Observation 221931: Mutinus elegans (Mont.) Fisch.
When: 2015-10-18
(42.6836° -80.463° 201m)

Tall grass prairie restoration, sandy soil

See also 215732

Microscopy: (2017-01-26)
Spore size: Length 3.8-4.1-4.2um; Width 1.7-2.0-2.3um (measured 10 spores)

Proposed Names

74% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
-55% (1)
Recognized by sight: central perforation on cap. Distribution reported as far north as Wisconsin and Illinois.
Based on microscopic features: Spore within range

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Missed the pitted rough stipe.
By: Ryan Patrick (donjonson420)
2017-01-27 02:26:53 CET (+0100)

Most likely Mutinus.

Spores on the fence
By: Chris Hay (hayfield)
2017-01-27 01:59:44 CET (+0100)

My spore sizes are almost perfectly between both elegans and caninus according to the measurement provided by Kuo: “Spores 3.5-5 × 1.5-2 µ (Mutinus caninus and Mutinus ravenelii); 4-7 × 2-3 µ (Mutinus elegans)”
I can’t distinguish other factors that might help, but I’ll trust the other vote here and the narrowed tip and go with elegans.
Very unsatisfying microscopy!

By: Chris Hay (hayfield)
2017-01-21 01:31:36 CET (+0100)

On second look and reading descriptions, the stem gradually narrowing to the tip and being wider in the middle (uneven) seems diagnostic for M. elegans. This specimen is just a shorter one and the slime area isn’t as long, I guess. I may still check spores later to confirm (luckily the size ranges don’t overlap, much).

M. elegans vs. caninus
By: Chris Hay (hayfield)
2015-11-06 23:55:35 CET (+0100)

Mycowalt – can you please explain why you propose elegans? The distinctions from Kuo seem like they would be variable, so maybe you are suggesting either one is about as likely. Perhaps I will need to measure spores.

Created: 2015-11-06 19:11:59 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2017-01-27 02:26:07 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 77 times, last viewed: 2017-06-21 09:43:26 CEST (+0200)
Show Log