Observation 30940: Hygrocybe virginea (Wulfen) P.D. Orton & Watling
When: 2009-12-26
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Growing under madrone

Proposed Names

18% (4)
Recognized by sight: Dry stipe and moist cap, yellowing slightly, Not viscid , no odor ,decurrent gills
Based on chemical features: no odor
-16% (2)
Recognized by sight: ochraceous-white
Used references: Report of the New York State Botanist(1904)

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2011-03-10 02:18:50 CET (+0100)

I’m glad I got someone’s attention. Camarophyllus (Hygrocybe)angustifolius is basically a white C. pratensis. The type collection was from New Jersey. It is not a common eastern species.


I would not disagree with Hygrocybe virginea

Hah! Camarophyllus angustifolius!
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-03-09 17:48:11 CET (+0100)

Um, how did you get to the name Camarophyllus angustifolius? And recognized by eye! Where do you see this enough to be able to do that? Is this a common species in the east perhaps?

It looks like I’m the only other person to use this name, and I agonized about it over a month with micro-scopic features. This is kinda a problematic species, and I’d love to know better if it should be used as and id, more often or not at all.

It was sited in the Smith and Hesler monograph, and I think from just 2 samples, once from California. Largent listed it in his monograph of California Hygrophorus, but states that he never saw it. I was just looking at the new 2nd ed. of Hygrocybe of Northern Europe, published last year, and the author there sites it a species he has never seen, and is not sure if it should exist.

Also in that book, the author lists all Camarophyllus species as part of a section of the genus Hygrocybe. I think because they are saprotrophs, and keeps them separate from Hygrophorus.

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-03-09 08:18:53 CET (+0100)

You said it is growing with Madrone but I see a lot of bay leaves in the photo which makes an affinity with Observation 6907 more likely.

The name game is not settled
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-01-15 10:31:10 CET (+0100)

Camarophyllus as the name for a separate genus, or subgenus, has been widely accepted for a long time, but might not follow the nomenclatoric rules (I find them difficult to understand and often contradictional).
Camarophyllus was used by Elias Fries In “Systema Mycologicum” as a subtribe of Clitocybe, a large tribe that included most of today’s Leucopaxillus, Lepista, Clitocybe, Lyophyllum, Hygrocybe, Hygrophorus, Melanoleuca, Dermoloma, Rhodocollybia etc. (not a bad idea at all, as phylogenetics has shown).
The first species he mentioned was Agaricus camarophyllus (now Hygrophorus). That could be interpreted as a type species, but we don’t know if that was his intention..

A more recent name, Cuphophyllus Donk, with the type species Agaricus pratensis, has been proposed for this group instead. I don’t think the last word has been said about it yet.

Hygrocybe virginea
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2009-12-27 03:59:26 CET (+0100)
so should this be Hygrophorus or Hygrocybe?
By: Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
2009-12-27 03:53:16 CET (+0100)
The Name Game. Camarophyllus
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2009-12-26 23:07:55 CET (+0100)
Is not a valid genus according to Jean Lodge.

Created: 2009-12-26 22:28:54 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2014-12-23 01:08:09 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 207 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 13:03:19 CEST (+0200)
Show Log