Observation 221292: Coprinopsis marcescibilis var. virginea
When: 2015-10-31
Who: zaca
No herbarium specimen

Notes: On drying the cap becomes cream to dirty white and the stipe looks like straw.

Images

570382
570383
570384
570385
570386
571327
Microscopy: Spores.
577335
Microscopy: Gill edge;
577336
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia;
577337
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia and sphaeropedunculate cells;
577338
Microscopy: Basidia (left) and Caulocystidia (right);
577339
Microscopy: Pileipellis (no veil cells were observed).

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
58% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Former Psathyrella marcescibilis var. virginea
58% (1)
Eye3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
By: zaca
2015-11-20 16:18:24 PST (-0800)

I’m used to consult Flora Agaricina Neerlandica, Vol. 6, to classify coprinoid mushroom. However, this time none of the two candidate species – Coprinopsis marcescibilis (var. virginea) and Coprinopsis lotinae appears there; The first was transfered from Psathyrella and the second appears after its publication. Therefore, I used the website of Andreas Melzer to reach the classification:
http://www.vielepilze.de/coprinus/coprinus.html
Let me also say that some authors take these two species as synonyms and as far as I can see, from these specimens, maybe it would be the best option. The question can be summarized more or less as follows, regarding the microstructures, since the macrofeatures are clearly very similar as can be seen from the photos at the website reffered above:

- Both species have similar spores:
C. marcescibilis – (10-) 11,2-15 (-17.5 of 2-sporigen basidia) x 5.5-7.5 (-9) um, on average from 11.6 to 14.2 × 6,4- 7.2 microns, average Q = 1.60-2.00, ellipsoid, ovoid, subcylindrical, germ pore size and flattened. In brown water, a little darker in ammonia, in KOH dark chocolate brown to reddish dark brown, subopak;
C. lotinae – Spores: (11,6-) 12,4-16,2 (-16.8) x (5,8) 6-8 pm mean: 15.1 × 7.3 microns, average Q = 2.01 -2.12, frontal slender ellipsoid to slightly ovoid, sometimes laterally flattened slightly with subparallel walls, germ pore large, centrally. Auburn, subopak.

- Both species have 4-spored basidia, but C. marcescibilis can also have some 2-spored;

- Both species have similar sized cheilocystidia, but with different forms:
C. marcescibilis – usually subapical constricted to significantly capitate, sometimes forked, and mixed with a few sphaeropedunculate and clavate marginal cells;
C. lotinae – utriform;

- Both species lack pleurocystidia and, in fact, I didn’t observe any;

- Both species have caulocystidia, but with different size and forms:
C. marcescibilis – 24.5 to 60 (-70) x 7-22 um, often, usually apically swollen in large bunches, mingled with a few clavate cells, from 16.5 to 35.5 × 7 to 16.5 um;
C. lotinae – 66-87 × 18-30 um, utriform, clavate;

Now let me give the data I observed:
Spores:
(12.2) 13.8 – 15.9 (16.5) x (6.1) 6.5 – 7.5 (7.8) µm
Q = (1.8) 2 – 2.3 (2.4) ; N = 36; Me = 14.7 × 7 µm ; Qe = 2.1
Basidia: seem to exist both 4- and 2-spored;
Cheilocystidia: most clavate, ovoid to subcylindrical, not or only slightly constricted, but also other forms
(30.5) 31.4 – 46.1 (50.2) x (11.1) 12.4 – 18.5 (18.8) µm
Q = (1.8) 2.1 – 3.1 (4.5) ; N = 24; Me = 39.1 × 15.4 µm ; Qe = 2.6;
sphaeropedunculate cells: (23.4) 24.4 – 35 (41.1) x (16.9) 18 – 23.7 (29) µm
Q = (1.1) 1.3 – 1.6 (1.8) ; N = 12; Me = 29.7 × 21.5 µm ; Qe = 1.4;
Caulocystidia: different forms, not apically swollen, including some sphaeropedunculate/clavate cells,
(21.8) 26.4 – 65.7 (117.1) x (10.9) 12.1 – 21.5 (30.5) µm
Q = (1.1) 1.3 – 4.2 (5) ; N = 28; Me = 45.3 × 16.8 µm ; Qe = 2.8.

Summarizing, many points in favor of C. marcescibilis (existence of 2-spored basidia, existence of sphaeropedunculate and clavate marginal cells at the gill edge) and maybe the point against is the form of caulocystidia; the size of caulocystidia, is also not in favor of C. lotinae, since this species has more uniform and bigger ones. The spores, and mainly the value of Q, is clearly a point in favor of C. lotinae.

More data added from microscopy.
By: zaca
2015-11-20 15:58:44 PST (-0800)
Partial data added.
By: zaca
2015-11-03 13:17:52 PST (-0800)

I’m facing problems with my microscope, which didn’t permit to continue the microscopy of these specimens. I could only observe the spores, whose dimensions are very promising towards Psathyrella marcescibilis var. virginea, according to the website of Andreas Melzer, where this species in included in the genus Coprinopsis (Subsect. Marcescibili).
It should also be mentioned that some authors consider this species as a synonym of Coprinopsis lotinae as one can see in the topic devoted to this species in the “A.M.B Forum di Micologia” (see the link below), where several photos illustrating specimens similar to mine are given and an extensive treatment of the microscopic characters is presented.
Whenever possible I intend to go back to the microscopy.

Links:
http://www.vielepilze.de/coprinus/coprinus.html
http://www.ambmuggia.it/...

Created: 2015-10-31 15:48:46 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-11-20 15:57:38 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 56 times, last viewed: 2016-11-25 13:36:08 PST (-0800)
Show Log