Observation 18260: Camarophyllus (Fr.) P. Kumm.
When: 2009-01-18
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Found under in an area dominated by deciduous oak (not certain which one). However, there were some redwoods near by and directly uphill from this observation.

Proposed Names

57% (5)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Gills deeply decurrent.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Ok, that makes more sense now — I love peaches…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-02-12 23:12:42 CET (+0100)

Thank you for the elaboration — I still see more virgineus on the
photo than a faded out pratensis, but there is a bit of peachiness
indeed (yet at age virgineus turns yellow-ochre too, but not nearly as
soft and uniform). Regardless, I take your word for it. A faded out
pratensis is a lot more plausible than a previously unseen
Camarophyllus. Between virgineus and pretensis I’d choose the sp.

D.
Not white
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2009-02-12 22:49:54 CET (+0100)

At least not entirely white…when Nathan and I saw it we both thought of a faded C. pratensis. You can see some of the pratensis peachy color in the gills in Nathans photo.

Without mushroom in had and scope, C. sp. is as far as I can reasonably go.

Can I hear more substance/details?
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-02-12 22:33:27 CET (+0100)

Ok, Mike, very interesting indeed, but may I ask for a more
diagnostically substantiated analysis of why not virgineus? I’d
like to learn what characters didn’t fit as I’ve been interested
in this group too. If something new and unusual, I’d rather learn
about it thorugh your observation.

About an year ago I studied about 13-15 collections in search of
explanation for the significant number of odd-shaped members of
that species that used to fool me all the time — there aren’t
many choices actually. Even C. niveus has been synonymized with
C. virgineus. Neither the Agaricales of CA, nor the general
literature offer many choices for large white Camarophyllus.

Of course, whether these species are s.s. the European material
is beyond the scope of this thread, as in that case we should
probably delete the majority of names we utilize in California.

D.
Not C. virgineus
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2009-02-12 21:49:19 CET (+0100)

Dimi’s photos look like my concept of C. virgineus. This specimen, which I examined first hand, did not look like C. virgineus. I called it C. sp. when I saw it.

Like a virgin — not many other choices on a large Camarophyllus.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-02-12 18:09:29 CET (+0100)

Nathan, I tend to yell at people for rushing to species all too soon,
but sometimes you might wanna trust your friends a bit. We see this
one a lot. There are not many choices on a Camarophyllus that large.

As far as it being Camarophyllus, I’d ditch the microscope (in this
case only!) — we can see the anastomosing/intervenose gills from a
mile away, which are quite diagnostic in this case. The yellowing
on the cap and edges at age is very typical too.

Here is my collection of photographs:

http://mushroomhobby.com/...

D.
Happy to call it Camarophyllus
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2009-02-12 16:53:42 CET (+0100)

I tend to avoid using Camarophyllus unless I’ve checked the gill trama (or I recognize the species for sure), but in this case it seems reasonable. Assigning it to a species I’m even more reluctant to do. I don’t think of C. virgineus ending up looking this decurrent and given the somewhat unusual habitat I’d like more evidence before assigning a species name.

No specimen
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2009-02-12 07:59:02 CET (+0100)

This collection was in very poor condition when it got back to my lab, so it was tossed rather than preserved.

Created: 2009-02-12 05:44:44 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2009-02-12 05:44:44 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 179 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 08:43:04 CEST (+0200)