Observation 205916: Conocybe tenera (Schaeff.) Fayod
When: 2015-05-30
(45.1007° 121.7466° 1030m)

Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Conocybe tenera (Schaeff.) Fayod

Species Lists


Cap 2 cm in diameter, stipe 8 × 0.2 cm, with a small base bulb
Cap 2 cm in diameter, stipe 8 × 0.2 cm, with a small base bulb
Cap 2 cm in diameter, stipe 8 × 0.2 cm, with a small base bulb
Only capitate caulocystidia present
Only capitate caulocystidia present
Only capitate caulocystidia present
Spores 12-14(-15) x (6.5-)7-7.5 µm
Pileipellis with clavate cells up to 30 µm wide
Young basidia with crystals after NH4OH
Gill tissue treated with NH4OH – basidia with crystals
Large crystals noticed in preparation some time after the treatment with NH4OH

Proposed Names

21% (3)
Used references: Byrain

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
To Christian re: #amateurpride #gross #grossamateurs
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-06-08 03:08:58 CDT (-0400)

I take your messages as a Rorschach test and you don’t fare too well. Adolf

To Byrain re: Conocybe tenera
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-06-08 03:03:15 CDT (-0400)

NH4OH reaction was strongly positive and immediate (=> C. tenera).
Spore size fits C. tenera as well.
Similar C. semiglobata has slower NH4OH reaction (“faintly positive in 30’” [Fungi of Switzerland 4:308 & 312]) and has wider spores.
Thanks for your comments,

Amateurism vs. professionalism of the MO posting standards
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-06-07 13:28:32 CDT (-0400)

I deleted the original MO Conocybe tenera posting in order to delete your comment that was done before I posted all the microscopic characters onto MO. In the Comment to the original MO observation you had even doubt the the posting was Conocybe. By deleting that I wanted to save your reputation, because nobody would have any doubt that this posting really WAS Conocybe. I.e., in this new situation, your comment did not make too much sense.
It’s funny when you accuse me of amateurism. Yes, if you go by the absurd MO posting and naming rules, my call for not changing the MO observation names by other users can be considered as amateurism. It is my fault that I have been using MO as a “virtual herbarium” for documenting our herbarium collections and that I have demanding that only the original user should be able to change the MO observation names. Since I started to use MO (few months after you did), I asked the MO gurus to fix this problem, but their answer was that MO is not a herbarium. The problem is that they do not know what herbarium really is. Whenever I type “herbarium” in MO notes like this one, it is considered a spelling mistake!!!! I consider that THIS IS a sign of gross amateurism.
I maybe calling for taking all the fun of the Ludo game from MO postings, but I am using my MO postings for species lists like this one
and I would like to retain the original MO observation names there.
I will pass your technical question to my resident mycologist.
I hope she knows what the “capitatum on cheilocystidia” is etc. I think that we included the stipe measurements in our MO posting. I will leave the rest on Oluna.
Oluna wanted me to put the sources used for ID in the original posting (Moser & “Fungi of Switzerland”), but I forgot. At the same time, this collection is not worth the time I have spent on it already.
If you are interested in examining the specimen, you can borrow it from the UBC herbarium where I can arrange for its fast accession.
In summary, we found your comments very valuable, but please, make them as Comments (“Annotations” as I would like to call them), not by changing the original MO observation names.

#amateurpride #gross #grossamateurs
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-06-07 12:40:00 CDT (-0400)
Its not our fault you never included the vital ID traits before.
By: Byrain
2015-06-07 11:51:15 CDT (-0400)

Also, the only amateurism around is deleting observations and reposting them to get rid of unwanted proposals.

As for the ID, we are unfortunately still missing details neccesary for anyone else to work this out, but with some guess work I could see how to might be C. tenera. So please, answer these points:

- How large is the capitatum on the cheilocystidia?
- 2 or 4 spored basidia?
- How thick are the spore walls?
- How strong and fast was the ammonia reaction?
- Was the pileus strongly translucent-striate at some point?
- Can you provide measurements of the stipe?
- What reference did Oluna use to identify it?

Using Flora Agaricina Neerlandica Vol 6, assuming the capitatum are smaller, that the basidia are 4-spored, and that the spore walls are 0.5 – 1 µm thick it seems it would either be C. tenera or C. semiglobata. That is unfortunately a lot of guesswork and not very convincing for a C. tenera identification. Has Oluna considered C. semiglobata yet and if so how was it ruled out?

What is my response to this issue?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-06-06 20:40:42 CDT (-0400)

I greatly appreciate any suggestions on our MO observations, be it by you, Byrain or whoever else, but: Please, please, please, correct our ID if you are sure that it is wrong, but do it as a Comment, NOT by changing our observation names. Thanks!
Since the very beginning when I started to use MO for documenting our herbarium specimens, I have been calling for formal Annotations on MO. Neither you, nor Byrain have seen the original collections. Sit down, look at our Conocybe tenera observation, look at all our images and write us your suggestions. It is up to us to change our MO Observation names, if you do it for us, it is a gross sign of amateurism on your part.

What was your response to Byrain’s comment about this issue?
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-06-06 20:20:25 CDT (-0400)

Created: 2015-06-06 19:17:38 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-06-10 15:25:30 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 175 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 21:26:12 CDT (-0400)
Show Log