Observation 48306: Pluteus sect. Pluteus
When: 2010-07-08
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Found some nice clusters growing in wood-chips, these things are massive and fruiting in every county I have been hunting in recently. The younger specimens had wrinkled brown pilei.

I actually enjoy finding Pluteus species, they are great photo subjects and return to the wood the cling to for life year after year.

Proposed Names

-2% (3)
Recognized by sight
89% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2011-03-31 20:54:50 CDT (-0400)

I know this is not relevant to this observation, but I feel like I should say it publicly.

I was not arguing with anyone, if you read the comment I made before this I clearly stated that. I just see some people so quick to jump to conclusions without anything to back it up, that gets kinda frustrating when trying to learn.

I have hunted mushrooms for over a decade now, at first I just hunted for food and for the love of being outdoors. But these last few years I have committed myself to learning as much as I can about all fungi, I mean truly learn I am sure you know what this means.

Mushroom hunters will either keep hunting for food/hobby, or take it to the next level by taking things more seriously and having a thirst for knowledge about all fungi which leads down the path of amateur mycologist or mycologist.

Some people are extremely helpful to those wanting to learn more (Debbie, Alan, Irene :), Rod, CureCat, and others), but some people are not helpful acting like they’re better because they know more about mycology. I think we should all just get along and help each other out.

Sure people are always going to disagree in this field of science, but if we understand that disagreeing/debating is part of learning then we can move forward as a community, leaving accurate information as our footsteps which future hunters will benefit from.

So in conclusion I would like to say…

Sorry to anyone that I have offended.

I would also like to publicly apologize to Christian.

You’re right Weiliiiiiii
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-07-11 17:25:27 CDT (-0400)

The pictures don’t really show the size of the mushrooms. I tried to compare them with the pine needles, and made the mistake to underestimate the length of them. I had to look up what kind of pines that are known in your area, and found that there are, among others, Pinus palustris with needles up to 18 inches..

But I didn’t dismiss Pluteus magnus anyway (didn’t vote against, and couldn’t find anything better to propose). Actually, I think the pale cap colour on these ones seem to match the original description better than most other obses on MO. Pluteus petasatus ought to be the closest look-alike, only smaller and with different cystidia.
Such a pity that we can’t see the pointed cystidia to confirm a possible P. magnus with.

And btw, there is no need to argue about what McClatchie meant by Pluteus magnus. His type collection is preserved in New York Botanical Garden for comparison.

Kuo Key
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2010-07-10 16:12:55 CDT (-0400)

I came out here: 30. Cap large (7-18 cm across), “white, to very pale isabelline-umber, with or without fuliginous appressed fibrillose squamules in the very centre” (Singer); stem up to 2.5 cm thick; cystidia with spines on their sides but not at their apices; almost always growing on the dead wood of hardwoods. Pluteus magnus
sensu Singer

30. Cap medium sized (4-10 cm across), white streaked with brownish fibers (especially over the center); stem to 1.5 cm thick; cystidia with spines at the apices; often appearing terrestrial and growing from dead roots, sawdust, woodchips, and so on.
So: Pluteus magnus appears reasonable to me.

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2010-07-10 06:05:53 CDT (-0400)

Why are so many people uptight on here? Is it because I left another mushroom site because of the people on there lying? Since that incident happened some people on this site have been rude, I was just asking for a simple explanation as to why others think these are/are not magnus, that is all. No need for the hardcore “well you can say WHY to ha ha” attitude, I was just trying to put emphasis on it, you cant tell the size of a mushroom by a picture and I am a very busy person so I did not have time to note size except for the pileus.

The wrinkles I believe are from rain, but I have been told by a ton of people on this site that that is a sign for magnus, if that is true or not I dont know. Your description (first one) matches what I found, as you can see in the pics only some are wrinkled. I have a limited amount of sources to take info from when making an ID, a few field guides, random notes from over ten years of hunting fungi, and internet sources. I often speak to others about the finds I make before posting, the people I speak to happen to be huge into the genus Pluteus. I really wish I had a scope.

From the comments it just seemed like you and Irene were very quick to dismiss these as magnus but without anything to back that up, I am not one to argue about what species is what, I am one to TALK it over and learn.

I am going to be back later I will talk then.

God Bless

Well, you can also say WHY….
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-07-10 05:12:22 CDT (-0400)

You also put in more notes here about WHY you think these are P. magnus.

I’ve got two sources that list P. magnus. (1) “Contributions towards a monograph of the genus Pluteus”, Singer, R., Trans. Brit. Myco. Soc. 39: 145-232 (1956); and (2) “The genus Pluteus section Pluteus in midwestern US”, P. Banerjee and W. Sundberg, Mycotaxon 53, p189-246 (1995).

The first lists from the east, with a white to pale grey cap, 7-10.5cm in size, with a stipe 6.5-9cm long, and 0.6-2.0cm thick. The cap is listed as somewhat fibrous, but doesn’t mention the wrinkles.

The second mentions a cap 10-18cm in size, pale brown to pale grey, but sometimes dark “fuscous” to black and a fibrous surface. It mentions only occasionally scrobiculate.

With the dark wavy caps when young it mentions that in P. cervinus and has a drawing of dark wrinkled cap in P. atromarginatus.

Anyway, got to go for now, not sure what these are, but not sure they can be shown one way or the other with what is known…

It might be good to have some notes on what makes this id for you, and what makes it not something else?

By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2010-07-09 17:20:10 CDT (-0400)

These were massive, some almost the size of paper plates when mature, 10 inches across on the largest specimen. Also how can people judge size by a photo, I would love to have this ability I am sure it would make my identification skills very keen :)

These were also very sturdy, I keyed these down to Pluteus magnus, if someone thinks they are something else please feel free to let me know WHY you think they are another species of Pluteus.

I definitely see why Douglas says these look like Pluteus petasatus though, they might be I just though that such a massive Pluteus species was P. magnus.

I have collected Pluteus petasatus before and they were smaller in stature but I guess that doesn’t mean anything.

Another id of P. magnus?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-07-09 04:45:22 CDT (-0400)

I’m not sure I believe any id of P. magnus without the photos of the cystidia. These look more like Pluteus petasatus to me…

I thought
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-07-09 04:35:39 CDT (-0400)

Pluteus magnus was supposed to be a big and sturdy species..?

Created: 2010-07-09 03:22:51 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-04-24 20:21:55 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 255 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 13:55:15 CDT (-0400)
Show Log