Notes: Part of the Yosemite Fungal Survey. Collection # YNP2030.
On streambank of Budd Creek, in moss. Elevation 8585 ft.
|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)
Yep, amyloid, reticulate spores – I’ll take Russulaceae for $100. Lactarius alpinus sounds like a good preliminary ID, at least until I get a chance to key it a bit deeper.
my vote is still on Lactarius alpinus, which didn’t look a bit like a Lactarius (nor did it bleed latex) to my eye at first, either…very waxy feel to the cap.
looks like Lactarius. But I see no obvious latex. Of course, not all Lactarius produce much latex, either. If the specimen had a more appressed cap, might be something in the related Arcangeliella. But the gills look too well-spaced to be that genus, and not at all convoluted. Sporocarp probably also too large to be Arcangeliella.
Might try smelling the dried material, though. Sometimes there are distinctive odors of dried material not present in fresh picked.
If Peter has the dried stuff, the Lactarius spores are pretty easy to tell from Clitocybe spores, and should only take 5 mins or so under the scope. So, he should be posting the answer here later today? (With photos of the spores?)
Its definitely not Lactarius or Russula. The texture of the sporocarp is agaricoid rather than russuloid.
I’ll scope it and see what I can come up with.
it reminds me of that curious mountain Lactarius, L. alpinus, also found in moss. link to my collection here: http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/101849?obs=51723&q=1ZOV
if so, the spores are amyloid and reticulate.
Created: 2010-08-31 03:07:38 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-04-01 18:25:36 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 136 times, last viewed: 2016-03-24 07:59:51 CDT (-0500)