Notes: Under mixed hardwood forests, mostly oak and beech.
Adding some micro-details:
The first micro-shot is of the cap surface in radial section at 400x in KOH. The cap surface is a hymeniderm of roughly similar subglobse elements, lightly to fully pigmented.
The second micro-shot is of the gill edge at 400x in in KOH. The cheilocystidia are thin-walled and clavate, and slightly textured. There are also similar pleurocystidia.
The third micro-shot is of spored from the gill at 1000x in KOH. The spores are sub-globose, smooth with no germ pore, apr. 7 × 6 um in size.
Putting this together you kinda get Pluteus phlebophorus, as long as you include a large range of cystidia shapes, from broadly clavate to narrowly lageniform. After spending some time looking at Galerina, where whole sections are divided by the cystidia not being capitate enough, this is kinda surprising. But hey, I’ll take it, and there doesn’t seem to be a better name to use.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.10||1||(douglas)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I was right to separate these and the Pluteus in obs. 50632. They are not only different in color and stature, but also different under the scope.
These here have a cellular cap, hymeniform of clavate elements. These also have thin-walled clavate cheilo- and pleuro-cystidia, some collapsing, and some lightly textured. The spore here are also more rounded and subglobose, apr. 7 × 6 um.
I’ll get the photos together at some point…
The lead photo for P. nanus on MO is one that has blue in the stipe… we should change that, given Else’s comment here.
Pluteus salicinus has some blue in its stipe (and is in the other group – section Pluteus, just like P. cervinus).
I thought P. nanus was one of the blue species, but perhaps I am mislead on that. The photos of this species seem pretty variable. I found a Pluteus that I was calling P. nanus per Dimitar’s suggestion, and I looked at his photo of a collection for comparison, which seemed to match pretty well…. But the one I found was definitely blue, and I have noticed that some times Dimi’s photos- although quite good- can appear bluish, so perhaps that threw me off. Not sure.
I agree, these do seem like a good match for P. phlebophorus.
These species have caps that change colour when drying out – your specimens look dry to me, so they could be the same species as the others who happened to be in a little less exposed spot perhaps?
The slender lageniform cystidia fit Pluteus phlebophorus well, and not so well P. nanus.
The cap colors here are pretty much what they were. These are medium tan, with mostly light-off-white stipes.
My other obs. of guys that were close to these is obs. 50632. And those are a darker brown, with stipes that are slightly grey, more grey at the apex.
I org. had these together in the field, but then separated them back at the hotel. I’m looking at the obs. 50632 right now, and the cystidia are narrowly langeniform with long acute necks. The pileipellis is hymeniform, like you assumed here. I kinda keyed them out to P. phlebophorus, but I’m getting confused with P. nanus. And some of the photos of the cystidia I found:
Don’t really show the narrow necks on the cystidia that I see…
I’ll look more at these tomorrow, hopefully, I’m going to bed now…
most probably Pluteus phlebophorus, on account of the celluloderm pileipellis, the strong venation of the cap and the colours (i assume that they were dark brown when fresh).
Created: 2010-08-18 08:24:52 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-08-21 13:30:43 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 286 times, last viewed: 2016-11-12 04:18:09 CST (-0500)