Observation 218526: Chaetocalathus craterellus (Durieu & Lév.) Singer
When: 2015-10-11
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen
0 Sequences

Species Lists


Microscopy: Observation of the gill-1 (in congo red);
Microscopy: Observation of the gill-2 (in floxine and congo red);
Microscopy: Observation of the pileipellis (in water and in floxine).
Microscopy: Pileipellis-general view.
Microscopy: Pileipellis-in lugol.
Microscopy: Gill edge and hyphae of the trama(bottom) – in floxine.
Microscopy: Gill elements – in lugol.

Proposed Names

31% (3)
Recognized by sight
30% (2)
Recognized by sight
42% (3)
Recognized by sight
-85% (1)
Recognized by sight
-85% (1)
Recognized by sight
-28% (1)
Recognized by sight
-85% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thanks for the advice, Danny,
By: zaca
2017-06-11 16:11:49 CDT (-0400)

but it depends on the availability. Sometimes lugol is easier to obtain than melzer and, is better than nothing substitute one by the other. I know that for ascomycete lugol is better than melzer, since it permits to see hemiamiloid reactions that are hidden with melzer. I also heard that this do not apply to basidiomycetes.

returning to this years later
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2017-06-11 15:20:55 CDT (-0400)

if you are interested in continuing with this material, I would recommend specifically using Melzer’s, not Lugol’s. As time goes on, I hear more and more accounts of them not being interchangeable when dealing with certain groups of fungi. The standard in basidiomycetes is, by far, Melzer’s.

Data added.
By: zaca
2015-10-14 07:11:50 CDT (-0400)

I have continued with the observation of the microcharacters, but I’m not satisfied with the result. The matter is that I was not able to differentiate properly the elements of the gill and therefore I cannot even say if cystidia are present. At certain place they seem exist among basidia, but I’m note sure. I also tested the effect o lugol on both pileipellis and gill. In the first case, lugol removes the hypotrichial layer making possible to see the insertion point of the hyphae and making the hyphae more hialine and shining. In the cause of the gill elements I didn’t saw any positive reaction to lugol, besides some slightly blackning of the spores. I attach a set of photos with this material, starting by the substitution of the photo with general view of the pileipellis by a better one. Nevertheless, I now even more convinced that this in Chaetocalathus craterellus.

Yes, looks very promising.
By: zaca
2015-10-13 14:11:08 CDT (-0400)

I just upload a photo I already had from the microscopy displaying the “hairs which are very long and distinctly separated from the trama of the pileus by a hypotrichial layer”. I will test soon the “pseudoamyloid to amyloid" reaction on both hairs and hymenium. Meantime, I noticed that there are some controversia in relation to the existence of “true” cheilocystidia.
Thanks, Danny, for your proposals and comments.

looks good from here!
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-10-13 13:02:26 CDT (-0400)

I just noticed the hairy cap surface from image 2, which corresponds nicely with that trichodermium pileipellis (Chaetocalathus = “hairy basket”). Singer’s Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy (3rd Ed.) adds “pseudoamyloid to amyloid hairs which are very long and distinctly separated from the trama of the pileus by a hypotrichial layer” to the list of generic microcharacters, as well as cheilocystidia (“always present”). MycoKey mentions spores being dextrinoid, a feature Singer curiously does not mention in AiMT.

Looks like a Melzer’s mount may be in order, but in the meantime, C. craterellus seems promising.

Danny, I just look at …
By: zaca
2015-10-13 06:53:03 CDT (-0400)

the following links:
and it seems that Chaetocalathus craterellus is the best option for this specimen, since the macro- and microscopy are a full match. What do you think about that?

I’m afraid you are right
By: zaca
2015-10-13 06:36:26 CDT (-0400)

I saw that it has cyanophilic spores (staning bluish in Lactofenol blue), which rules out Cheimonophyllum, and particularly C. candidissimum.

I’m afraid
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-10-13 01:06:01 CDT (-0400)

we are now in the realm of nondescript little saprobic white-spored agarics, a deep dark cave into which I can shine few if any torches.

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2015-10-12 13:08:01 CDT (-0400)

(5.2) 5.5 – 6.7 (7.9) x (3.5) 3.7 – 4.9 (5.9) µm
Q = (1) 1.2 – 1.6 (1.8) ; N = 25
Me = 6.2 × 4.4 µm ; Qe = 1.4 .

Shooting in several directions?
By: zaca
2015-10-11 19:53:33 CDT (-0400)

Created: 2015-10-11 19:25:28 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-10-14 17:43:41 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 141 times, last viewed: 2017-06-21 00:04:11 CDT (-0400)
Show Log