Observation 153579: Psathyrella (Fr.) Quél.
When: 2013-11-24
Collection location: Braga, Portugal [Click for map]
No herbarium specimen

Notes: On wood chips. White rhizomorphs on stem. Subdecurrent gills. Strongly hygrophanous.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Elsa
By: Byrain
2013-11-28 13:23:41 EST (-0500)

Even with microscopy I’m doubtful we can id this, Smith’s keys for this group just don’t go anywhere, but there are less species in Europe so maybe you have a little more chance… The whole group is in serious need of revision, as Danny says there is no point in pretending we can put a name on this when we probably need even more than just macro and micro. To be blunt, arbitrarily applying names to this group is a little insulting to those who actually want to understand these and those who have spent time developing severe headaches working with them.

But no, I would not even reply to your observations if I did not like you and yes, I have considered mass changing all the P. gracilis & similar observations to either just Psathyrella or Psathyrella subgenus Psathyrella, but that sounds like a big headache in itself… I’d rather hope I can just reply to a few of these observations and everyone else can change their own observations if need be.

Also if you really want to id these, there are things you can be doing, more pictures of many more specimens in all stages of maturity. What do the immature gills look like? Any staining? (Pink staining is used in Smith’s keys, I’m not really convinced its a useful feature though) Any smell or taste? Did you collect numerous specimens for study? Sure, even with this we probably won’t have a good name, but it will certainly help whoever wants to work on this in the future.

By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-11-28 12:37:15 EST (-0500)

It’s not easy to understand your english Danny. You must be something between politician or writer :). What I know is that you privileges the accuracy. I couldn’t disagree with you. So, I believe in your opinion the other observations with the title “Psathyrella corrigis” or P. gracilis that lacks microscopy, should be corrected, right? I hope so.

taxonomic realities
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-11-28 09:36:36 EST (-0500)

and “fairness”/user-friendliness are often mutually exclusive. the site has seen much greater naming upheavals than this in the pursuit of some semblance of taxonomic accuracy. if there’s no way to sight ID something, there’s no point in pretending that certain macro characters will make it ID-able to species.

Any observations which contain P. gracilis as a name proposal will always be searchable by clicking the “Similar Observations” link on the P. gracilis name page.

Byrain, you are one of the lucky guys here…
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-11-28 09:10:31 EST (-0500)

and or you do love me or you hate me… I don’t know :) I prefer to believe that you share your interests with me. The fact is that I, as most of us, can only identify macroscopically. As micro analysis is very expensive for me as for you or anyone which has the means, probably no one will help me and the others. So, unless you change all of the “Psathyrella gracilis” obs. which have no micro analysis, you shouldn’t do with mine too. I think you should not do it, because MO would be perfect for a just dozen people… We could write “Macroscopic ID” for example, only because it’s not fair… as most of the internet ID’s lacks microscopy.

Doubtful
By: Byrain
2013-11-27 20:54:15 EST (-0500)

Any name can be applied to species around P. gracilis without very detailed macroscopic, microscopic, and maybe even DNA information. I’m not sure we can even prove this is one of those species without micro…

The group is a taxonomic black hole…

Created: 2013-11-24 16:45:22 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2013-11-28 10:22:41 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 61 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 20:25:34 EDT (-0400)
Show Log