is not bruising on the pileus.

Helsers Monograph
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-22 04:32:38 CEST (+0200)

(6-) 7-8.5 x (4-) 4.5-5

I dont see the problem.
They didnt have measuring software.

Rocky…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-22 02:27:22 CEST (+0200)

the spores aren’t even remotely close in size.
not by Hesler’s measurements and definitely not by Murrill’s…
or, is that not relevant either?

IT’S ALL VERY GOOD!
By: lightworkerpeace (gsharpnolack)
2014-09-21 02:19:14 CEST (+0200)

It’s good, Man. Chill the fuck out.

Your observation stands macroscopically, and microscopically.

Let it stand and update it when you want.

Thanks debbie!
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-21 01:49:56 CEST (+0200)

Your work is wonderful =)

-
I do feel like i have to explain, Its hard to be positive about this observation for viridans , it was only found once and described in seattle on a burnt log there was little material and was described over 100 years ago. The materials and methods back then are far from today, far far from it, so purposing that an elderly man described this one mushroom and found all the features using an old scope and old measuring techniques is an interesting thought, hopefully i can get the type collection!

Im just trying to pave the way instead of putting a name on it now, because we might have to describe it as something new, at the very least neotype. Im doing my very best do produce good work.

and i am heavily supervised this year by professional mycologists so hopefully we can turn those “ok” pictures and micrographs into something really special and bring awareness, because thats what its about for me, just enjoying mushoooming.

dang …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-09-21 01:22:18 CEST (+0200)

all I wanted to say was, nice photo and esp. nice composition. arty AND useful. ;)

Haha I see what you are talking about now.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-21 01:19:16 CEST (+0200)

Forgive my bluntness earlier, it was wisdom tooth fueled impoliteness
But honestly, We know you are just tying to get a reaction out of me, we have had nothing but negative encounters and sarcasm. I dont like it in one of my favorite observations

Like i keep saying for the last while this obs is not being worked on overnight.
I need years, and more collections.

This collection is a trash dump of micrographs just to have some pics uploaded so i can post elsewhere.
This observation is the picture junk drawer for my viridans

Just playing around with oblique illumination methods and such, as you can tell our scopes dont normally do that crazyness.

Excellent observation!
By: lightworkerpeace (gsharpnolack)
2014-09-20 23:21:34 CEST (+0200)

This is an excelllent observation!! You guys rock!!

trolling…???
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-20 22:08:07 CEST (+0200)

haha.

what does that even mean?

is that what you call, politely commenting?
and here, i thought i was being nice and friendly.

i am allowed to comment, am i not?
i mean, i thought that is why you post observations on mushroomobserver.
but, forgive me if i am mistaken…

just becuase, what i say, you do not want to hear…doesn’t make it trolling.

look at how you labeled the micrographs, Caleb.

I never said anything of the sort.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-20 18:30:13 CEST (+0200)

21 and 22 are crush mounts of a gill. So yes gill trama but a very bad representation of it.
17 and 19 is not the cuticle, it is further in, its the context and hyphal elements of the pileus context.

Please stop trolling

lol.
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-20 10:56:34 CEST (+0200)

ok…

so, 22 is the pileus and 21 is the gill trama…gotchya’.

Same viridans collection weve been looking at for years.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-20 08:59:50 CEST (+0200)

You accused me of stealing your work and only using your research to back my own.
Please you stop micromanaging me and let me do my work, it will take way more than a few more micrographs and such to please me. I will be working on this for years, as I have been and each time I look I learn more. Please be patient.

Also the pileus trama is unique and you can see the edge is where it has been sectioned away from the cuticle which is different.

Ventricosus doesnt bruise green blue.. This collection did.

micro…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-20 04:28:09 CEST (+0200)

joust…

photo:

17. cuticle
18. pileus trama
19. cuticle
22. gill trama

any pileocystidia?

Murrill…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-19 22:34:22 CEST (+0200)

described the spores as ferruginous in mass in his original description.
so, it is likely there is no color change…there might just appear to be.
he also states that the spores are “obliquely pointed at one end.”
the spores you posted appear to share this characteristic.

concerning the, “probably not relevant” comment…
it is very relevant.
it separates Hesler’s keys.
i have seen spores in Gymnopilus with no reaction after treatment of both, NH4OH and melzer’s.
until you have looked at every Gymnopilus species on the planet…
you should probably reconsider that opinion or at the very least, read pg. 10 in NASOG.

Ill test them again with a fresh bottle.
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-19 20:36:32 CEST (+0200)

I will also post a micrograph for the melzers,

Sorry im having problems uploading

Probably not relevant
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-09-19 19:43:35 CEST (+0200)

All of the spores in Gymnopilus are probably dextrinoid to some degree. A Melzers reaction may not be immediately noticeable or noticeable at all depending on the ratio of chloral hydrate in the reagent and other factors affecting how effectively the chloral hydrate hydrolyzes the pigments in the spore wall.

spores…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-19 18:50:19 CEST (+0200)

are non-dextrinoid for G. viridans.

Just started the additional workup
By: Caleb Brown (Caleb Brown)
2014-09-19 17:29:55 CEST (+0200)

Havent uploaded all the micrographs yet, there will by cystidia measurements and the spores may be dextrinoid in melzers.

This collection was found about 20 yards from the first collection i made.It was on the same type of dead standing douglas fir.

Im working on a full workup, DNA would be pointless without lots and lots of micro work i feel.

cheilocystidia…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-19 15:37:14 CEST (+0200)

looks right.
measurements would help.
i am assuming there is no pleurocystidia…??
it’s very important to know whether or not the spores are dextrinoid.
the cuticle and caulocystidia are very important as well…

i saw you mention DNA sequencing in the other observation.
while, this will be useful…w/o a complete microscopic workup, it will likely be futile (for identification purposes).
there are no observations of G. viridans listed in GenBank the last time i checked.
so, unless someone has misidentified something…
you will likely not find a match.
if you do, getting access to that collection will be very important.
although, i highly doubt that will be the case.
it will however, be very interesting to see how this collection relates to G. spectabilis, G. ventricosus and G. “aeruginosus” on a molecular level…especially the latter.

spores…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-09-19 09:21:43 CEST (+0200)

dextrinoid?

Created: 2013-11-08 09:46:29 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2014-09-22 19:04:07 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 685 times, last viewed: 2016-12-02 00:09:30 CET (+0100)
Show Log