Observation 190358: Tricholoma griseoviolaceum Shanks

Original Herbarium Label: Cuphophyllus colemannianus (A. Bloxam) Bon
Identified by O. Ceska [2014-11-30] as Tricholoma griseoviolaceum Shanks
For similar observations see:
http://mushroomobserver.org/83073 and

Species Lists


Pileipellis with encrusted hyphae
Encrusted hyphae in pileipellis
Encrusted hyphae in pileipellis
Encrusted hyphae of pileipellis
Cross-section of the lamella
Cross-section of the lamella

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-12-01 01:45:26 CET (+0100)
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-12-01 00:33:57 CET (+0100)

who doesn’t love a happy ending? ;)

yes indeedy, this is exactly what MO does best.

thanks for your gracious summation and pursuit of the truth, A and O. Hugs to you both.

Fits to the cluster of our Tricholoma griseoviolaceum MO observations
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-12-01 00:24:51 CET (+0100)

Our specimen fits into the group of our MO observations identified as “Tricholoma griseoviolaceum”. Thanks to Debbie and Noah for pointing out our original misidentifications and thanks also to Doug Smith who suggested this species for our very first posting (MO # 83073) that we had originally posted as “Tricholoma portentosum”. Our latest specimen is rather atypical (not speaking about two caps on one stipe). Its small size put Oluna on a wrong track.
This observation and the discussion around it exemplify the power and usefulness of MO for “interactive” identification. Once more, many thanks! A&OC

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-11-30 21:30:31 CET (+0100)

Shanks reports spores 5.3-8.6 × 3.0-5.8 microns, elliptic, smooth, inamyloid.
She also reports that the spores on the type of Melanoleuca avellaneifolia are sub-globose, 5.76-7.2 × 4.8-5.76 microns.

Breitenbach reports spores 5.1-6.9 × 3.9-5.3 microns, nearly round to broadly elliptic, smooth.

Murrill did describe it as Melanoleuca avellaneifolia (he put a LOT of different white spored things into Melanoleuca), but he also gave the combination of Tricholoma avellaneifolia in the same paper.

Index Fungorum is just an opinion. Just because IF say it’s the current name, does not mean it’s right…

I am hesitant to use T. avellaneifolium because I don’t have proof to back it up. We have a 98% ITS match with an Estonia collection of T. portentosum, (Tricholoma in general don’t show a high variation in it’s ITS).

But other west coast Tricholoma names, (Tricholoma murrillianum for instance) are proving to be an accepted name.

Re: Can’t we just ID mushrooms here?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-30 21:14:07 CET (+0100)

No, we cannot. For definite identification you need the real specimen. All the rest are just “an educated guess” and we have had enough of those for this MO observation. Mind you, even the supporting specimen is often not enough. Ideally one needs some specimens of similar species for comparison. You have to know the limits of how far you can go with the MO suggestions. AC

hmmmm. where did you get YOUR spore description?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-30 20:59:10 CET (+0100)

Murrill first described this species and called it Melanoleuca avellaneifolia. That is the current accepted name on IF for Tricholoma avellaneifolia. Below is the original descriptions from Murrill. Spore size and shape not even close to this obsie.

and if you MEANT to say avellaneifolia, why say portentosom, which this is obviously NOT???

Melanoleuca avellaneifolia sp. nov.

Pileus fleshy, rather thick, convex to expanded, gibbous, sub-
cespitose, reaching 9 cm. broad ; surface polished, smooth, some-
what viscid, dull-blackish-fuliginous, margin entire, concolorous,
inflexed on drying ; lamellae sinuate, ventricose, several times in-
serted, not crowded, pale-avellaneous ; spores subglobose, smooth,
hyaline, granular, about 5.5-6.5/*; stipe equal, fleshy, solid,
smooth, glabrous, pure-white, about 8 cm. long, 1.5 cm. thick.

IDing mushrooms is exactly what I am doing. Please cite the published data that proves YOUR point.

I did look at the micro,
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-11-30 19:49:30 CET (+0100)

that’s’ when I proposed Tricholoma portentosum, (sensu western North America, which has a name, T. avellaneifolium)

The brown tones in the cap develop with age.
The viscid cuticle, cracking, colors, gills, micro, it all fits…

The stubbornness and nastiness doesn’t. Can’t we just ID mushrooms here?

hello Adolf!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-30 19:44:17 CET (+0100)

I see that you listed the original herbarium name for this specimen. Of course that is important, esp. if you want to relocate it! But the good part of MO is that, with sufficient posted hard data, and it doesn’t get any better than your and Oluna’s posts, we can go back and revise some IDs that were perhaps in error. That’s a good thing, IMO.

AS we both agree, “obsies” with just a name are worthless, on so many levels. But debate on identities is healthy and can help to create better IDs, as long as we keep them fact-based and don’t vote our egos instead.

By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-30 19:35:07 CET (+0100)

didja even look at the micro data? please compare to portentosum and get back to us with an informed opinion. in this case, with an obvious oddball, macro kinda sorta is not enough.

I agree that it could be a trich; it is NOT portentosum.

Programming error in Mushroom Observer
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-30 19:10:07 CET (+0100)

Mushroom Observer is a great database/discussion list and we welcome all the comments to our posting even that some of them look like a witch hunting. THE PROBLEM IS IN A WRONG DESIGN OF MUSHROOM OBSERVER. Since the very beginning I have been calling for PRESERVING the original MO observation name, and for SEPARATING suggestions of different identifications (i.e. “annotations”) from general comments. The MO gurus, who collect fungi for herbarium specimens only occasionally, do not know what I meant. MO is a good example of pitfalls of the so-called “citizen science”, where the citizen scientists decided to go their own way and ignored methods and established practices of the scientific discipline they try to improve. Never mind, I can live with the MO as it is now, and yes, I welcome all the comments, including those that may look like viscous attacks. I see the interactive communication as one of the greatest features of MO if one wants to use it as a herbarium management system. Adolf

Oh the irony
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-30 19:10:02 CET (+0100)
I second
By: Eva Skific (Evica)
2014-11-30 18:08:57 CET (+0100)
this :)
mushroom ID or bitch slappin’?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-30 17:58:48 CET (+0100)

Can we please please pretty please leave all of the ego and nastiness out of these discussions?

This is clearly not Tricholoma portentosum, the gray trich.

It is also unlikely to be Cuphophyllus (even c.f.) colemannianus, an eastern species that has strongly intervenous decurrent gills of various spacing intervals, not merely wide. Grossly, this mushroom does resemble that Cuphophyllus, but it is also obviously an oddball, who knows on how many levels? The microscopy doesn’t really nail it, either. Both trichs and Cuphophyllus can have similar gill trama, the spores you show are not a great fit to C. colemanniana either.

It is often easier to say what something isn’t rather than what it is, though. I have no other suggestions, other than for y’all to lighten up.

Happy holidays to you, too.

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-11-30 02:18:52 CET (+0100)

The viscid cap, what look to be rather crowded gills with a sinuate attachment, fibrous stipe look Tricholoma-like.

Cuphophyllus colemannianus should have a slightly viscid to moist, cinnamon, reddish- to vinaceous-brown cap, and widely spaced decurrent gills.

That’s a really useless response, Adolf
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-30 00:45:28 CET (+0100)

But juvenility aside, the more closely spaced, thinner-edged gills, acute umbo, and yellowing colors look more like a Tricholoma. I have never seen C. colemannianus resembling this.
Your turn.

What makes it Tricholoma?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-29 23:53:14 CET (+0100)
This looks
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-11-29 01:40:22 CET (+0100)

like a Tricholoma.

What makes it Cuphophyllus colemannianus?

Created: 2014-11-28 11:53:16 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2014-12-01 05:10:24 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 270 times, last viewed: 2017-12-11 14:18:15 CET (+0100)
Show Log