Observation 221672: Psathyrella (Fr.) Quél.

When: 2015-09-10

Collection location: Ritomeče, Slovenia [Click for map]

Who: James Baker (cepecity)

No specimen available



Proposed Names

76% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Does not look a whole lot like what we usually call Parasola conopilus.
56% (1)
Recognized by sight: Found on a foray to the Postojna Region of Slovenia led by local Slovenian mycologist, Marino Zugna, who also identified the mushrooms.
Used references: See- https://translate.google.com/…;

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you for your thoughts Alan!
By: James Baker (cepecity)
2015-11-04 23:38:34 PST (-0800)

“The microscopic features are those that allow us to secure the recognition of this species: the spores very dark even if you look in the water, and the setae, the elongated cells of yellow-green which are found in the tissues of the cuticle.” from https://translate.google.com/...

The stem looks different
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-11-04 19:27:36 PST (-0800)

It is more white and opaque in your observation, and slightly wider. Also the cap is a bit less conical. I think you have some other Psathyrella. Check microscopic features.

Is there a different look? What is the different look?
By: James Baker (cepecity)
2015-11-04 17:17:05 PST (-0800)

Well I think you need a hand lens to see the setae. I don’t know whether Marino Zugna had a hand lens with him when he ID’d the mushroom, but concerning Alan’s statement about the mushroom not looking like P conopilus to him. In the photo labeled “The comparison of a sample with the hat dry and two wet his hat” on the funghiitaliani website the mushroom shown as an example of a dry one looks to me to have a similar color and appearance to the mushroom observation photo I’ve posted so my question is whether generally the mushrooms shown and identified as Psathyrella conopilus on the website http://www.funghiitaliani.it/index.php?showtopic=16061 have a different “look” as Alan said than mushrooms “we usually call Parasola conopilus”? Maybe the mushrooms labeled P conopilus in Italy are not the same species called P conopilus in the US.

Are there…
By: Byrain
2015-11-04 06:46:29 PST (-0800)

long thick walled fulvous colored setae on the pileipellis?

Not sure what aspects of the photos caught your eyes, Alan, but….
By: James Baker (cepecity)
2015-11-03 23:38:52 PST (-0800)

the funghiitaliani website lists four significant characters to check-
1- “grows copious in particular in the forests xerophilous” Well there hadn’t been much rain so the forest was dry, but there is only one mushroom.

2-“often related to abundant woody debris” The photo does seem to show that.

3-The cap is “strongly hygrophanous” and under goes color changes while drying.
The observation photo cap doesn’t show different color zones, but it looks to me from the funghiitaliani photos shown that the cap color gets lighter as it drys and the mushroom shown in the observation has reached the point of dryness where it is all light color, but that’s a guess.

4-There is a “visible white fluff that appears at the base of the stem.” and that is not shown in the observation.

So overall, I have to agree that from the observation photos genus Psathyrella is what you can call it and that Psathyrella conopilus species is only promising.

Created: 2015-11-03 17:44:26 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2015-11-04 22:59:39 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 70 times, last viewed: 2017-06-21 00:25:23 PDT (-0700)
Show Log