Notes: Spores 17.2 × 8.8 μm.
(Recorded units on drawing are in units, conversion to microns = 1 : 0.96 at 1000x).
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.10||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
…on all counts. C. tenera has been overused. I’ve done it too. I believe that we have a few undescribed Conocybe, we need to start taking good notes and compare findings in order to establish good species concepts between us, at least.
Nice drawings Christian!D.
If you are going to look at anything under the scope for a Conocybe, you can’t get away with looking at the caulocystidia at the apex of the stipe. Where are those drawings? I think that C. tenera is overused in CA, I think mostly because of the key in Arora, where he (for good reason) simplifies little brown jobs, and a host of indignities a swept together under that name there.
For the striations, there is striate, and there is striate, I would look at the few photos of C. tenera here and compare with some of my photos of Galerina. Erin is correct, most of these guys are hygrophanous, and once they’ve dried out there isn’t much to look at in the cap features. I find that for most cases, (not all) Conocybe are striate but not dramatically, not like the tiger stripes on the moss dwelling Galerinas.
Anyway, need drawings on the caulocystidia… Nice photos of the spores. Your scope seems to do better getting photos of the spores. At 1000x times I find it hard at times to get a photo in focus, and have to take a few adjusting the focal plane until I get something I can find acceptable.
there’s always another bar, just around the corner.
Ok, that’s what I began to suspect, thanks for the confirmation CureCat. I’ll go see if I can collect fresher ones (and I’ll get A. Rita a good photo, too).
As far as the striations, I urge people to consider whether the pileus was hydrated or dry, and opaque when they checked for the feature. So often the striations are only evident when the cap is still wet and translucent, and disappear after the hygrophany has paled and turned the pileus opaque.
Sorry! I realized I didn’t have a photo after I took it out of the dryer.
In general, you’re right about measuring more spores to attain statistical significance. The reason
I only measured a few spores was to get an idea of whether they were close to the published range – I would only spend more time with a Conocybe if something appeared “out of the ordinary”…
…and now that I actually check, these look to be larger than the true C. tenera, which is also supposed to have a striate cap.
Damnit. Now I actually have to work on a little brown jobbie. I’ll check for lecythiform caulocystidia – pictures to come.
esp. if it’s a particularly nice looking conocybe. or are you an equal opportunity illustrator, LBJs and all?
nice work, but not enuf spores measured!!! ;)
Created: 2009-02-23 01:47:40 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2009-02-23 01:47:40 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 186 times, last viewed: 2016-03-21 11:03:20 CET (+0100)