Observation 193203: Tulostoma squamosum Gmelin: Pers.
When: 2014-12-11
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing under shrubs; there are also trees nearby: Fraxinus, Quercus and Pinus.

Proposed Names

6% (2)
Recognized by sight
58% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
29% (1)
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
New photos and interpretations.
By: zaca
2016-02-23 19:04:18 CST (-0500)

Because all the specimens that I observed till now of the genus Tulostoma lived at the same place, though at different times, I presumed that they all belong to the same species; Maybe, that is not so …
Looking to the book of Sarasini “Gasteromiceti epigei” I noticed, as previously mentioned by Davide, the existence of three similar species: T. beccaianum, T. brumale and T. squamulosum. All of them have same type of exoperidium, membranous or submembranous, and the same type of stroma, intact and continuous.
T. brumale has as distinguished feature a dark circular ring around the ostiole. This is the case of the specimens in observation 161108 and observation 224027, where that dark circular ring is barely visible but present.
In the case of this observation I just uploaded a new set of photos with more specimens and at the end I also include a comparison of my observations of Tulostoma including this one (at the center). From all these we can see that there is no dark ring around the ostiole and that the stem is more squamulose and darker than in the other observations. In addition, the exoperidium is also a bit scrabose, which doesn’t fit the description of T. beccaianum, where the exoperidium is said to be very thin and delicate, sometimes with a flocculent-chalky appearance. Therefore, I think that this observation contains specimens of T. squamulosum.
Finally, many thanks to Davide, that claimed this from the beginning of his comments.

Got it!
By: zaca
2016-02-22 18:59:12 CST (-0500)

Thank you again, Davide.

If you click on my name, you will see:
By: zaca
2016-02-22 18:16:31 CST (-0500)

Mailing Address for Collections: zaca.lepista@gmail.com

without an email to send it to
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-22 18:12:43 CST (-0500)

it isn’t that easy :)

Davide, so kind of you,
By: zaca
2016-02-22 18:02:56 CST (-0500)

but I’m not sure to be that nice!!! :-) I’ll be waiting for it. Thank you so much.

i can give you the digital book
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-22 17:38:43 CST (-0500)

you seem like a nice guy, since you are pretty interested i will pass you the book by mail.

gasteromiceti epigei
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-21 20:15:32 CST (-0500)
ciao, Davide
By: zaca
2016-02-21 16:00:10 CST (-0500)

what is the work of Sarasini that you recommend? (I have nothing from him).

ciao
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-21 10:36:08 CST (-0500)

it all look with a very dark stem.
do you have the sarasini?
there are very nice pictures and descriptions of something like a dozen Tulostoma species. i would do a micro,if i was in your shoes,just to be sure :)

Hi Davide
By: zaca
2016-02-19 17:28:49 CST (-0500)

This and my other two observations (#161108 and #224027) are from the same place, the only site were I found specimens of this genus. I don’t believe that there is more than one species involved (it will be too good!). As you can see the morphology is not uniform and at the same day there are specimen with and without a dark area near the stoma. So, I don’t believe that the existence or absence of a dark area is enough to determine the species, that may not be T. brumale, but is the same for all.

I’m sure this is not
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-02-19 09:16:41 CST (-0500)

Tulostoma brumale,since it doesn ’t have a dark area near the stoma.
i see also toom much bron in there. maybe beccarianum or squamosum.

Created: 2014-12-11 15:38:32 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-02-23 19:05:44 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 96 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 12:58:54 CDT (-0400)
Show Log