Observation 187220: Agaricales sensu lato

When: 2014-11-02

Collection location: Ricketts Glen State Park, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]

Who: Dave W (Dave W)

No specimen available

Several MO observations from northeastern NA show what appear to be the same species as these, with high-confidence accompanying “Psilocybe caerulipes” proposals. So I believe these represent a species of Psilocybe. But the species described in Audubon as Psilocybe caerulipes clearly does not fit this collection. Aside from macro-diffrences (size, stature, color) the spores from this collection are significantly larger than what is reported in Audubon.

It looked to me like there was a small amount of bluing on the lower stipe of the larger one seen here.

Unnamed species? Wrong genus.

Growing adjacent and attached to a well-decomposed mossy log… virtual humus. Same exact spot (log/humus) as obs 185988 . The two mushrooms seen in this obs were hidden under fallen leaves.

Proposed Names

-13% (2)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features: Spores approximately 9-13 × 6-7.
-29% (1)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features: Spores match.
10% (4)
Recognized by sight
56% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
No bluing observed in these.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-11-09 20:04:57 WAT (+0100)

This collection made last year.

Almost certainly the same species as obs 222120.

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-11-09 19:35:30 WAT (+0100)

What are the cheilocystidia like? I don’t see any blue staining.

These are the same as obs 185988.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-11-04 13:56:08 WAT (+0100)

Collected from the exact same 0.25 square yard. My initial impression was to suggest Hypholoma. Upon comparing this with several P. caerulipes obese made in northeastern NA, I became convinced these are the same as a few of those obses. But I think some of what has been called P. caerulipes (often with multiple high-confidence votes) is not what Lincoff had described in Audubon. So I’m wondering if this obs represents a species of Psilocybe to which the name caerulipes has commonly been misapplied.

The only other thing that comes to my mind is Leratiomyces. I generally see L. squamosus at this collection site, but not this year. Cap surface on L. squamosus is different than with the ones in this obs, but other traits are similar. Spore size/shape matches L. squamosus.

Looks too big for P. caerulipes
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-11-04 09:16:46 WAT (+0100)

I am not sure which genus this is.

Created: 2014-11-04 04:20:40 WAT (+0100)
Last modified: 2018-01-26 14:49:20 WAT (+0100)
Viewed: 183 times, last viewed: 2018-03-05 05:33:13 WAT (+0100)
Show Log