Observation 3181: Contumyces rosellus (M.M. Moser) Redhead, Moncalvo, Vilgalys & Lutzoni
When: 2007-04-29
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

2% (3)
Recognized by sight
5% (3)
Eye3
Used references: Bigelow, H. E. 1985. North American Species of Clitocybe Part 2. J. Cramer Co. New York, NY. 471p.
72% (2)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Looks very similar to the material I’ve collected in southern California.
64% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Contumyces rosella var. rosella (not. vinacea!!)
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2008-04-08 21:16:56 PDT (-0700)

Moved my commnets to Collection 7204 because that was the specimen that we inspected microscopically.

macro description a match to Redhead’s Contumyces paper…on to the scope!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-04-02 11:00:06 PDT (-0700)
Contumyces rosella var. vinacea, nearing our target.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-04-01 16:19:54 PDT (-0700)

When ya need an ID on a little guy, best to go to the BMOC.

Guess that I need to schlep down to UCB to read the micro details; haven’t been getting Mycologia for long enough to have a copy on hand. Any help here, or nobody else has a copy, either?

Dennis Desjardin’s answer to our questions:

Debbie;

Your photos show nicely Contumyces rosella var. vinacea. For a nice
description and long discussion see Redhead et al. in Mycologia 87:
880-885. 1995 (as Omphalina rosella var. vinacea). Your material is a
little paler, but otherwise looks good. Check the micro characters as
specified in the paper to be sure.

Cheers,
Dennis D.

Well, some details from some sources…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-04-01 12:20:59 PDT (-0700)

Not that I know anything, but this seems to be somethings to look for here:

From Largent and Baroni, Mush. to Genus VI – Omphalina – Defined by stature, smooth inamyloid spores, and hyphae of lamellar trama interwoven.

From Wikipedia on Contumyces – “were previously classified in Omphalina … Contumyces is most similar to Rickenella and Blasiphalia and differs by having its cystidia on the pileus, stipe, and hymenium in clusters, whereas in Rickenella and Blasiphalia the cystidia are solitary.”

From Wikipedia on Omphalina – “No true Omphalina has gelatinized or slimy tissues or brightly colored pigments. Neither do they have cystidia.”

So, take that for what it is worth, but this suggests that you should look for cystidia (if you haven’t handled them too much), pretty much anywhere that is in clumps.

I do have voucher specimens, just one Fwy. exit away…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-04-01 08:27:12 PDT (-0700)

Since I do voucher most everything, esp. unusual mushrooms, what would I be looking for under the scope to separate Omphalina from Contumyces? I am still a novice microscopist, so be specific, and kind!

No voucher here…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2008-03-31 23:00:55 PDT (-0700)

but I know Lorelei Norvell has one and I just dropped her a note about it. It looks like it’s the right time of year to find it. I just have to get out do some collecting. I will definitely save some the next time I see it. It would also be great to see some of the northern California material. It seems like Darvin’s finding them (or something macroscopically similar) pretty regularly.


Regarding the naming, I’m just trying to figure out that (admittedly minor) detail while the topic is warm.

Missing the point
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2008-03-31 22:18:00 PDT (-0700)

Both Redhead et al. and Antonin and Noordeloos spell it Contumyces rosella. But I don’t really care about the spelling. What I do care about is which species we have here…is it an Omphalina (Agaricales) or a Contumyces (Hymenochaetales). I’ve never collected a Contumyces, so I am interested to know if I actually occurs in California.
.
This just goes to show how important vouchers are…but how difficult this is is a story for another day.

Is it Contumyces rosella or C. rosellus?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2008-03-31 21:58:28 PDT (-0700)

I’d be really interested to know what it says in the papers Mike sites. A quick Google search supports C. rosella (68 vs. 34), but we all know how reliable that is. Index Fungorum has it as C. rosellus and they tend to be a stickler on their Latin grammer. Based on what I’ve been reading in Stern’s “Botanical Latin”, the gender change to rosellus makes sense to me. The genus is named after Marco Contu which suggests that it should be masculine. There’s a chance that the -myces ending forces it to be feminine, but that would be unusual (honorifics that end -ii or -ae are supposed to reflect the gender of the person being honored). There’s also a chance that rosella is a noun, but it sure looks like a color term. Stern doesn’t mention rosella in the color section, but the discussion of terms for red is a really interesting read.

Could be Contumyces
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2008-03-31 17:59:47 PDT (-0700)

A few minutes with a specimen and a microscope is the only real way to resolve this. But, I must say that the picture looks a LOT like the picture of Contumyces rosella in:
.
Antonín, V. & Noordeloos, M.E. (2004). A monograph of the genera Hemimycena, Delicatula, Fayodia, Gamundia, Myxomphalia, Resinomycena, Richenella, and Xeromphalina in Europe. IHW Verlag: Eching, Germany. 279 p.
.
Redhead et al. named an American variety of Omphalina rosella….var. vinacea. They do not mention the typical variety occuring in NA:
.
Redhead, S.A., Walker, G.R., Ammirati, J.F. & Norvell, L. (1995). Omphalina sensu lato in North America 4: O. rosella. Mycologia 87(6): 880-885.
.
Omphalina rosella is transferred to the new genus, Contumyces in:
.
Redhead, S.A., Moncalvo, J.-M. , Vilgalys, R. & Lutzoni, F. (2002). Phylogeny of agarics: partial systematics solutions for bryophilous omphalinoid agarics outside of the Agaricales (euagarics). Mycotaxon 82: 151-168.

What do you think of Contumyces rosellus?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2008-03-30 22:29:50 PDT (-0700)

Formerly Omphalina rosella. As mentioned in another recent observation of something macroscopically similar, this observation seems to match reasonably well a collection I made with the Lorelei Norvell in southern California which she identified as O. rosella. That was before the Scott (Redhead) and Co. looked at the DNA and moved it to Contumyces. Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of details on the differences between these genera. One comment I found on Wikipedia was “Contumyces is most similar to Rickenella and Blasiphalia and differs by having its cystidia on the pileus, stipe, and hymenium in clusters, whereas in Rickenella and Blasiphalia the cystidia are solitary.”

Type for Omphalina
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2008-03-30 22:04:19 PDT (-0700)

This IS an Omphalina. Omphalina pyxidata is the conserved type of the genus Omphalina. See:
.
Redhead, S.A., Lutzoni, F., Moncalvo, J.-M. & Vilgalys, R. (2002). Phylogeny of Agarics: Partial Systematics Solutions for Core Omphalinoid Genera in the Agaricales (Euagarics). Mycotaxon 83: 19-57.

What!
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-03-30 21:03:31 PDT (-0700)

Not Omphalina? Clitocybe? Is this in Denise’s monograph? Wooo… boy that’s a new one on me.

Created: 2007-04-29 22:05:18 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2007-04-29 22:05:18 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 495 times, last viewed: 2016-09-27 15:22:23 PDT (-0700)