Observation 212044: Psathyrella candolleana (Fr.) Maire

Proposed Names

-38% (2)
Recognized by sight: Micro?

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-08-06 14:32:33 PDT (-0700)

for the helpful comment.

Fatal glitch in MO
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-08-06 12:07:35 PDT (-0700)

If you don’t know the difference between Inocybe and Psathyrella, please, do not touch the original ID names. We have been using MO for more than 4 years and from the very beginning I fought against the Consensus principle of “naming”. All suggestion of different ID should be posted as “Notes:” and only the original user should be allowed to change the MO observation name. Anyway, if you (or whoever else reads this) have some suggestions for different ID of our MO observations, please, write it in the “Comments:” and leave the change of the MO observation name on us. We know the difference between Inocybe and Psathyrella. Adolf

It did look bulbous to me
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-08-06 10:53:27 PDT (-0700)

But now that you question it, maybe it isn’t so clear.

In a similar vein, looking at the huge original photo, not sure I’d want to call that a real cortina? Psathyrella doing its best to force a cortina?

I wish I knew other white Inocybe species to get a better idea of what this is and isn’t. Perplexed by Canadian Psathyrella! (Compounded by the fact that these look quite different from the other observation labeled P. candolleana linked by O&A in their comment below…)

Inocybe characters
By: Claude Kaufholtz-Couture (Claude Kaufholtz-Couture)
2015-08-06 09:54:16 PDT (-0700)

I especially wanted to see the foot; whether it was bulbous, or simply cylindrical;
Inocybe geophylla has no appendiculate margin and his foot is equal, not bulbous.

Inocybe characters
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-08-06 08:48:38 PDT (-0700)

Are you referring to the mycelium at the base of the stem? If so, I didn’t realize that that was particularly unusual for Inocybe, that’s a great tool!

Regarding the lack of an umbo, here is a white Inocybe without one, that trait doesn’t “worry” me so much – http://wikigrib.ru/...

Regarding the appendiculate margin, I have been assuming that that is in a normal range between young-cortinate caps and mature tattered-overhanging caps, which are common in Inocybe.

Would pleurocystidia have been easily found in this collection if they were Inocybe?

Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss it!

Hi all!
By: Claude Kaufholtz-Couture (Claude Kaufholtz-Couture)
2015-08-06 01:10:26 PDT (-0700)

It is not clear the base of the foot, an important character in inocybes. The cap (which size?) does not me appear with a distinct umbo and there was this appendicule margin … I doubt whether a Inocybe.

I am interested in changing my macroscopic concept of these species.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-08-06 00:57:59 PDT (-0700)

Can you provide micrographs?

Pulk’s name changes are excellent examples of the cictizen science, not a good mycology
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-08-06 00:45:59 PDT (-0700)

MO is a great system. As a database you cannot beat it, but it’s totally useless for documentation of fungal collections, in spite of the fact that that it was proposed as a mycofloristics tool by its creator(s).
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxySE56sJgQ
I have been calling for a more professional version of MO (that I would call MO+, but Nathan suggested MO-). That version would not allow crossing out the MO observation names and replace them (often with the help of Consensus) by some nonsense suggestions. As it is now, MO is USELESS for mycofloristics!!!
We looked at the microscopic features, and this collection was about the same as fruiting bodies collected in the vicinity of this one few days ago: http://mushroomobserver.org/211818
Both collections lack pleurocystidia and that excludes Psathyrella spadiceogrisea from consideration. (For the latter see http://mushroomobserver.org/65224 )
We greatly appreciate all your name suggestions, but please, make them as “Comments:” and do not change the name given to the observation by the original user. The original user can accept your suggestion and change the MO observation name, or he/she can ignore it, e.g. your rather outrageous “Inocybe geophylla”. I hope that one day MO will accept the basic rules of herbarium mycology.

By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2015-08-06 00:13:37 PDT (-0700)

This doesn’t look like Psathyrella candolleana to me, and it does look like Inocybe ~geophylla.

Created: 2015-08-05 19:15:43 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-08-06 12:41:12 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 100 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 22:27:46 PDT (-0700)
Show Log