Observation 45849: Panaeolus goossensiae Beeli
When: 2010-05-25
Project: Panaeolus
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Located in mulch, near horse dung. Spores 10-13μm x 8-9μm

Quite a few samples well dried in silica. Some with a fair amount of integrity.

6/22/13: spores seems 11-14μm X 8-10μm


Edit: CCB 08/08/13
ITS BLAST 98% Panaeolus sphinctrinus (Washington)

Images

90069
86893
86894
86895
87093
87094
87096
87187
87188
87189
87964
89780
90068
91969
92857
92858
340945
13.317 X 8.599
12.090 X 8.384
13.0375 X 9.223
13.453 X 9.368
340967
9.14 pixels/micron
348160
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
4- sterigmate basidia, KOH, 100x
348162
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Caulocystidia, KOH, 100x
348163
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
clamps, KOH, 100x
348169
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
very distinctive cells in the pileipellis, KOH, 100x
348170
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
very distinctive cells in the pileipellis, KOH, 100x
348171
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
very distinctive cells in the pileipellis, KOH, 100x
348172
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Spores, KOH, 100x
348173
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Spores, KOH, 100x
348174
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Spores, KOH, 100x
348175
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
Spores, KOH, 100x
348179
Copyright © 2010 Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
also distinctive are the very wide cells of the stipe (much wider than others that I’ve looked at recently anyway); KOH; 100x

Proposed Names

47% (2)
Recognized by sight
Used references: Alan Rockefeller
-44% (2)
Recognized by sight: veil remnants around the cap margin
72% (3)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Spore morphology seems to match.
29% (3)
Recognized by sight: Lets see some cystidia

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Panaeolus goossensiae
By: Christine Braaten (wintersbefore)
2013-07-12 03:05:54 CEST (+0200)

I think a few things point to goossensiae here:
-the terricolous habit (on a mulched trail but not in directly from dung); The type was found “On the ground in swampy woods” (but can occur on dung as well)

-the dark cap colors when young

-Lack of a veil (this does not have denticles, or remnants in the way that papilionaceus or rubricaulis do)

-The spores are small (12.88 × 8.77 microns), smooth, very dark spores (papilionaceus-type) spores within range for goossensiae [10-13 x (7)8-9.5 × 6-7]

-Sulphidia are not present

I thought the pilepellis was very distinctive, with spheropedunculate cells, but Gerhardt often failed to describe the pileipellis and did not describe it for this species.

The stipitipellis was alos distinctive, they seamed quite a bit larger than some of the others I’ve looked at recently, but again, not described in Gerhardt’s treatment.


Spore average 12.88 × 8.77 microns; Q-value= 1.47
L W Q
max 14.85 10.29 1.69
avg 12.88 8.77 1.47
(+-sd) 1.41 0.87 0.10
min 9.86 6.88 1.23

14.34 x 9.65
14.85 x 10.29
14.19 x 9.56
12.84 x 9.36
13.62 x 9.68
12.15 x 7.69
13.01 x 8.83
14.23 x 9.38
10.77 x 8.05
13.90 x 9.30
13.78 x 9.39
13.87 x 9.54
14.52 x 9.43
12.72 x 8.89
12.83 x 9.14
12.47 x 8.65
11.87 x 8.27
13.57 x 8.51
10.27 x 8.36
13.49 x 7.99
9.86 x 6.88
12.37 x 7.60
10.64 x 7.36

That seems to be the only copy available …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-24 05:00:59 CEST (+0200)

Mine stops at 91. Pp. 92-93 are needed. These have the illustrations for that species.

Ιερονυμοσ
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 20:30:02 CEST (+0200)

I just have to say I wasn’t questioning your literacy, it was in response to Bob’s comment…

And that is good to know about the basidia and cheilocystidia sizes, are you also missing half of the P. goossinsinae description like I am? :(
And yea, I thought that about Bloodworm’s observation too, but Gerhardt describes the cap as sometimes peeling, so I’m not really sure.

P. goossinsinae has smaller maximum cheliocystidia and basidia …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-23 20:19:20 CEST (+0200)

P. goossinsinae – basidia 20-25 um
cheliocystidia 20-25

P. pap var. par – basidia 22-30
Cheliocystidia 25-35

Other than that, they’re practically the same. They both have hyaline cheliocystidia and lack sulphidia.

EDIT: Oh and now that I notice it … I know fugacious means evansecent. Thanks for questioning my literacy, dude. For that matter I think I see some on obs. 128639 (particularly in image 309984) so that is what led me to believe that goossinsinae might either have remnants or your label for that observation is wrong too.

Seriously, your attitude has been pretty demeaning recently.

gslvnwlnsl
By: Benjamin Dion (MykesLogos)
2013-06-23 20:00:21 CEST (+0200)

Byrain said: “That species is described in section Laevispora which has species described as, “Carpophores without veil”. You believe it should be moved into section Panaeolus which has species described as, “Carpophores with veil (traces of it visible as dentate or appendiculate margin of the cap or annulus)”? If so, how does it differ from P. papilionaceus var. parvisporus?”

I find these ALL THE TIME down here in southwest FL, but we’ve always called them “P. papilionaceus”…

I need to get a microscope, cause I’m probably finding multiple species that look very similar.

Interesting discussion below… sorry I’m not offering anything that helps, but I just really felt the need to say that haha…

cheers

:(
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 19:54:06 CEST (+0200)
Byrain
By: Eric Smith (esmith)
2013-06-23 19:52:46 CEST (+0200)

You talk a lot, but you don’t say anything.

Much veil
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 19:43:53 CEST (+0200)

Unfortunately its not a question if there is much veil, its a question if there is any veil. You might want to look up what fugacious means. :)

I think I see faint traces of a veil, but like you said, there isn’t much evidence of it and maybe its not present?

I don’t see
By: Eric Smith (esmith)
2013-06-23 19:37:30 CEST (+0200)

much evidence of a veil in these photos.

On P. goossensiae
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 19:29:05 CEST (+0200)

That species is described in section Laevispora which has species described as, “Carpophores without veil”. You believe it should be moved into section Panaeolus which has species described as, “Carpophores with veil (traces of it visible as dentate or appendiculate margin of the cap or annulus)”? If so, how does it differ from P. papilionaceus var. parvisporus?

Appendiculate Margin …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-23 19:20:13 CEST (+0200)

After looking through all of my oldphotos, I found just one specimen exactly as you describe. II swear it doesn’t look like any veil is present at all, but apparently there is. The veil must form so ephemerally that it ruptures immediately after the cap even begins to open.

Most of my specimens lack any macroscopic traces of any veil remnants on the stipe or ap margins.

I am beginning to suspect that this may be the case for Panaeolus goossensiae as well.

uhm
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 18:29:25 CEST (+0200)

I never said there was an annulus, i said veil. An annulus would suggest something like P. venezolanus.

Still looks like an indistinctly appendiculate cap margin with a very fugacious veil to me indicating Panaeolus papilionaceus var. parvisporus, especially with the small spores.

I would call that the margin of the pileus …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-23 07:40:05 CEST (+0200)

… enclosed around a stipe with no annulus. Opens up into a completely spherical cap like image 87189. Note that the is no annulus there at all. Also compare to image 87096.

What would you call it?

What would you call
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 07:34:12 CEST (+0200)
Err …
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-23 07:14:08 CEST (+0200)

I see no annular remnants nor recall any annular remnants. I don’t see what you are “seeing.” Neither a veil nor its according remnants occurred.

Would you care to point out what you describe?

Wouldn’t the veil
By: Byrain
2013-06-23 07:05:21 CEST (+0200)

rule out Panaeolus goossensiae? Or are you arguing that P. goosensiae actually does have a veil and its just undescribed? And what does the cystidia look like?

Edit: If it does have a veil, how would you distinguish it from Panaeolus papilionaceus var. parvisporus? A small difference in spore size doesn’t seem very substantial…

New Pixels/micron Ratios for 8816-2.jpg
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2013-06-23 03:49:19 CEST (+0200)

using S1, 4.5M, 40X standard at 9.14 pixels/micron ratio.

13.317 X 8.599
12.090 X 8.384
13.0375 X 9.223
13.453 X 9.368

Pixel/micron ratio
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-05-01 00:35:53 CEST (+0200)

How did you calculate the pixel/micron ratio the first time?

The zoom will change the pixel to micron ratio, but it doesn’t matter if you have a reticle in the picture and calculate the ratio for each shot.

The Gimp does just about everything that photoshop does and it is free. Its measure tool is pretty good for this.

800X with a Kodak digital camera
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2011-04-30 23:45:50 CEST (+0200)

All pictures were taken at total magnification of 800X (40X objective and 20X ocular piece). I calculated the pixel/micron ratio, but I’ll probably have to get photoshop again.

I could have sworn you talking about the zoom on digital camera autofocus messing with the actual spore size against that magnification factor. I recently tohught about that when thinking about those measurements.

Spore measurments
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-04-18 21:32:26 CEST (+0200)

What is the scale on the spore pics?

Aren’t the spores a bit small to be P. papilionaceus sensu stricto?
By: Stephen (Ιερονυμοσ)
2010-07-09 06:10:54 CEST (+0200)

http://mushroomobserver.org/34610?q=18N2

“approx. 15.8-17.0 X 10.0-11.0 microns.”

These don’t seem to be quite as large. Perhaps I am wrong.

Created: 2010-05-25 22:02:12 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2013-08-08 20:29:27 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 812 times, last viewed: 2016-10-09 22:02:10 CEST (+0200)
Show Log