|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I’ll keep this info in mind for future obses!
I beleive there is another significant difference between mollis and calolepis, and that is the host.
At least for scandinavian obses, calolepis is rarely found on anything else but aspen (now I need to find out which of the varieties it is..), and the most common host for mollis is Fraxinus.
Ok, I borrowed a copy of the book “Il Genere Crepidotus in Europa”, and I has some interesting things to say. It covers 25 species in Europe, so that isn’t so many, but it covers them well, in over 320 pages. For C. mollis it has it in the group that are viscid, with a gelatin coating. This group only has C. mollis and C. calolepis, with two versions of C. calolepis : var. calolepis and var. squamulosus. And that is it for viscid Creps.
They do admit that many think these are all the same species, and they did genetic studies of the species, and admit that they aren’t that different. Such that you could interpret them as the same species. But then they go on to claim that they believe you can tell the difference.
C. mollis they have with unpigmented surface hyphae, or only slightly pigmented light yellow. C. calolepis has pigmented dark brown surface hyphae. Then they go one show that var. calolepis has thick layer of surface hyphae, and var. squamulosus has a thin layer. Also there is a separation of spore size, with var. calolepis having significantly smaller spores.
So, you could say that everything with a gelatin coating is C. mollis. Or you could split it with off-white to light tan stuff is C. mollis, and dark stuff is C. calolepis.
Looking at what I’ve seen in California, it seems to agree completely with C. calolepis var. squamulosus, with the thin layer of dark pigmented surface hyphae, and the spore size puts in right in the middle of that range.
Looking at that ref., in the first posting in the photos at the bottom, you can see the thicker textured hyphae in the photos on the right. So, those textured surface hyphae are there in the European stuff also. These also seem to have darker hyphae on the surface, pigmented a medium brown. Not as dark as the hyphae in the surface in California, but still pigmented.
Anyway, interesting stuff, need to find more of these. I’ll see if I can find some this fall, although I didn’t seem them last fall.
I found an italian link:
I agree completely. I looked it up, and the Crepidotus book could be purchased for 60 euro + 25 euro for shipping. It may be OK for a university library or a mycological society, where it can be shared by many, but it certainly limits the amount of books that will be sold. And still a ridiculous price for a book with one small genus, the distribution restricted to Europe (30 species or so?).
Douglas, the keys and books I have, lead straight to mollis (glabrous or with scattered fibrils) or calolepis (with brown scales) for species with a gelatinous cap surface. The hyphae haven’t been described in detail, so I haven’t investigated them, only checked that the spores were a match. I’ll look closer the next time I find them.
“The Italian book was quite good, it was similar to the Mycena D’Europa book, don’t know if you saw that one. Which is a good book on Mycena, wish I could buy it, but it costs way too much.”
Which it shouldn’t. It should cost however much the bandwidth costs to transmit however much data it is (a few megabytes at most I should think).
Whoever thought that creating copyright monopolies would “promote the progress of science and the useful arts” was obviously wrong. Making the information, results, and surveys of a field artificially inaccessible to researchers in that field with artificial price barriers can’t possibly do anything but stifle the progress of science.
The Italian book was quite good, it was similar to the Mycena D’Europa book, don’t know if you saw that one. Which is a good book on Mycena, wish I could buy it, but it costs way too much. I sited the Crep. book in my obs. on C. cesatii, ah, here it is: “Il Genere Crepidotus in Europa” G. Consiglio, L. Setti (2008), which I mention in this obs:
I haven’t seen anything like C. mollis yet around here, only seen a few Creps so far. Thats another thing to look for and compare to the US I guess…
Did you say the surface hyphae weren’t textured? I found the textured hyphae quite distinctive, strangely thick walled, and roughened. Compared to other Creps, where the surface hyphae were smooth, some thicker than others, but not with that roughened surface.
I haven’t seen the italian book, sounds interesting!
I don’t think that the European and american mollis are that different. It could be a very variable species – with more or less amount of the brown hyphae, and have a more or less gelatinous cap as well.
I ran more sequences from GenBank, one Swedish, and one from Washington, and they were a perfect match. Almost too perfect to be true.. I also checked a swedish “calolepis” against mollis from Sweden and USA. It differed 1% from the Swedish mollis, 0% from the american collection. And that is weird..
Ok, if that is what you are calling C. mollis from Europe, here, then what do I see in California? There is that new Italian book about Crepidotus, have you seen that one? It is pretty good, I’ll have to look that up this week hopefully, and see what that says about C. mollis.
But in California they had a consistent tan-light brown cap, with the dark radial hyphae. These are rather off-white, with light radial hyphae…
Is this going to be yet another species sensu Europe compared to species sensu North America?
Created: 2010-05-05 17:20:07 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2010-05-05 17:20:09 BST (+0100)
Viewed: 293 times, last viewed: 2017-06-07 14:36:09 BST (+0100)