Observation 205183: Pholiota granulosa (Peck) A.H. Sm. & Hesler
When: 2015-05-19
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Found on well-decayed deciduous log with no bark left. This is a bottomland woods area. This specimen is certainly not fresh, but hopefully still identifiable.

Proposed Names

-28% (1)
Used references: “Mushrooms of the Midwest” Michael Kuo

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Rocky Houghtby
By: weed lady (Sylvia )
2015-11-21 15:11:13 CST (-0500)

On my observation #205183 you commented that you would like a specimen of Pholiota granulosa if I found it again. Found it yesterday in the same park. If you are still interested let me know. I can send the small specimens to the address you have listed. Sylvia

By: weed lady (Sylvia )
2015-06-01 13:55:45 CDT (-0400)

I will certainly let you know if I find this again. I would be happy to mail anything I find to you.

Ha! I had already seemingly…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-06-01 08:13:18 CDT (-0400)

answered my own question. Thanks for researching my own obses, Walt :-) I guess I am not completely convinced of my own prior analysis. I still wonder if the shagginess and triangular appendiculate material associated with Flammulaster persist as the mushroom matures/erodes.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2015-05-31 20:58:19 CDT (-0400)

I don’t believe that a species ID is appropriate here. The punctate/ pointed scales on the stipe and persistent annulus are troubling for granulosa. I’d love to look at this species, if you find it again Silvia.

By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2015-05-31 20:12:30 CDT (-0400)

Quoting you from another observation of this species.

“Not as shaggy/scaly as Flammulaster, and cap margin without hanging veil remnants.”

The prominent marginal scales are typical of F. erinaceellus. It is usually darker in color as well. That being said there is some debate about which Flammulaster species I am calling F. erinaceellus.

139282 and 138128 are classic F. erinaceellus in my opinion.
I learned this as Pholiota and then it was considered a Phaeomarasmius for years. Whatever it is it is a pretty fungus when in pristine condition.

Walt, I’m wondering about…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2015-05-31 11:04:33 CDT (-0400)

what readily observable trait you use to separate P. granulosa and F. erinaceellus. Champignons du Quebec mentions a micro-trait that allows one to distinguish.

By: weed lady (Sylvia )
2015-05-31 10:08:36 CDT (-0400)

MANY thanks for the help on this. I had only one idea and went with that. Had never seen or heard of P. granulosa. This may be of help to me in the future. I found some tiny specimens which might also be P. granulosa. Found them in the same general area of the park where I found this observation. I’ll be working on that. Thanks again.

By: weed lady (Sylvia )
2015-05-28 17:18:04 CDT (-0400)

I thought so, but now I looked on my work table and could not find them. I will check again, but think not. Guess I thought I would not be able to ID this species (even a genus) until I ran across this species in the Kuo book today while looking for something else. Think the genus to be correct, but not 100% sure (never am) about the species. Please let me know if you think the genus is correct. I’d be happy with that!!! Thanks for your interest.

Did you
By: Rocky Houghtby
2015-05-28 17:07:53 CDT (-0400)

Collect these Sylvia?

Created: 2015-05-28 15:07:44 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-05-31 21:18:28 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 116 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 09:24:49 CDT (-0400)
Show Log