Observation 187580: Coprinopsis lignicola Rockefeller nom. prov.

When: 2014-11-07

Collection location: Aptos, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Christian (Christian Schwarz)

No specimen available

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight: The west coast version of Psathyrella ulignicola has been sequenced and the ITS region is 91% similar (647/710) to the holotype of P. uliginicola. See http://scmycoflora.org/sequencing/specimen.php?project=6 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/557116293. This species falls within Coprinopsis.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
That I can do
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 10:08:00 PST (-0800)

I took a spore print of the specimens that this observation refers to – it was distinctly brownish (about like an Inocybe spore deposit).

My interpretation of the specimens that Alan sent to you runs more or less like this: Occasionally fruitbodies of species in Psathyrellaceae produce pale spores. Germ pores can be tough to detect in lighter-spored taxa, and are hardest to detect on hyaline spores. This might explain why there was no apparent germ pore on the specimens you scoped.

I will try to post the image of the spore print (if it’s still on my camera) later today, and if I can swing it, a photo of the spores next week, since I’ll be busy or travelling until Tuesday.

By: Byrain
2014-11-18 09:00:52 PST (-0800)

The methods Smith used to delimit species, such a drastic color different would be important and Psathyrellaceae don’t usually demonstrate such drastic changes upon changing. The changes in the context color are usually if not always more subtle. Also Smith did not poorly describe the spores for P. uliginicola. The description is very clear as are his illustrations, which indicate it should have brown spores with an apparent germ pore. The species in CA I have scoped since Alan was nice enough to send me specimens certainly has hyaline spores without an apparent germ pore. It is possible Smith mixed up the description, P. luteopallida would have matching spores and is in the same section of the key, but differs a lot macroscopically. We would need to look at type material to know if this happened though.

The point is that P. uliginicola is a untrustworthy name, it would be cool if chose another one and can you please spend some more time photographing, collecting, working on this next time you find it? At least send it to someone that will.

If you think the mushrooms
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 08:44:50 PST (-0800)

depicted in those two observations are different, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Context color changes dramatically in Psathyrellaceae with age and moisture content.

I assume you mean the “hyaline” spores thing in the Smith text? I write that off as spurious (as I do with a lot of other fungi that were oddly or poorly described by the original authors).

Using just the genus or even the family obscures the fact that most of us have a clear morphological concept of the mushrooms we are referring to when we use this name, which is why I continue using it.

EVERY mushroom could turn out to be undescribed, or contain multiple cryptic taxa. I have yet to see any good arguments to suggesy that with this species.

By: Byrain
2014-11-18 08:37:40 PST (-0800)

You are sidestepping the facts…

Fact, the spores do not match Smith’s description.
Fact, we have images of two of these with completely different context color, if they are not different I would love to see someone pull those collections out and demonstrate it.


We should use just genus or maybe even family for these since the taxon(s) could very well be undescribed and the genus is uncertain pending more DNA results.

Edit: Duplicate comment deleted.

This does not
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 08:22:44 PST (-0800)

qualify for “Imageless” status.
You have not proved to me, or anybody else, that there is multiple Psathryella uliginicola-like taxa, nor have you given us much clarity on what you mean when you say the “true” P. uliginicola.
Your insistence on changing my observations that serve a real purpose for me an others (who know what we mean when we say P. uliginicola, even if it does turn out to be a species complex, at which point, all the observation without sufficient data to assign to one or the other can be assigned to a “group” level name) is really annoying and actually makes the site worse.

We probably have more than one of these.
By: Byrain
2014-11-18 08:16:01 PST (-0800)

And according to Alan at least one of them is really a Coprinopsis, which is interesting because other species from the same key have also been moved to Coprinopsis (C. marcescibilis). The ones that have been scoped are probably not the real P. uliginicola.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-17 21:47:08 PST (-0800)

the proposed rules for imageless have not been in place for very long, I am not used to changing my confidence level to “i’d Call it That” to avoid the “Sect 3” Imageless rule (which I think should be amended). It’s starting to feel a bit dumb though to go chase down intentionally imageless observations that you are now deciding need to be labeled imageless. It’s like a fruitless cat-and-mouse… Any reason you chose these?

Created: 2014-11-07 16:45:13 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2017-01-05 20:31:57 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 71 times, last viewed: 2017-06-19 04:58:54 PDT (-0700)
Show Log