Observation 185720: Panaeolus papilionaceus var. capitatocystis
When: 2014-10-26
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing on cow dung.

Images

474620
474621
474622
474623
476482
Microscopy: Spores;
476483
Microscopy: Basidia and Pleurocystidia-1;
476484
Microscopy: Basidia and Pleurocystidia-2;
476485
Microscopy: Basidia, Sulphidia(?) and lamellar trama;
476486
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia;
476487
Microscopy: Caulocystidia;
476488
Microscopy: Pileipellis and Stiptipellis.
478010
Microscopy-New data: Veil-1;
478011
Microscopy-New data: Veil-2.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
By: zaca
2014-11-04 05:08:33 WIB (+0700)

I don’t felt confortable with the species name resulting from this observation. Therefore, I searched for more information on the internet. It happens that I found a very realible website where several species of Panaeolus are considered:
http://www.ambmuggia.it/forum/forum/122-panaeolus/.
First I noticed that all the characters I obtained for these specimen: Spores, basidia, cheilocystidia and caulocystidia, fit very well in one of the species considered there, more precisely, on a variety:
Panaeolus papilionaceus var. capitatocystis,
which differs from the type species in the form of cheilocystidia: “more or less closely to utriformi subcilindrici, often with apex subcapitulato, wide (4.4) 5,1-7,3 (8.6) um, sinuous, hyaline” (please look at my photo and compare with those from that website). There was, however, a point where the features that I observed didn’t match with those presented at that website: the pileipellis. I thought that this was related to the place of the cap that I analysed, from the center of pileus. In fact, to observe the veil I must analyse a sample from the margin of pileus, where the remains of the veils are present. I uploaded already some photos of it and now the features observed also match with those given at that website (where there is no mention about the zone of the pileipellis analysed). Therefore, I’m now convinced that this is Panaeolus papilionaceus var. capitatocystis.

I always start …
By: zaca
2014-11-01 08:01:08 WIB (+0700)

the microscopy in water or Amonia (instead of KOH); I have used Amonia in this case; Only after I had other reagent if there is need of some contrast. In the case of sulphidia (in observation 185726) only with amonia one can understand that something is inside the cells but no good perception of what it is; this is emphasized with other reagents.

You don’t really need stains
By: Byrain
2014-11-01 07:48:41 WIB (+0700)

For dark spored genera like Panaeolus or Psathyrella, it might be helpful if you tried viewing the cells in water or KOH only.

“Both P. semiovatus and P. antillarum should have them”
By: zaca
2014-11-01 07:32:04 WIB (+0700)

Maybe this is better to say that to observe. They may exist but was unable to find them. As I told before, this is my first experience with Panaeolus, though I was able to find ABUNDANT sulphidia in my first observation of Panaeolus fimicola, so I know what they look like.
The blue color in the photo is the result of adding a drop of Lactophenol blue to the preparation (I did that with Panaeolus fimicola to observe the sulphidia, though I didn’t present many photos of that, because at the end it seemed to me that Floxine was better from the photographic point of view).

Some of those may be sulphidia
By: Byrain
2014-11-01 07:14:03 WIB (+0700)

What happened to the photo color though? Both P. smiovatus and P. antillarum should have them according to Gerhardt.

Remarks
By: zaca
2014-11-01 07:05:50 WIB (+0700)

I was lucky in finding two or three different species of Panaeolus at a time (see also observation 185720 and observation 185726). Therefore, it is a matter of “novice” (=ignorance) not to give the proper names to the different structures found, but I’m not the only one to commit such imprecisions and I’m in good company (see, e.g. http://www.bioimages.org.uk/html/r149544.htm). Thus, concerning the question by Alan, he is right and what I called Pleurocystidia can well be basidioles (though some forms are stange).
Having started by the microscopy of Panaeolus fimicola, which I believe to be the species of observation 185726, I enjoyed to see the abundance of the so-called Sulphidia presented in those specimens, that are new to me. But that put me alert for the existence of such structures and I looked carefully for them in the microscopy of the material of the other two observations ( this one and observation 185723), without success: the closest I could observe is in the photo labelled “Basidia-Sulphidia(?)-…” and related to observation 185723 no sulphidia was encountered. I will update very soon this last observation with the material from the microscopy.

Remarks
By: zaca
2014-11-01 07:05:50 WIB (+0700)

I was lucky in finding two or three different species at a time (see also observation 185720 and observation 185726). Therefore, it is a matter of “novice” (=ignorance) not to give the proper names to the different structures found, but I’m not the only one to commit such imprecisions and I’m in good company (see, e.g. http://www.bioimages.org.uk/html/r149544.htm). Thus, concerning the question by Alan, he is right and what I called Pleurocystidia can well be basidioles (though some forms are stange).
Having started by the microscopy of Panaeolus fimicola, which I believe to be the species of observation 185726, I enjoyed to see the abundance of the so-called Sulphidia presented in those specimens, that are new to me. But that put me alert for the existence of such structures and I looked carefully for them in the microscopy of the material of the other two observations ( this one and observation 185723), without success: the closest I could observe is in the photo labelled “Basidia-Sulphidia(?)-…” and related to observation 185723 no sulphidia was encountered. I will update very soon this last observation with the material from the microscopy.

Veil.
By: Byrain
2014-10-31 22:48:21 WIB (+0700)

Panaeolus antillarum doesn’t have a veil, I agree with Alan that those are basidioles, Panaeolus do not have pleurocystidia, these should have sulphidia though.

Pleurocystidia
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-10-31 22:26:01 WIB (+0700)

I didn’t think this species was supposed to have pleurocystidia – is it possible that what you are seeing are basidioles?

Created: 2014-10-27 06:33:10 WIB (+0700)
Last modified: 2014-11-04 05:03:28 WIB (+0700)
Viewed: 112 times, last viewed: 2016-12-02 08:59:38 WIB (+0700)
Show Log