Collection location: Mill Valley, California, USA [Click for map]
3.5 – 5 cm
These were really interesting. They remind me of the Cystolepiota that Inski finds .
A few odd things… First, the colour. These were not white, they are a pink/buff colour, and I can not tell if this is discolouration due to aging or drying, though it seems pretty widespread, so I am going to guess probably not, even though I have seen apparent reddish darkening from other Cystolepiota due to handling.. Also notice the red spots on the lamelle? I have no idea what is up with that, but when I picked them some red liquid from those spots on the lamelle got onto my hand, and it was very red. The most bizarre feature is the gill attachment, it is very distinctive!
These were found growing under some bushes in someones front yard. The soil they grew from was well saturated from the sprinklers, and seemed to have a lot of clay, and very little leaf debris.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||3.65||1||(Shua)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Thank you both for sharing your opinion.
Uh, compared with numerous other species I have found images of, these look nothing like the two confirmed collections of C. petasiformis that I linked to.
After reading the description, it sounded like the fluff was right for that species, but now having seen pictures of confirmed collections and especially realizing that I found one of them, I don’t think the fluff is similar at all. So unless it is macroscopically very variable with the species, I cannot imagine that they are the same. I remember collecting that one from 2 years ago, and I could hardly pick it without the fluff falling off all over the place. And it was WAY more powdery, and not patchy and erect like this collection. I was also able to handle these without the fluff coming off.
Furthermore, they were that colour when I found them, and did not seem to change colour over time. Where as the other collection was snow white when I picked it, and darkened over the course of a day or two.
But I guess microscopy will have to determine the identity.
I am a little bit surprised that I have not found any good photos of similar gill attachment.
These two photos are not as detailed, but look like they might have something similar going on….
I think Else uses the term velum for the oblong and occasionally subglobose cells covering the basidiocarps of this species, there is also a lack of pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia.
Now that the season is over here in NZ I should start photographing the micro characters of the many collections I’ve made!
Unfortunately the spore ornamentation is hard to see even under 1000×... but the lack of clamps and the elongate as opposed to globose fluff. (yes, that is the technical term for them…)
It will be interesting to see the ornamentation of the spores and to confirm the lack of clamp connections in this collection!
That looks alot like petasiformis to me! This is an older specimen that has somewhat discolored but hasn’t had most of its super powdery covering off Like the other observation you linked to… It was originally described with a conical powdery covering like seen in your photos.
C. pulverulenta is probably a european synonym for petasiformis from Seattle and all along the western coast. It is also notorious for discoloring reddish or cinnamon.
I am basically just posting as I find more information or get new ideas…
Anyway, right now I am having a hard time finding any photos of Cystolepiota with this sort of gill attachment. A number of species resemble this one, especially noting the semi-erect granulose patches on the pileus, with a more dense concentration near the apex. But so far all of the photos of the gill attachment for those seemingly similar species are typical free attachment.
Here are some strikingly similar photos of C. pulverulenta, but I can’t see the attachment!!!
I should probably just ask Else, I bet she would know in a second. But this is kind of fun.
One problem… I have found C. petasiformis before (I just did not remember it being identified to species) and it looks nothing like this. Damn. And for a second there I thought this would be easy.
You can see that the collection from 2 years ago that Else identified matches very well with the photo of C. petasiformis seen in this Cystolepiota of California key.
After reading the Mycotaxon article, which includes the macroscopic description of the species, I think you are spot on Inski.
Among the material studied in the article, 3 collections are from Northern California. A collection of C. petasiformis was made in San Mateo County, Humboldt County, and in Marin County (the city of Mill Valley, where my collections was made, is in Marin County), specifically Bear Valley Trail in Pt. Reyes. So all of this sounds very reasonable for C. petasiformis.
Did you read the notes? :-P
Hehehe, it was growing under some shrubs or bushes of some kind, in Mill Valley. I do not know whether the plants are native or not. The ground was really wet, almost soggy, and the soil seemed to have a lot of clay and pebbles, but very little leafy debris on top.
Where did you find that one? Wow, look at that, neat! My vote would be more for Cystolepiota, that looks more like it should be coming from New Zealand or some such than California…
Created: 2009-11-20 21:55:50 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2009-11-20 21:55:50 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 214 times, last viewed: 2017-12-04 21:23:39 CST (-0500)