Observation 223544: Panaeolus cinctulus (Bolton) Britzelm.
When: 2015-11-21

Notes: In (eucalyptus?) woodchips (fairly fresh). Maybe some dung beneath?

Spores with a fairly large (most 1-1.5 but some up to 2 µm wide) germ pore, more or less central (not terribly eccentric). Spores smooth, fairly thick-walled, long-ellipsoid, some with elongate distal ends, others weakly rhomboid in top view.

Cheilocystidia weakly capitate to strongly capitate, some nearly sphaeropedunculate.

Spores
( 16 × 8 )
13 × 6.5
14 × 7
15 × 7
14 × 7
( 10 × 6 )
14 × 8
14 × 7

CSALVA 433

Proposed Names

55% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
Used references: Gerhardt
Based on microscopic features

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Yes,
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2015-11-26 23:02:51 CST (-0500)

Possibly something different but quite often spores collected from the lamellae can look more elongated and a bit thinner usually due to them being not quite fully matured, it’s best to view spores taken from a print or if one wasn’t made fully matured examples can be found on the upper regions of the stipe.

Does not look like Panaeolus cinctulus spores
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-11-26 18:51:08 CST (-0500)

They look longer and narrower than what I usually see with this species. The size is about right, but they are usually less elliptical. I expected to see something more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...

Thanks for the compliment.
By: Byrain
2015-11-24 10:50:46 CST (-0500)

I don’t have anything so heartwarming to give you in return though… I just think your find is cool and wish it would get the attention it deserves. Its your collection so you should either work it up yourself since you’re far more than capable or send it off to an actual expert like Jan Borovička who is legally allowed to study psilocybin containing mushrooms and is doing a study on their potency now.

Oh man byrain
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-11-24 10:35:25 CST (-0500)

I forgot how unpleasant you can be.
Anyway, no. I measured some spores.
You’re welcome to request the specimen and measure a million more.

Sulphidia not examined as per my comment (I don’t have sulfovanillin)…

In my experience/opinion, drawings of certain cells are much better than photographing them – you can get a clearer idea of what the person was seeing.

Germ pore oblique.

Added to sequencing queue.

Uhh
By: Byrain
2015-11-24 10:12:44 CST (-0500)

Do me a favor and measure at least 20 spores next time, it would be best to measure at least 20 spores per specimen, but that would only be thorough. Also photograph the cheilocystidia, the differences in cheilocystidia in Panaeolus is subtle and that is difficult to capture in an illustration especially with limited experience in the genus.

Lastly, can you confirm two details? The germ pores are oblique rather than apical? Sulphidia are absent?

Would it be hard to get population of this?
By: Tom Bruns (pogon)
2015-11-23 23:41:28 CST (-0500)

Is it an introduction?

They are common on lawns in the bay area
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-11-22 02:49:27 CST (-0500)

When it is both warm out and raining – usually May. They get more common the further south you go. These look thick though, they were probably growing on horse manure.

You might
By: Byrain
2015-11-22 01:37:52 CST (-0500)

You might be able to just see irregular basidiole like cells on the gill face which seem to be sulphidia (?) without any special stains. I am under the impression that these are more common in central and southern California where there are hot summers with humid well irrigated grassy areas. I haven’t seen as many recently with the drought and reduced irrigation, but I have seen fewer mushrooms around here in general. If possible, DNA sequences might be helpful too.

Scoping and questions
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-11-22 01:05:32 CST (-0500)

I will try my best to remember to scope them on Monday when I’m on campus.
I no longer have any sulphovanillin, so I can’t check for sulphidia, unfortunately. Are there other features that can be used to get around that? Or do I just have to buy some vanillin and strong acid? I hate how corrosive and short-lived that mix is…

Second question I have for Byrain and the MO community in general:
I don’t find these P. subbalteatus-like things very often, and yet in Mushrooms Demystified, Arora seems to have encountered them very frequently, going so far as to call them California’s most common psilocybin-containing species (a title that seems surely now to rest with Psilocybe cyanescens?).
Do other folks have that experience of this species or group being common?

Any chance you can scope these?
By: Byrain
2015-11-22 00:55:09 CST (-0500)

It would be pretty awesome! Spore size, shape, ornamentation and position of the germ pore would be important. As well as cheilocystidia morphology and presence or absence of sulphidia.

Created: 2015-11-21 21:12:06 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-11-24 14:37:58 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 192 times, last viewed: 2016-11-29 18:55:29 CST (-0500)
Show Log