Observation 188835: Panaeolus papilionaceus group
When: 2014-11-15
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing on dung.
Several hypotheses here, including Panaeolus antillarum, P. papilionaceus, P. semiovatus and maybe others.

Images

482920
482921
482922
482923
484182
Microscopy: Spores;
484183
Microscopy: Basidia;
484184
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia;
484185
Microscopy: Caulocystidia;
484186
Microscopy: Pileipellis.

Proposed Names

86% (1)
Eye3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I’m at a complete loss…
By: Byrain
2014-11-26 02:08:02 AST (+0300)

how you are having so much difficulty understanding this…

Maybe you should try e-mailing Alan asking if he is interested in adding this collection to his phylogenetic tree.

We really live in different worlds!
By: zaca
2014-11-26 01:53:37 AST (+0300)

Do you think that these explanations are enough?
Florida, Italy and Washington, Italy and Mexico are points in a map. Do they have another meaning?

He did explain it…
By: Byrain
2014-11-26 01:44:46 AST (+0300)

“/papilionaceus clade 1 – Contains Galeropsis desetorum, in addition to Panaeolus papilionaceus collections from Florida and Italy
/papilionaceus clade 2 – Contains P. papilionaceus-like species from Washington, Italy and Mexico”

Without DNA evidence we can not know which one of these clades your observation would fall under and without more work on those collections or others with DNA we still have more work ahead of us to figure out what the real P. papilionaceus is. The bottom line is that DNA evidence has shown there is more than one P. papilionaceus in Europe.

Links
By: zaca
2014-11-26 00:31:39 AST (+0300)

Finally, I could access the link provided by Byrain in a previous message
http://www.shroomery.org/…;
My first thought was: Ok, “someone” give some results about his work; But, what credit can we give to it? Since “someone” is one of our partners on MO, Alan Rockefeller, maybe he can explain to us his work and where can we find it. In particular, what in his work is relevant for this observation, and by extension to similar observations?

RE:You’re being obtuse.
By: zaca
2014-11-22 18:50:02 AST (+0300)

That’s my usual state. Coming from certain people I use it as a compliment.
The matter is that was can not open the link you supply, my compute doesn’t permit!

Look at the link I provided.
By: Byrain
2014-11-22 18:44:02 AST (+0300)

You’re being obtuse.

what are the clades?
By: zaca
2014-11-22 12:25:16 AST (+0300)

If you refer to varieties of P. Papilionaceus, I know at least three. But these all belong to the same species and are not a group of species.

There are two different P. papilionaceus clades in Europe
By: Byrain
2014-11-22 04:59:28 AST (+0300)
But only one exist here:
By: zaca
2014-11-22 04:38:00 AST (+0300)

Panaeolus papilionaceus. Never saw a reference to the others in Europe. Undescribed are … undescribed.

-
By: Byrain
2014-11-22 04:27:33 AST (+0300)

P. papilionaceus, P. rubricaulis, P. venezolanus and probably some undescribed species known from DNA, see here. http://www.shroomery.org/...

What are the members of
By: zaca
2014-11-22 04:19:42 AST (+0300)

Panaeolus papilionaceus group?

-
By: Byrain
2014-11-22 04:12:42 AST (+0300)

P. antillarum and P. semiovatus have less pigment and should have sulphidia.

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2014-11-22 03:21:56 AST (+0300)

Created: 2014-11-17 23:24:05 AST (+0300)
Last modified: 2014-11-22 04:11:01 AST (+0300)
Viewed: 95 times, last viewed: 2016-02-26 18:46:13 AST (+0300)
Show Log