Observation 159557: Psathyrella corrugis group
When: 2014-02-11
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Growing on the ground/debris alongside Tubaria furfuracea.
Caps up to 1.9 cm across and hygrophanous.
Stipes up to 7.2 cm long and 0.2 cm thick, fragile and hollow.
Spore print blackish brown.
Spores ~ 12.3-14.5 X 6.0-7.0 microns, smooth with an apical pore.

Proposed Names

55% (1)
Recognized by sight: Doubtful you can apply this name from only spores, even with more complete micro I’m not sure you can apply a name here… Just take a look at Smith’s subgenus Psathyrella keys and you will understand…
28% (1)
Recognized by sight: Striate cap nearly to the umbo.
Used references: North American Species of Psathyrella
Based on microscopic features: No pleurocystidia & large spores.
83% (1)
Eyes3
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
Thanks.
By: Byrain
2014-02-12 11:58:46 PST (-0800)

But you might want to try Jonathan Frank instead, you can message him through MO, his username is jonagus. I’m overwhelmed with specimens right now and I would probably just end up sending it to him for DNA analysis anyways.

OK Byrain, I’m drying what I have
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2014-02-12 11:40:54 PST (-0800)

and will let you play with them.
My attention span is fairly short when dealing with certain genera.

Pileus color
By: Byrain
2014-02-12 11:39:22 PST (-0800)

Does not seem to match now that I have re-read the description….

“Pileus 1.5-3.5 cm broad, campanulate to umbonate, surface striate nearly to
the umbo, in dried material somewhat sulcate along the margin but not typically
plicate-striate, subhyaline to whitish, becoming grayish and when dried more or
less pale ochraceous-buff. Context membranous and fragile.”

“The pallid pileus when young, presence of
brachybasidioles in the hymenium, and the slight differentiation between the
cuticular and tramal hyphal cells are distinctive. The cuticle of the pileus is about
2 cells deep. Psathyrella badiophylla Romagn. is close to this species.”

Psathyrella debilis type
By: Byrain
2014-02-12 10:44:56 PST (-0800)

Macro images of the P. debilis type collection can be seen here.

http://mycoportal.org/...

If there are no pleurocystidia…
By: Byrain
2014-02-12 09:33:15 PST (-0800)

we can be rather sure this is not P. corrugis and we should be looking in Psathyrella subgenus Psathyrella sect. Subatratae series Subatratae because of the large spores. In the chance you missed the pleurocystidia, there are many more options… This is the part of the key with species like Psathyrella conopilea (= Parasola conopilus) & P. atrospora meaning it would be helpful to know if there are setae on the pileus, however I don’t think it really looks like those so I would guess it would be absent. Assuming there are no setae on the pileus, this seems to key straight to P. debilis which has spores the right shape and size, however it would be useful to double check for pleurocystidia, see if you can find brachybasidioles, and to look at the pileipellis, even knowing how many cells deep the cuticle is could help. Also, there is the issue of this name being only known from the type location in Kansas…

If you can, please save as many specimens as you can for this collection, thanks for the extra micro! :)

Salvaged a cap and added some micro shots..
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2014-02-12 07:38:33 PST (-0800)

Found some cheilocystidia that was in the range of 25-30 X 7-8 microns and narrowly utriform. Did not see any pleurocystidia.
Haven’t tried to tackle the Smith tome as it’s too early to start drinking.

Not a definate ID…
By: Byrain
2014-02-11 21:45:48 PST (-0800)

More like a shot in the dark and its a shame you didn’t seem to save the specimens or do additional micro, even if its really hard to ID these now, with lots of work we might actually be able to in the future, but I guess its hopeless now…

Bluntly put, without cystidial information you won’t even be able to get to the key with P. corrugis, even the subgenus may not be certain without cheilocystidia. And I would change the names on mykoweb’s site if I could, his pictures could probably a dozen+ different things (That is a conservative number) which is almost certainly not the same thing pictured here. Its really unfortunate that people who do not care about these fungi feel its okay to continue to spread ignorance about them.

Lastly, to be clear this is not about being technically correct, this is about a black hole that deserves better than arbitrarily applied names.

Yes, I did realize there really isn’t a definitive ID
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2014-02-11 21:09:16 PST (-0800)

possible. That’s why I didn’t do additional micros.
However, I’m from the school that likes to at least use names that are in common usage, at least locally. I figured if MykoWeb can use that name…why not me.
But I have no problem with folks who desire to be more technically correct.

This is how…
By: Byrain
2014-02-11 21:03:59 PST (-0800)

we end up with recent mushroom books that have Psathyrella atrospora pictures labeled as P. gracilis.

Created: 2014-02-11 20:36:02 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2016-09-02 17:50:03 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 72 times, last viewed: 2016-11-23 13:23:51 PST (-0800)
Show Log