Images
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.76 | 1 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.85 | 28.40% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 10.31 | 2 | (Johann Harnisch,Mycowalt) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.76 | 1 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.87 | 29.03% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 15.53 | 3 | (Dave W,irenea) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.88 | 62.63% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 11.13 | 2 | (Dave W) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 9.50 | 2 | (irenea,douglas) | |||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.15 | 5.01% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
I’m probably the culprit there. I probably cleaned the cap in an effort to make a “clean” photo.
The Hebeloma photo in Bessette & Fischer is probably a Cortinarius. I saw the fresh collection. Pholiota lenta seems reasonable for this but the lack of debris on the glutinous cap is puzzling.
I didn’t notice any rooting stems, in fact they seemed to be attached to the duff as I said before. The gills have a small decurrent “tooth” and small occasional serrations.
is a tough species with a long rooting stem and a strong smell of bitter almonds (unlike all other Hebelomas).
So, I think Pholiota lenta, a late autumn species, is the best idea so far.
I do believe you’re right. I did consider H. radicosum but was confused by the description of the stipe. After re-reading it, I think you’re right.
Created: 2010-10-28 20:32:24 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-12-23 13:27:40 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 175 times, last viewed: 2017-06-08 04:46:33 EDT (-0400)
Show Log
as I understand, 57362 resembles the H. radicosum in B/B/F (which is probably actually a Cort) but 57362 is not likely to be a Cort based upon the structure of the veil. Lack of rooting stem supports rejecting radicosum. Pholiota lenta as seen in each of B/B/F and Phillips matches very well. It’s got my vote.