|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I’ll try to improve both, photohgraphy and microscopy.
thank you for clearing up the colours of the stipe!
the microscopic characters – especially the broad pleurocystidia – fit P. romellii well.
The pileipellis cells should be rather loosely organized – not stuck together as in P. phlebophorus.
You are quite right about the placement of this species (compare P. salicinus in another section of the genus).
I din´t understood if you refer to the specimen in this observation or to both this and that in observation 161193.
I think that came to P. romellii based on the microscopy and the yelowish colour on the stem, which are not well documented in the photos
(I had a problem with the camera and I think it is malfunctioning now). I´m not used to do microscopy on Pluteus spp., but seems clear that in belongs to Section Eucellulodermini. I did the microscopy of this specimen to and the data are similar to that of observation 161193. Can you give me some hint about the (group of) species?
the colours are all so non-romellii that it is hard for me to recognize that species in these pictures.
And for me, romellii is a more stocky species, with a relatively short stipe.
Created: 2014-03-11 10:19:28 MDT (-0600)
Last modified: 2014-03-11 10:20:19 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 37 times, last viewed: 2017-06-17 23:51:04 MDT (-0600)