Observation 48080: Cantharellus Adans. ex Fr.
When: 2010-07-04
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

-19% (4)
Recognized by sight: C. cinnabarinus included for scale.
14% (4)
Recognized by sight: These are very large for C. minor, using the C. cinnabarinus for scale.
6% (3)
Recognized by sight: the color is wrong for C. minor. Do you have any pictures of the cap? C. appalachiensis is another possibility, that should have dark scales on the cap.
45% (2)
Recognized by sight: somebody had to propose it! ;)

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Based on the parts I can see
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2010-07-06 17:55:10 CDT (-0400)

I would consider only two species, Cantharellus tabernensis and C. appalachiensis, but base on it’s size and your description of the cap it’s a pretty good fit for C. tabernensis.
C. minor is smaller and bright orange-yellow; it doesn’t have the brownish stipe that these do.

Intervenous gills?
By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2010-07-06 14:39:43 CDT (-0400)

… although on second viewing, I think that’s just sand in this case.
These were gathered on a sandy stream bank beside some cinnabars on
my other recent posting — you can see how sandy they are. Those DO
show intervenous gills.

Intervenous gills
By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2010-07-06 14:33:54 CDT (-0400)

I saw those too, like in the cinnabars … so I’ll concede the point.

Adding in or ignoring what doesn’t fit is OK for some — as long as it’s not to decide the question: “Food or poison?”. As inaccurate as remote ID by consensus is, I do learn a lot from everyone here!

intervenous gills…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-07-06 13:20:34 CDT (-0400)

looks to be an important characteristic for this small yellow chanterelle as well.

We are just a creative bunch here, Patrick. If we don’t see what we like, we just make it up! Or ignore the bits that don’t quite fit with our theories.

mea culpa! ;)

Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there
By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2010-07-06 13:01:54 CDT (-0400)

Why are you proposing ID’s based upon the part of the mushroom
that you can’t see? BTW, again, it was yellow and smooth, not
brown or scaly.

I’ve never been one to sugarcoat stuff…
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2010-07-05 19:17:36 CDT (-0400)

because I’m not a people person

By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-07-05 18:41:56 CDT (-0400)

but how do you REALLY feel, Noah? ;)

the edge of the cap
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2010-07-05 17:40:55 CDT (-0400)

doesn’t do it for me; I want to see the whole thing…

We have a lot and soon will have a lot more (Bart Buyck is publishing a paper on southeastern NA Cantharellus plus one of Tom Volk’s students Matthew Foltz is doing his thesis on the C. cibarius group.)

Cantharellus californicus may be “a CHANTERELLE!” but it’s a foul tasting rubbery dirty kicker of a mushroom, I’ll take my puny eastern ones any day.

we kinda can see the cap…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-07-05 12:07:20 CDT (-0400)

at least the edge of it. looks yellow (rather than brownish, like an appalachiensis) to me.

how many puny chanterelles do you have out that way, anyway? Y’all should come hunt our Cantharellus californicus sometimes…now THAT’S a CHANTERELLE!


By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2010-07-05 11:24:46 CDT (-0400)

Just smooth yellow — no scales. Thought these were C. cibarius at first, but
too small.

Happy 4th. Noah
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2010-07-04 23:32:06 CDT (-0400)

It would help if we could see the pileus top.

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2010-07-04 23:26:58 CDT (-0400)

we posted names at the same time again…

Created: 2010-07-04 18:29:33 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-07-06 18:56:48 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 121 times, last viewed: 2016-10-24 22:53:52 CDT (-0400)
Show Log