Observation 23647: Lepista flaccida (Sowerby) Pat.
When: 2009-07-28
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Found groups of them semi fairy rings…near Douglas Fir

Proposed Names

57% (4)
Recognized by sight
27% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I don’t share the inversa theory..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-08-01 15:32:17 IST (+0530)

The striate cap margin tells me it’s something else, more like a species around costata or gibba (looks like something in between).

it means
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-08-01 06:53:23 IST (+0530)

The theory that this mushroom is what is being called Lepista flaccida, aka Clitocybe inversa. But as Irene was saying, the species may actually belong in the Infundibulicybe genus.

By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-08-01 03:33:53 IST (+0530)

but what does this mean? inversa theory, ….

By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-08-01 03:33:25 IST (+0530)

but what does this mean? inversa theory, ….

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-07-31 12:42:02 IST (+0530)

It’s a long story behind that genus, but it’s actually a result of choosing Clitocybe nebularis as the type species of Clitocybe. If you are interested in reading about it, it’s here:

At that time, Infundibulicybe was still not DNA-sequensed, but I think the following article confirms that this genus is genetically far away from the conventional Clitocybe and Lepista species, and it also supports keeping narrow concepts for Clitocybe and Lepista (otherwise the remaining Collybia species should have been included with them):

You can read about characters of Infundibulicybe here:

and compare with Clitocybe:

and Lepista:

By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-07-31 08:59:20 IST (+0530)

Ok, Johannes, now you have to imagine the possibility that you can go to Wikipedia and read on Clitocybe — it explains that the group is polyphyletic (as well as the meaning of that word). From there on it appears that it has to be broken down into several new Genera. Another search on Google will reveal a lot of information and specific papers explaining what Infundibulicybe is and how it relates to Clitocybe. There is a lot of information and Irene Andersson is probably the best source of what is in the Internet space. There are enormous and easily accessible resources to answer your question in greater dpeth that can be done in a sentence or two.

As far as the material — if you have a piece of the mushrooms present it would be interesting to do the following:

1) Obtain a thick spore deposit if possible. Carefully review the color — how much off white. Is it creamish, pinkish tinted, etc. This can be fairly useful.

2) Send me a piece of the mushroom, or an entire fruitbody and I will be able to get some basic guidance as to where we stand. We will easily be bale to at least check the inversa theory, which actually appears more attractive the more I look into the photos, but needs to be checked.

By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-07-31 06:29:47 IST (+0530)

so what is the difference between Infundibulicybe and clitocybe…Is it called smth different in Mushrooms Demystified?

So what can i do?
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-07-31 06:22:00 IST (+0530)

should I make a spore print and send it or dried specimens to some one?
i don’t have my microscope with me and won’t be able to get to one for awhile…??<:-)

Will do as asked…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-07-31 05:11:53 IST (+0530)

Ok Erin, we’re on the same page, if you want a challenge, just sharpen your equipment cause we’ll have a busy Psathyrella Fall. I’m cornering two obviously undescribed Calfiornia species, which are quite common in the East Bay parks near Oaks. There we’ll go through challenge and counter-challenge a few times.

As far as Clitocybe, for the most part it needs to be collected and id-ed carefully and even then I’ve got a few European collections that baffle me. Not to mention California material. You will be surprised how few, if any, people are out there Worldwide who could tell Clitocybe in field conditions, or at all. Even for the European material I’ve had hard time finding someone who knows them well enough.


Challenge me any time, Dimitar
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-30 16:53:51 IST (+0530)

Oh I am not upset. :)

Yes, challenge me! I love a good argument; I will never take scientific scrutiny as a personal offense, haha.

My comments must not have conveyed it, but I agree with your last arguments completely. However, I think we are arguing from the same perspective. I could play devil’s advocate, but I think we both have heard that side more than enough times.
I am certainly not arguing that this IS L. flaccida or any particular species, I would not dare! I have watched Denise persist with collections of Clitocybe and/or Lepista, trying to verify a species with microscopic and macroscopic characteristics, and realizing that the majority of the collections do not fit ANY of the species she has documents for!

As you were throwing the name C. costata into the ring for example, I was also just putting a name on this mushroom for anyone to argue/vote for or against. Of course, it is virtually impossible to argue one way or the other, since all we have are photos which match perfectly with a number of closely related species!

I am absolutely not trying to put a label on this or any other mushroom in hopes that no one will notice that there is insufficient information to support any specific species level designation. I am suggesting a possibility.
Thank you for pointing out a number of other possibilities! That is precisely what I could hope for!

Hot.. My fingers are burning…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-07-30 12:16:01 IST (+0530)

Wow, that was hot… I should have known that I’ll get myself in
trouble like I do often with Amanitarita… Erin, I realize that it
should not be my business to tell people how to enjoy the hobby of
putting names on things.

The name chosen for this observation is not bad at all, but certainly
not anywhere nearly as solid as to be applied without reservations.
Particularly in this tough Genus that even after tons of reading and
microscopy one often wonders around in search of the elusive truth.
You asked the correct question about C. costata and indeed Bigelow
does not list it from NA. I just threw it out there as an option
without thinking much. And if not this one then he does list a bunch
of other Clitocybe with costate pileus and similar colors, many of
them from that part of NA.

Also, I do not think that sticking at a sp. level hides information at
all. On the contrary, it illuminates the most important piece of
knowledge — that we actually do not know. And the willingness to
admit to it, which is the only stimulus to learn more. Why not tell
people that they do not know something and there is more to it? Why
promote ignorance and try to scoop it under the rug? There is plenty
of space for comments, drawing affinities and making comparisons. But
again, this is only my opinion.

Best wishes and I beg forgiveness in advance for anything that might
upset you.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-30 10:25:06 IST (+0530)

“I admire how bravely you guys put names on a tough genus like Clitocybe.”
No you do not! :-P

Or at least you prefer a conservative approach in terms of putting species names on things. That is more admirable in my book, and technically, that is my preference in most instances. Especially with some of the more vexing genera.

“Why not Clitocybe costata for example with that costate cap margin?”
Is it documented outside of Europe?

As far as ever pinning anything down to species without at least basic microscopy… I see both sides of the coin.

In one instance, a lot of different species may regularly go unrecognized under the guise of a more common species name…

However, if you label everything “sp.” then you don’t give the reader/listener any hints as to what it might be. Especially for a resource like MO, where I (and I assume others as well) regularly search a species name to find images and info on a given species. Often times these names are unverified, and often there is a good over view of the perspectives debated in the comments, so that certainly helps.

I think the best of both worlds, in this particular instance, is to suggest any possible names, and then delete any suggestions that have been pretty thoroughly discounted. That way you can search for either potential species name, and the observation comes up.

By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-07-30 06:25:34 IST (+0530)

I admire how bravely you guys put names on a tough genus like Clitocybe. Why not Clitocybe costata for example with that costate cap margin?

I found it
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-07-30 02:21:53 IST (+0530)

thanks…should i make a spore print/

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-30 01:55:41 IST (+0530)

Entry for C. inversa in Mushrooms Demystified

“Edibility: Not recommended.”

Does it?……
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-07-30 01:31:35 IST (+0530)

have a different name in Mushrooms Demystified? is it edible?////

Created: 2009-07-29 08:18:29 IST (+0530)
Last modified: 2009-07-29 08:18:29 IST (+0530)
Viewed: 253 times, last viewed: 2017-06-06 11:36:48 IST (+0530)
Show Log