|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.45||1||(zaca)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||3.66||1||(v_polecat)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Thanks for your interest and comments about this observation.
We have the same version of FAN 4, but we read slightly different things from there. However, there is a point in your analysis that made me think that you must be right, again supposing that the two taxa under consideration are distinct. In fact, the qualifying “rounded to capitate apex” for the cheilocystidia of P. dorsipora is not very clear when compared with some photos of the cheilocystidia of P. semiglobata (some also with rounded apex); but in FAN4 the dimensions cheilocystidia are given as follows:
P. dorsipora: 20-40 × 3.5-10 µm;
P. semiglobata: 40-100 × 5-15 µm.
I didn’t insert a scale in my photos, but the width of each photo at 400 magnification is about 240 um. Therefore, a simple calculation show that the maximum lenght for the cheilocystidia is about 40 µm, precisely the maximum indicate for P. dorsipora (and the minumum of P. semiglobata). This together with some of the other arguments you mentioned, which are not so clear to me (the wide/small germ pore of semiglobata/dorsipora is not quantified, the more clavate/lageniform form of pleurochrysocystidia is also not so obvious) are points in favour of P. dorsipora.
I’m finishing the microscopy of another Protostropharia, considered at observation 229177 and, as far as I can see now, the same kind of features are present. I will upload some photos soon and invite you to see them and give me your opinion.
We might be consulting different editions. I based my comments on the FAN4 1999 version, pages 62-63. Partly available online. (https://books.google.fi/...)
According to this reference, the cheilocystidia of P. dorsipora have indeed more “rounded to capitate apex” (quoted from the book), being a characteristic of distinction between the two species. About the length, I only read that in P. dorsipora, the cheilocystidia are “slightly smaller” (quoted from the book) than those of P. semiglobata. Anyways, that for now is irrelevant because we have no data on this observation to compare. If I look at your nice pictures of the cheilocystidia and compare them to the illustrations of the reference, than I have little doubt in considering them closer to P. dorsipora (note the round, capitate apex).
Concerning the pleurochrysocystidia, if your last image does indeed show one (I think it does), then its shape is also more like that of P. dorsipora, i.e., “mucronate”, clearly.
Concerning the spore pore. It leaves more doubts. But I fail to observe a clear “wide, central” (quoted from the book) germ pore in your pictures. They seem to me, rather small and some of them, lateral too. Compare them to the reference’s illustrations. In order to clarify this, higher magnifications are needed.
I do have the Fungi Europaei Vol.13 – Strophariaceae (Noordeloos, 2011) back home in Portugal, I could check there when I go back and check if there are any updates concerning these two species.
Since I don’t know or understand what made the authors consider these as two different species, and since I’m unaware of any phylogenetic respective studies, I wouldn’t be surprised if these are only small morphological variations of the same species. They might become synonymyzed in the future. But for the time being, I would say you have there a Protostropharia dorsipora (Esteve-Rav. & Barrasa) Redhead
I think that you misinterpreted the features of P. dorsipora in comparison with those of P. semiglobata. In fact, the cheilocystidia of the former is much shorter than in the latter (rounded apex for both, but the latter has cylindrical ones, as clearly shown in the photos attached); on the other hand, P. dorsipora has distinctly eccentric germ pore, which is not the case of my specimen, and that serves to separate the two species in the key of FAN, v4.
as the reference for staining chrysocystidia. I’ve used different concentrations of KOH and I find it tricku, many times with ambiguous results. Then I started using Cotton blue, which I strongly recommend in order to observe chrysocystidia.
Concerning your last picture, I also think those could be the chrysocystidia, both for contents stain and also shape…
I was looking at the description of Psilocybe semiglobata = Protostropharia semiglobata in FAN, Vol. IV, and it seems to be a perfect match (see also the attached photos):
- The colour, form and dimensions of the spores, for which I got:
(15.6) 16.8 – 19.2 (20.3) x (7.9) 9 – 10.5 (11) µm
Q = (1.5) 1.8 – 2 ; N = 33; Me = 17.9 × 9.7 µm ; Qe = 1.9,
- The lageniform cheilocystidia,
- The 4-spored basidia,
- The pileipellis structure,
- The cylindrical to flexuous caulocystidia.
However, I have some doubts concerning the interpretation of some of the microstructures observed. These are shown at the last to set of photos and were observed in mounts of water and congo red to which a drop of Chloral hydrate was added, with the purpose of exposing the inner structure of the elements:
- The photos labeled “Pseudocystidia#” can represent those elements, but can also be basidioles, having a granular content;
- The photos labeled “Pleurochrysocystidia(?)” can represent those elements or someother, but here I see no alternative.
Can anyone give me an help on this?
Created: 2015-11-14 20:54:48 GMT (+0000)
Last modified: 2016-02-06 13:12:42 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 104 times, last viewed: 2017-03-17 03:10:31 GMT (+0000)