In the field this specimen looked somewhat similar to the one in observation 179898, so the genus Gymnopilus came to my mind, but is was a bit smaller (~3 cm for the cap diameter) and thus Galerina was another possibility. Going to the microscopy, the spores are also very similar to the other, in form, dimensions and reaction to melzer, also lacks pleurocystidia, thus I thought it was identified. But the similarities, ended here, because it almost lacks cheilocystidia (only a few dispersed I could see), has some strange rounded cells in the lamella edge (see the photo in the bottom left of the correspondent set) and the pileipellis is also very different, a cutis of narrow hiphae. I was not able to find any other alternative, at least to the genus.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Created: 2014-10-02 15:02:28 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-10-02 15:20:20 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 18 times, last viewed: 2017-06-18 21:42:47 PDT (-0700)