Observation 199089: Psathyrella longipes (Peck) A.H. Sm.
When: 2015-02-15
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Spores (11) 12-13 (13.5) x 7-8 (8.5) µm.

Pleurocystidia 32-45 µm long, broadly lageniform to utriform, with a strongly narrowed base.

All microphotos in KOH.

This herbarium specimen is available, but in pretty poor shape (spent a couple hours in a tacklebox and broke pretty badly). However, we have specimens similar to this one that are also referable to P. longipes in the UCSC herbarium.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Ok
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-02-19 18:28:30 WAT (+0100)

since the best you can say is that the information is second hand and “makes sense” without giving any hard hypotheses to test or repeat or question, I am gonna have to say I’m done with this conversation. Eventually I’ll post micro, maybe a sequence, and you can use that data to convince me otherwise.

Also… you treat P. longipes and P. fragilissima as separate names at the link below – maybe you could explain your reasoning?
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15959866

Science is self-correcting
By: Byrain
2015-02-19 18:22:20 WAT (+0100)

Isn’t that the whole point? To add to the current knowledge? If they didn’t get it right and you aren’t trying to suggest another alternative, then what are you doing? I understand that the synonymy was done by people like Kits van Waveren, Örstadius, Ludwig, I’m not sure if that is an entire list and was done from studies of the type material and descriptions. Sequences likely played some role too, since that is what got Psathyrella marcescibilis moved to Coprinopsis. My information concerning the synonymy is unfortunately second hand and based from the already provided link. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense, but more work would be great as if it is correct we should be able to repeat the results. Also, all I’m doing is asking questions that few want to answer for w/e absurd reason, the aggressive tone is entirely on you.

I already
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-02-19 18:07:51 WAT (+0100)

laid out the reasons I think P. longipes is likely a better name for this taxon.

It may be true that C. marcescibilis has such variable spores that even average measurements are not informative. But it looks different macroscopically, has a different provenance, and different ecological characters.

I’m not trying to “correct” the work of European mycologists. I just have yet to see what synonymy of those names was based on.

Also, your aggressive tone is hella weird. These are little brown mushrooms we’re talking about, dude.

Hey Alan
By: Byrain
2015-02-19 18:00:08 WAT (+0100)

Did you get anything from that C. marcescibilis sequence you got at Nevada City?

By: Byrain
2015-02-19 17:58:13 WAT (+0100)

Have you even looked at the C. marcescibilis link?

“Spores (10-) 11,2-15 (-17,5 from 2-spored basidia) x 5,5-7,5 (-9) µm, av. 11,6-14,2 × 6,4-7,2 µm, av. Q=1,60-2,00, ellipsoid, ovoid, subcylindrical, germ pore large and truncat.”
“The spores are very variable in shape and size, there are collections with extremely slender spores.”
http://www.vielepilze.de/...

You’re going to have to provide some sort of evidence if you want to correct their work, just saying they didn’t get it right and then reverting to some very loose understanding of Smith’s concepts doesn’t cut it. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument seems to be pretty much “Its P. longipes just because”.

Two things
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-02-19 17:48:25 WAT (+0100)

1) How do you know spore sizes are inconsequential?
2) I am not ignoring the work of European mycologists, I just don’t see
much reason to think they got it right.

Spore sizes are inconsequential here.
By: Byrain
2015-02-19 07:39:07 WAT (+0100)

Smith read far too much into the spore sizes and made the error of excluding Psathyrella marcescibilis. Speaking from personal experience, the difference between spores somewhat compressed laterally vs. spores terete in cross section is not worth the time spent worrying about. As the vielpilze.de link shows Coprinopsis marcescibilis has variable spores leaving the bs differences Smith described rather moot. A sequence could help a lot here as it would help confirm genus and there are C. marcescibilis sequences to compare with, additionally it might shed light on possible cryptic taxa. The synonymy concerning C. marcescibilis, P. elwhaensis and P. fragilissima was handled by European mycologists, no sense in ignoring their efforts, only the question if P. longipes deserves the same treatment or not remains.

Spore sizes and biogeographic clues
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-02-19 03:46:48 WAT (+0100)

As far as I can tell, P. fragilissima has longer spores than P. longipes.
Beyond that I can’t really tell how it differs since the descriptions referring to it are so scant.

P. marcescibilis has broader spores, looks different to my eye (paler, narrower-capped), and is a European taxon. Now if I were finding what I called P. longipes in disturbed habitats or woodchips, that would be a big issue. But I never have to my recollection – always in fairly ‘natural’ settings, especially under live oak.

P. elwhaensis is, in my opinion, either a long-spored variant of P. longipes (because Smith’s photos of P. elwhaensis look just like what I call P. longipes), or there is an as-yet-unresolved synonymy issue linking P. elwhaensis, P. longipes, and P. fragilissima.

I can scope these, and try to get a sequence, but that hardly gets us anywhere without more clarity or sequence data on the other names (especially the type specimens of the latter three).

So how does…
By: Byrain
2015-02-18 04:31:29 WAT (+0100)

Psathyrella longipes differ from Coprinopsis marcescibilis (=P. marcescibilis = P. fragilissima = P. elwhaensis)? Have you compared any of the Smith’s descriptions or the European description here?

http://www.vielepilze.de/...

I ask because I often wonder about this and think this could of been a great opportunity to explore this issue. As far as I can tell they are all descriptions of the same thing, current knowledge indicates that all of them are except possibly P. longipes which no one has seem to have considered yet…

Created: 2015-02-17 18:09:33 WAT (+0100)
Last modified: 2015-02-19 19:12:39 WAT (+0100)
Viewed: 126 times, last viewed: 2015-09-23 07:43:31 WAT (+0100)
Show Log