Observation 188841: Stropharia (Fr.) Quél.
When: 2014-11-15
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing on dung.
Very similar to the one considered at observation 185726.


Microscopy: Spores;
Microscopy: Basidia;
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia-1;
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia-2;
Microscopy: Sulphidia (gill edge)
Microscopy: Sulphidia (gill faces)
Microscopy: Stiptipellis.
Microscopy: Pileipellis.
Microscopy – New data: Gill in Ammonia-1;
Microscopy – New data: Gill in Ammonia-2;
Microscopy – New data: Gill in Ammonia-3;
Microscopy – New data: Gill in Ammonia-4;
Microscopy – New data: Pileipellis-hyphae with incrusted pigmentation-1;
Microscopy -New data: Pileipellis-hyphae with incrusted pigmentation-2.

Proposed Names

-25% (4)
Recognized by sight
-38% (5)
Recognized by sight
-33% (5)
Recognized by sight
-16% (2)
Recognized by sight: Any reason why not?
77% (2)
Used references: Virginia Ramirez
Based on microscopic features: Has chrysocystidia and the pileipellis is a cutis
28% (1)
Recognized by sight: throwing it out there…

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you, Alan, for …
By: zaca
2014-11-26 03:58:31 EET (+0200)

the explanation and for your contribution to solve this mistery (for me it is).

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-11-26 03:51:21 EET (+0200)


I did not consult her thesis
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-11-26 03:47:33 EET (+0200)

I asked her directly. She is very familiar with the microscopic features of the dark spored agarics, and thought it was probably Stropharia based on microscopic features.

By: zaca
2014-11-26 03:08:45 EET (+0200)

I was giving a look to the thesis of Virginia Ramírez Cruz (see below) and find no place that support Alan proposal. Of course, since it is a long thesis, maybe somewhere the connection with the points he mentioned is done. However, the work does not contain a single species of Stropharia and it is mainly devoted to Deconica and Psilocybe.

Virginia Ramírez Cruz, Taxonomía y análisis filogenético del género Psilocybe sensu lato (Fungi, Agaricales), PhD thesis, Universidad de Guadalajara, 2013.

Good points
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-26 01:59:03 EET (+0200)

Do any Stropharia or Protostropharia(lol) have mottled lamellae?

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-11-26 01:54:51 EET (+0200)

the dung habitat is pretty convincing.

i think…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-11-26 01:51:21 EET (+0200)

the partial veil points more towards Stropharia.

The presence
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-26 01:44:45 EET (+0200)

Of gloeocystidia does not rule out Deconice. Of course, there is nothing to rule out Stropharia either. Any species suggestions in Stropharia, anybody?

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-11-26 01:39:36 EET (+0200)

i think i still have your email.

i’ll be sure to email you whenever i vote on an observation w/ a reason why.

Thanks to all that gave their contribution …
By: zaca
2014-11-24 23:27:56 EET (+0200)

… for a better understanding of the specimens in this observation.
Following a suggestion of one of them, Rocky Houghtby, I attached photos of the microscopy of the gill edge mounted in Ammonia. I also attached some new photos of the pileipellis (also in ammonia), where once again I found no trace of a cellular texture, because it seems to me that many of the cylindrical hyphae have incrusted pigmentation.

By: Byrain
2014-11-24 16:46:54 EET (+0200)

Can you please not vote if you have no reasons?

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-11-21 18:08:15 EET (+0200)

Alonso told me that pseudocystidia arise from the lamellar trama while cheilocystidia/pleurocystidia cystidia arise from the subhymenium. Also pseudocystidia are larger and grey in H2O or KOH.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-21 05:53:25 EET (+0200)

Is messy, no wonder I never took interest. Too many cooks in the kitchen, no one on the same page. I’m out of idioms.

I am interested in which species Singer put in Chrysocystidiatae tho.

By: Byrain
2014-11-21 05:49:32 EET (+0200)

“In Psilocybe s.l.,interpretation of chrysocystidia has been contro-
versial. Singer (1986) and Horak and Desjardin (2006) indicated
their presence, but Guzmán (1983, 1995) interpreted their absence.
Later, Guzmán (2004) proposed the bluing sect. Neocaledonicae to in-
clude species with chrysocystidia. This section does not corre-
spond to sect. Chrysocystidiata Singer, which Guzmán (1980)
considered as belonging to the genus Hypholoma. According to
Singer (1986), sect. Chrysocystidiatae “differs from sect. Psilocybe
only in the presence of chrysocystidia on the sides of the lamel-
lae.” Although they do not show an amorphous yellowish content
inKOH,their shape is similar to that of chrysocystidia.”

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-21 05:41:06 EET (+0200)

Only one of their 4 collections with “chrysocystidia” is labelled, and that is neorhombispora, which this is not.

Furthermore, the authors have an ambiguous definition of “chrysocystidia” that includes hyaline cells with no refractive content, that do not turn yellow in koh, but stain with patent blue. Apparently Guzman uses the term “pseudocystidia”(LOL) to refer to these cells.

I really don’t understand why these particular mycologists feel the need to reinvent the wheel. They are Gloeocystidia.

I wish Alan and Alonso would chime in here.

I guess
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-21 05:28:25 EET (+0200)

Singer had an entire section Chrysocystidiatae of Deconica, which receives cladistic support in this paper. I’ll try to rustle up some taxa.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-21 05:22:44 EET (+0200)

Some do -

Chrysocystidia, sterile cells located in the hymenium, evolved on at least two occasions in the Strophariaceae s. str., including in a novel lineage of Deconica.



Im reading this now

As far as I know…
By: Byrain
2014-11-21 05:21:25 EET (+0200)

Deconica all have only cheilocystidia on the lamellae, someone should correct this if I’m wrong.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-21 05:12:30 EET (+0200)

Might actually be a possibility. There are pleurocystidia in the images labelled as gill face, I would love to see what those look like mounted in potassium hydroxide without stain. Are there any Deconica with gloeocystidia?

I cant make out much
By: Byrain
2014-11-21 02:29:21 EET (+0200)

In that pileipellis photo, if its like this one than yea… Panaeolus pileipellis structure should look like Gravija’s photo or your obs 188837. Also 400x is usually enough to make out the structure, 1000x is only needed if you want to blow up individual cells.

OK, Byrain,
By: zaca
2014-11-21 02:18:49 EET (+0200)

but note that this is not new. In fact, as I always said this speciemens are very similar to those in observation 185726. At that observation there are photos from the pileipellis similar to those that I attached to this observation. Therefore, the specimens at observation 185726 may also not be Panaeolus fimicola. What do you think?

By: Byrain
2014-11-21 02:08:22 EET (+0200)

Does not look like Panaeolus, I changed my votes…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 22:29:05 EET (+0200)

Bulliard described at least one Deconica with mottled lamellae. Perhaps there are more-

Here is
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 22:15:02 EET (+0200)

an example from a Deconica-

Could you
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 22:11:16 EET (+0200)

post a 200X or 400x image of a tangential pileus section? Here is an example from P.cinctulus-

Pileipellis – micro added
By: zaca
2014-11-20 22:02:17 EET (+0200)
I was caught …
By: zaca
2014-11-20 12:48:43 EET (+0200)
by the night while this interesting discussion developed, which mainly repeats some previous discussions on MO about specimens of the genus Panaeolus or closer genera.

From my side I have to say the following: After a first observation about two year ago, only quite recently I could observe more or less abundant material. Regarding microscopy, these are my first attempts on this group of mushrooms. So, I have very much to learn. In particular, “Sulphidia” seems to be a myth on many of the observations and I have no sulfovanillin to test it.
Regarding this observation, I have material from four of the five specimens seen in the photos and I can send a part of it to anyone interested in studying it in more detail.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 07:43:08 EET (+0200)

as far as the cells in this obs go, I have seen all manner of mangled structures in crush mounts across every genus I’ve examined. What I need is something that differentiates these cells from the rest of the soup. In your case, img 400042 does resemble a sulphidium, strongly so, but without the context of the surrounding organelles, or an indication produced by a stain or reagent, I cannot be decisive.

I am hesitant to rule out Deconica due to the purple spore mass, the lack of brown in the spore micrographs, and the relative viscidity of the pilei. However, none of those attributes really rule out Panaeolus. Honestly, I’m not sure why I bothered voting.

By: Byrain
2014-11-20 07:26:53 EET (+0200)

The first sulphidia illustrated in Gerhardt’s monograph for P. antillarum and P. semiovatus don’t look too different… What do you call img 400042? Maybe sulfovanilin is needed only for the most hyaline examples? Deconica doesn’t have pleurocystidia to the best of my knowledge.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 07:11:04 EET (+0200)

there may well be sulphidia in this collection, I just don’t believe that any have been photographed.

I did not
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 07:06:05 EET (+0200)

say that sulphidia can only be viewed in sulfovanillin. I said that in my experience I could only view the cell in the photograph I posted in a sulfovanillin mount. I prepared slides with h2o, ammonium, potassium, Melzer’s, lugols, and a variety of stains. Only in the instances where I used sulfovanillin were these cells able to be differentiated from other hyaline terminal elements. This may not be the case in other species besides the one that I have examined that possessed sulphidia, I do not know.

I think it is very obvious that the cells in Zaca’s photographs are not sulphidia. They are large, extra hymenial structures that look closer to typical pleurocystidia, or gloeocystidia. Please provide a demonstration of which illustration you believe portrays sulphidia to resemble the cells in this obs.

Very excellent images
By: lightworkerpeace (gsharpnolack)
2014-11-20 06:58:46 EET (+0200)

I recommend that this collection be submitted for a complete ITS region (barcode) DNA sequence. A nearby university should be able to help.

Its not true
By: Byrain
2014-11-20 06:52:46 EET (+0200)

That you need sulfovanillin to distinguish these cells, they can be seen with H2O. I think these cells could be sulphidia, they look like Gerhardt’s illustrations at least, it might help to not use stains that distort the color with Panaeolus though. I don’t think Deconica will have mottled gills.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 05:13:17 EET (+0200)

the spore color and morphology are hard to reconcile with Panaeolus. I’d love to see a pileipellis section.

Zaca, in regards to sulphidia, in my experience, these cells are buried within the sub hymenium, and cannot be differentiated from sub-hymenial elements without the aid of sulfuric acid and vanillin. A solution of sulfovanillin will turn all of the cells pink-violet, except for the sulphidia, which will turn brownish red. Here is an example of a sulphidium liberated by a crush mount in sulfovanillin-

this is…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-11-20 04:47:52 EET (+0200)

a Deconica, imo.

Don’t tell me that …
By: zaca
2014-11-20 04:40:28 EET (+0200)

I discover something new, that no one else saw before.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-11-20 04:33:13 EET (+0200)

Are no sulphidia in this observation. The cells you have labelled as sulphidia are sub-utriform with concentrated, stained cellular material in the center.

By: zaca
2014-11-20 04:28:09 EET (+0200)

I will try to do it in one of the forthcoming days; Presently I have “mountains” to observe under the scope.

By: Byrain
2014-11-20 04:04:50 EET (+0200)

Deconica has a cutis, Panaeolus has a cellular pileipellis.

Can you describe those differences?
By: zaca
2014-11-20 03:44:40 EET (+0200)
By: Byrain
2014-11-20 03:36:14 EET (+0200)

Deconica and Panaeolus have a completely different pileipellis structure, it would be rather convincing.

Don’t you think …
By: zaca
2014-11-20 03:28:28 EET (+0200)

this is enough?
What do you expect from the Pileipellis? Can Deconica have sulphidia? …

By: Byrain
2014-11-20 03:21:11 EET (+0200)

Can you check the pileipellis? That should settle the genera disagreement. :)

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2014-11-20 00:26:15 EET (+0200)

As said in the Notes these specimens are very similar to those of observation 185726, not only macroscopically as well as microscopically as the attached files show. Thus I believe this is the same species: Panaeolus fimicola.

Created: 2014-11-17 23:48:01 EET (+0200)
Last modified: 2014-11-26 04:40:03 EET (+0200)
Viewed: 325 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 01:28:01 EEST (+0300)
Show Log