Observation 56280: Laccaria amethysteo-occidentalis G.M. Muell.
When: 2010-10-20
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: I’m calling these Laccaria amethystea rather than Laccaria amethysteo-occidentalis even though the former is not supposedly found west of the Rockies.
They seem to match the so-called eastern variety much better; from the smaller stature, flattened, inrolled cap which fades to buff to the spores, which are more globose to subglobose than broadly elliptical.

Proposed Names

9% (3)
Used references: Mushrooms Demystified by David Arora
Mushrooms of North America by R. Phillips
Mushroom Expert website
5% (5)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features
20% (3)
Recognized by sight: doesn’t fit neatly into common species, from east or west.
60% (2)
Recognized by sight: Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. See comments for what Mueller had to say about spores.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
good to hear that you are representing the opposition …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2015-01-28 10:39:36 EST (-0500)

seems like everyone else did think that this was a bit eyeball off.

duh, DNA is not enough, by itself. But it does help to break a tie. See the Psilocybe allenii debate for details.

Not really
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-01-28 01:33:20 EST (-0500)

This is a pretty typical morphological match. Spores were a bit unusual. DNA is not sufficient by itself. Macro features in many cases are still an excellent way to make species determinations, provided you’ve done your homework.

so much for morpho …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2015-01-27 10:15:17 EST (-0500)

both macro and micro. ah, sweet variability.

nice to have an exact DNA match. otherwise, we are guessing where to draw those species lines.

Good call, Riverdweller.

Genetic data provided by Christian Schwarz
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2015-01-25 20:02:52 EST (-0500)

indicates that it is a perfect match for L. amethysteo-occidentalis.
Pastorino MO 56280:

Mueller said …
By: Britney Ramsey (Riverdweller)
2013-02-26 18:29:33 EST (-0500)
spores (6.4)7.4-10.6 × 6.4-9.2 microns excluding ornamentation, nearly round to broadly elliptic, occasionally round or elliptic to almond-shaped, echinulate [spiny], echinulae < 0.5-1.4(1.8) microns long, (mean 1 +/- 0.3 microns), crowded, inamyloid, acyanophilic, hilar appendix 1.3-2 microns long, prominent, and truncate, plage present, occasionally one droplet; basidia 4-spored, 34-56.5 × 9.7-14.7 microns, clavate, elongate, colorless or in young specimens vinaceous brown in mass, sterigmata up to 9 microns long; pleurocystidia absent, cheilocystidia often abundant, extending well beyond basidia, 36.5-66.5 × 12-18.4 microns, subclavate to clavate, colorless, thin-walled, colorless, (Mueller(1)), spines on spores 1 micron wide at base, (Mueller(2))

From matchmaker software.

I don’t think the spores are too round for either
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2013-02-26 12:44:49 EST (-0500)

L. ochropurpurea or L. amethystea as both are reportedly “globose”.
My notes indicate spores in the 7-10 micron range, globose to subglobose.
I tried to clean up the spore photo a little but the overall quality doesn’t lend itself to making definitive measurements on the length of the spines.
However, at this point, Laccaria sp is probably the most conservative guess.

By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2013-02-26 11:01:50 EST (-0500)

spores appear to be too round and spines too short to be Laccaria ochropurpurea.

Here’s Kuo’s micrograph of it, for comparison:


Certainly Laccaria, and possibly something unusual. Does not have the appearance of L. a-o.

Christian, are you running the DNA on these?

Re: Specimens
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2012-09-04 21:43:00 EDT (-0400)

Actually, I wouldn’t mind getting a small cap section or small fruiting body if you can spare one without dividing the material up too much.

I’m actually in Greenbrae now (in the hospital!), but could probably easily swing by when I’m discharged in a few days. Drop me a line at germpore (at) sonic(dot)net.

OK Christian, I’ll send them
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2012-09-04 17:15:55 EDT (-0400)

to the Santa Cruz campus.
I’ll let you and Peter work out the sharing.

Re: Specimens
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2012-09-04 13:05:38 EDT (-0400)

It looks like I got busy with something and then just forgot to follow through on this. If you’re interested, Christian, you should get the specimens and make the observation.

I did actually correspond with Greg Muller (who authored the North American Laccaria monograph) about this, and he’s interested in getting at least part of this collection as well. This could very well be either quite a range extension for Laccaria ochropurpurea, or an undescribed species.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-09-04 12:29:39 EDT (-0400)

Hey Ron,
If you want to send them to the mailing address listed on my profile, that would be the best way.
Otherwise, I could pick them up when I see you sometime this fall.


Christian, it looks like Peter
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2012-09-04 11:06:56 EDT (-0400)

did not follow up on his request. I found them in my “herbarium” this morning.
They are available so let me know how you want to get them.

Did these ever get to Peter?
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-09-03 23:08:07 EDT (-0400)

If not, I’d love to look at them.

Re: Peter, actually I did save these..
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-12-12 19:23:35 EST (-0500)

I’d love to have a look at these and I’ll drop you an email soon about coming by to pick them up.

I’m also going to drop a line to Gregory Mueller to take a look at this page.

Peter, actually I did save these..
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2010-12-12 18:44:40 EST (-0500)

and I corrected the observation.
They are available if you care to play with them sometime.

Concur on L. ochropurpurea
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-12-12 18:32:47 EST (-0500)

Even though I’m not an “expert” on this group, I’m going to go out on a limb and say this looks a lot like the pictures I’ve seen of L. ochropurpurea, both macroscopically and microscopically. Macroscopically, the fact that its faded to whitish rather than brownish is far more characteristic of L. ochropurpurea than L. amethystina.

In either event, if it were either of the two species, this represents quite a range outlier. In Mueller’s description of the species here:


He mentions that L. ochropurpurea is reported west of the Rockies, but that all of the collections he’s looked at have proven to be either L. amethysteo-occidentalis or L. nobilis. But I really don’t think this collection is either of those species.

Also noting “No herbarium specimen”. You should have saved that one!

L. ochropurpurea maybe?
By: Terry (fungaloony)
2010-10-22 20:52:19 EDT (-0400)

Just want to suggest that color and those striate, scaly, fibrous-looking stalks look like they might/could be young eastern L. ochropurpurea.

Created: 2010-10-22 19:38:42 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-01-25 23:49:44 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 277 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 12:23:20 EDT (-0400)
Show Log