Observation 58107: Leratiomyces squamosus (Pers.) Bridge & Spooner var. squamosus
When: 2010-11-02
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Notes: Don’t have much to go on with these except the large purplish black spores, the annulus and the fact that they wee found in the Sierras and they look like what Curecat found in the Spring.
The spores were ~ 12 X 8 microns on average with an apical pore and a little pointy nipple on the opposite end.
I couldn’t find specific information for the species.
Collection # YNP1519 for the Yosemite Fungal Survey.
Accidentally destroyed Observation 58105 instead of editing.
Found out that the spores for Psathyrella ellenae var yubaensis are only 8-10 X 4-5 microns, much too small for this specimem.

Proposed Names

-45% (5)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
-40% (6)
Recognized by sight
34% (6)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
Used references
Based on microscopic features
Based on chemical features
26% (4)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features
Based on chemical features
30% (5)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Actually
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-11-10 14:16:30 PST (-0800)

the surest way to get a lot of attention to an observation is to have a good, recognizable thumbnail accompanied by a name that’s obviously wrong. :)

I agree with both Doug and Christian here…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-10 13:13:47 PST (-0800)

the beauty of this site is that it is participatory at many different levels.

It is useful for folks that know very little about mushrooms to get help with their IDs, altho the quality of your images and your ability to save a specimen and go deeper (or have someone else go deeper for you) is key to getting a good ID. Enthusiasm and sharp photos like you have shown, Britney, is a great way to start! Fer instance, most of us have never seen your lovely posting of Chlorophyllum olivieri in the field, so you are already a valuable contributer to MO!

Then you have those who have a good idea of what they might have, make their sighting and wait to see what others think. And as we frequent contributers have discovered, a way to get more attention to your sighting (ie get it pulled from the broad image slipstream and have folks looking harder at it) is to guess a name rather than be non-committal like Fungi sp. or even Stropharia sp!

MO is a process, and anyone can play. The value of the ID is dependant upon many factors, and almost none of the sightings here are backed up by DNA analysis. Does that make them garbage? Hardly. But the more info you can provide, the better we identifiers can do, and the more that everyone can learn.

And then you have folks like Alan who just like to stir up trouble…AS IF!!! ;)

Function of the site…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-10 12:59:04 PST (-0800)

Well, I think for many, this site is what you make of it. So, you can post photos that are out of focus, without much detail. But you might make more of your post if the photos are in focus, getting details from the top, bottom, and the base, and make a note of the habitat. I don’t think there actually is a purpose to this site? Some post a photo and wait for others to supply names, some only post things after getting all details, spending an hour on the scope, reading 3-4 sources, and comparing with other obs. I think most people fall somewhere in between. I try to post stuff that I have tried for the id first, and only add a few in that I can’t id.

But, I think the site exists for you to find your own purpose in it. Much like life…

Britney
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-11-10 12:51:02 PST (-0800)

I encourage you to keep posting your pictures regardless of how much work you have done. This site is for open public participation at all levels.

At the same time, the more information you can give us, the more you will learn, the more we will learn, and the more valuable the observation will be to the database.

Please don’t feel obligated to meet anyone’s standards but rather to satisfy your own desire for learning. The site generates great amounts of public excitement about mushrooms, this in turn leads people to take off on their own taxonomic adventures.

Paul – I don’t mean to denigrate anyone. I know you do plenty of spatial/ecological note taking, and that is very near to my academic heart – I appreciate it.

I send my admiration and respect to all you fungiphiles, curiosity and interest in these endlessly surprising organisms are the ties that bind us.

A new perspective.
By: Britney Ramsey (Riverdweller)
2010-11-10 12:45:10 PST (-0800)

Thank you all for this thread, I better understand now how to apply my own vote to my own observation. Is it better for this site’s function NOT TO post pictures that are missing important details? I mean to ask, if I neglected to note the trees or if the only legible picture I took is of the cap?
I have maybe been misunderstanding the purpose of this site and admittedly I will post a picture without having even started to key it out. That is partially over-excitement to find an answer that I can read about and partial laziness. There, I said it, sometimes I just want an answer. I will definitely proceed with more patience and more detail.

My motivation…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-10 12:38:41 PST (-0800)

My motivation for participating in this and other id sites is mostly to see interesting and well documented collections, mostly in the areas that interest me. In that respect MO is great. I rarely volunteer species names these days as I know enough of how complex things are.

And I also realize that in a way like most other forums this is also a social site – we socialize around an area of interest. Therefore I do not have unduly high expectations that we’re running a science hub, where typically dryness, modesty and self-restraint are valued higher.

I rarely bid in the name game as it is not exactly the process of species identification that I consider objective. But I must admit that in the rare cases when I do bid a name after some careful thought and consideration in an area that I have studied, I am slightly surprised (and mildly irritated) to see weight going on the side of “frequent contribution” regardless of any truly far more definitive traits related to mycology. The idea that “quantity” is equated with “quality” in terms of the objective interpretation of the data has some very broad implications. In general, I see a reverse relationship.

But again, to me the main interest is to see interesting observations, not necessarily the id politics as they don’t matter at all in the big picture.

D.

P.S. Speaking of objective interpretation – I asked a question to the chrysocystidia folks earlier, but received no answers. Is there any peer-reviewed document out there connecting the presence/absence of chrysocystidia as a delineation between Stropharia and Leratiomyces?

Which is, I hope
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-11-10 12:27:31 PST (-0800)

not to denigrate the efforts of those of us who post hundreds of in-focus photos and don’t happen to own our own microscope. :)

Doug
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-11-10 12:18:48 PST (-0800)

I wasn’t referring to you.

Although you fit that description, you don’t SIMPLY fit that description. In addition to your copious photography efforts, I know you do your homework and give us more information (including micro) than just hundreds of out-of-focus photos with no further name than Fungi sp.

I know you’ve earned your vote weight, and I appreciate your work.

Yes, votes have weight.
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-10 10:43:45 PST (-0800)

Yes, not all votes are the same, Nathan I think has it posted somewhere around here. But the observer I think gets an extra vote, and then the vote is multiplied by the log of the contribution number. You can see this number on the “Contributors” link on the left, for each user name. Then times the vote level, 30%, 60%, and 100%, plus or minus and all. Then it is all added up, and what ever comes out on top is the name of the obs.

Christian – “people who have simply uploaded MANY photos”, I’m not sure who you mean, but I think I resemble that remark.

Ok, I get it.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-10 09:44:54 PST (-0800)

>Major contributors (ie. people who in some cases have simply uploaded MANY photos) have higher weight attached to their votes (right?),

Wow, I did not realize that!! Ok, I get it. Thank you for the explanation.

D.

Dimi -
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-10 09:40:07 PST (-0800)

If I understand you right, you would like a high vote on the genus, and lower votes on the species. Or at least a high vote on the genus, to allow a vote on the species in that genus? I guess I don’t quite understand. But the site treats the genus names, and species names as just different names, and high votes on genus would just give you an id to genus name. You would never get an id to species on the site, unless you have a low vote on the genus name, and high vote on the species name. Unless that is the intention, that we only id to genus, and never really to species.

But I think things to that detail don’t really matter, since for the most part obs. will only get voted on once, obs. that get more than 3 people voting on them are rare, it takes some craziness like this one to get that to happen. If you look at most species, the most probable obs. tends to be one where they could get 2 people to vote for it. No matter how good that obs. is.

Which gets me back to my 2-cent proposal, to get rid of the glib “I’d call it that”, which seems to not imply much meaning, and replace it with “Confirmed with Microscope”. Then the listing of obs. for a species could have the ones with microscopic info listed at top, and the photo only or less below.

Personally I treat the voting levels as:

“Could be” = Certainly genus with macro features, uncertain species.
“Promising” = Certainly species with macro features, or genus with micro features.
“I’d Call it That” = Certain species with macro and micro features.

So you climb up the id based on type of feature. And you leave open to someone else the possibility of voting a better name, if they see something better in the features.

Anyway, that is my two cents… other than that I just try to use the site the best I can, don’t know about much more than that?

could the process be improved?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-10 09:28:17 PST (-0800)

undoubtedly. but this is the reality of what we are working with right now.

your quote of “this is what I hate about these public ID sites” on Mushtalk seemed to be pretty dismissive of the site to me…

and of course, other than criticisms (over 500), you don’t actually publish anything here (well OK, to be fair, you’ve put up four observations)…just swoop in wondering if others have performed exactly to Dimi spec’s…when we are none of us trying to be you, nor do most of us here have access to your resources (tens of thousands of dollars spent on a library, world travel, DNA analysis thru a University connection, even if you DO have to travel a bit to get there…), and we are doing the best we can with the material at hand.

Berating, badgering and belittling does not help the ID process along. Not sure what the heck intragent means, but I’m sure it wasn’t a compliment…;)
I do appreciate that fact that you work long hard hours on your taxonomy, but that does not give you the right to be dismissive of others who are also trying very hard.

We have had an excellant discourse on this Leratiomyces, with astute and pertinant comments all along. Including my proposal of a perfectly reasonable (to most) ID…

Debbie, Dimi, Paul
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-11-10 09:20:21 PST (-0800)

Dimi – it is certainly true that from a logical viewpoint, a less-specific (ie. genus-level) vote should ALWAYS be rated more likely than any species-level determination within that genus: less assertions = less constraints = greater likelihood.

BUT, I strongly sympathize with Debbie about the voting system’s idiosyncracies. Major contributors (ie. people who in some cases have simply uploaded MANY photos) have higher weight attached to their votes (right?), and in some cases there is enough evidence to lend a degree of certainty to a more-specific determination, forcing us to ‘fiddle the votes’ until our preferred name gets bumped up.
As Debbie mentioned, I almost always err on the side of uncertainty to allow wiggle room for more-informed voters.

Paul – thanks for sending that email. I think I can picture what that looks like, and I think I like it.
Consider my vote cast in favor of an updated system similar to your proposal. As Dimitar said, it wouldn’t be too much of a programming burden (although I bet Nathan and Jason are plenty busy). Maybe you could write the code, Dimi? I have too little experience under my belt to do it.

Voting
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-11-10 09:04:07 PST (-0800)

I sent a long email to the developers a month or two ago proposing changes to how votes are counted, the main user visible change from which would be that you’d be able to tick a box when voting for a genus name that would mean you could vote either for “it’s this genus” or for “it’s this genus, but it’s none of the above”, with the latter appearing below all the specific species of that genus and competing with them, but the former appearing above and not competing — in fact a vote for a species of a genus (or “none of the above” of a genus) would count as a vote for the genus. The consensus would be the species (or “none of the above”) with the largest positive vote, failing that the genus with the largest positive vote, and on up the taxonomic hierarchy, with Fungi sp. if everything else was negative.

So far I haven’t heard any feedback on that proposal.

The hierarchy…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-10 08:51:21 PST (-0800)

If we’re to approximate anything resembling scientific discovery
the process should frown upon one voting negatively on a higher
rank once there is a commitment to a lower rank. The tree of life
is a hierarchical structure. And this will be very similar
to “real life” mycology where there is a certain weight against
species determination unless there is reasonably strong evidence,
i.e. higher level of proof.

I am throwing this out to the Nathans, Christians, Dougs etc. to
think about. I also realize that a solution should not impose too
much programming burden. But if we think a bit further, actually,
the site actually doesn’t have to enforce anything, it should be
left to the participants in a thread to decide the level at which
they will participate.

DV>nor, as you have stated on your own site, do you have much respect for this site or its process, so here’s how it works…

Debbie, don’t be an intrigant!! Of course, I do respect the site,
but I also see that in some threads we see more mature mycology
than in others.

DV>BTW, love your avatar…it is so YOU.

Thank you.

D.
I know you don’t spend much time on MO, Dimi…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-10 08:03:02 PST (-0800)

nor, as you have stated on your own site, do you have much respect for this site or its process, so here’s how it works…

Votes are cast for what we believe the mushroom to be. But the voting can get skewed in odd ways for someone either over-voting or under-voting, sometimes for purely personal and not so much scientific reasons.

So, since the evidence leans toward L. squamosus v. squamosus at this point, NOT just Leratiomyces, and two votes using “I’d call it that” made it look as tho the majority was leaning towards a lesser generic designation (not true, why even you finally admitted that squamosus was a very real possiblity) then an I’d Call it That for the species designation was a necessary vote to bring the sighting back to where the majority believes it to be: 6 folks gave the species designation the green light, at various levels of confidence, vs 4 for the genus.

Now if you and Hamilton would drop your “I’d Call It” vote down to something a little less didactic, then I’d gladly drop my vote down to one that allows a bit of ID wiggle room. Since I am always open to mo’ bettah IDs. But of course, once we have concrete evidence (still not forthcoming) that this is NOT squamosus v. squamosus then the votes will reflect that.

Frequent contributers understand how the voting works, and use it to get to the best result. Take an unknown amanita, for instance. I may well know that a mushroom is an amanita, and usually I can get it to section as well. But if I vote “I’d call it that” for a mere genus or even section, then that vote takes precedence over better and more detailed votes down the road. So I will always vote promising or could be rather than I’d Call it That, even though I know full well that it is an amanita. Get it?

BTW, love your avatar…it is so YOU.

There is an absurdity here.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-09 20:52:20 PST (-0800)

I look at the species vote and it appears a bit absurd – someone has voted Leratiomyces squamosus as “I’d Call It That”, but Leratiomyces sp. as only “Could Be”… Is this a joke?!?

D.
The chrysocystidia fellas – two steps forward!!
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-09 20:47:22 PST (-0800)

Question: Has there been a definitive paper on the subject of separating Stropharia vs. Leratiomyces along the +/- of chrysocystidia?

Where did that come from? I do not disagree with it, as it matches my observations, but I am not sure all would agree.

D.
Thank you.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-07 10:41:02 PST (-0800)

Thank you for the straight answer.

Dimitar
Re: A “serious” question to Peter.
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-07 10:34:04 PST (-0800)

I did not do molecular work as part of my studies, and only studied Psilocybe to the point of having something publication-worthy. So, yes, I’m going entirely on macro- and micromorphology in my opinions on what we get in California.

A “serious” question to Peter.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-07 10:25:40 PST (-0800)

Peter, did you perform molecular studies on your Strophariaceae collections during your formal studies? If so, where can I find that data? If so, what percentages of your understanding is based on molecular data vs. purely morphology?

I am trying to establish a sense of what artifact of your studies is available to the public and can be utilized towards identification work. As you see from this thread, there is a demand for it.

I am asking these straight questions most seriously without a grain of being facetious. And expect a similar answer.

Thank you.

Dimitar
Check this out
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-07 10:22:09 PST (-0800)

It might be worthwhile to compare this with an observation of Leratiomyces squamosus from the eastern North America updated just today:

http://mushroomobserver.org/48784

Re: Peter, the cap on this one was about 5.0 cm across.
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-07 10:08:05 PST (-0800)

Which is in the range of variation for both L. “riparia” and L. squamosus. :-/

The pileus shape, and particularly, the more pronounced annulus incline me toward Leratiomyces squamosus.

Peter, the cap on this one was about 5.0 cm across.
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2010-11-07 09:55:13 PST (-0800)
Leratiomyces in California
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-07 09:52:09 PST (-0800)

Perhaps the question wasn’t meant seriously, but in my opinion there are 5 or 6 species of Leratiomyces in California: the secotiod L. cucullatus, L. ceres, L. squamosus, L. percevalii or something close to it (I note here that no one investigator has looked at both European and California collections, so this synonymy awaits confirmation), and Stropharia riparia a Northwest/montane form that I think is distinct from L. percevalii and awaits valid publication as Leratiomyces. Finally, there’s also a collection of Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus in the herbarium at Humboldt State, but I haven’t had a chance to confirm its identity.

Doug’s suggestions
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-11-07 09:21:35 PST (-0800)

Are great!

0% for not enough information (avoids stepping on toes when there really isn’t enough to say yea or nay)

100% renamed to Confirmed (to avoid the equivocal-sounding “I’d call it that”)
- this would need to be vetted with proof of real engagement at least at the level that Ron is doing it (thanks Ron, we all appreciate your work).

Size of fruiting body?
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-07 09:08:20 PST (-0800)

How big was the fruiting body itself?

Ok, I am sorry…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-07 09:07:27 PST (-0800)

I am sorry too for overreacting – mea culpa, yes, L. squamosus was not
a terrible species guess, not to be excluded at all from the charter
of potential species. I just find it overreaching at this
stage. I should have communicated right from the start that I have
wondered a lot about these Leratiomyces sp. in the past 2 years, which
I see in natural habitats and I just have a strong sense that here are
more species than what we see currently in the offerings. This is why
I did not volunteer a species name when we switched to Stropharia s.l.

Doug, I would not put a cent on what names were used in the area
previously – our mandate is to reevaluate everything form the area as
it is obvious that many people have used many wrong names on many
collections, so I wouldn’t just follow on previously used names.

Where I will feel justified to ask the “clue” question is when I see
species named applied to some other genera, especially like
Gymnopilus, for example, but that’s not relevant here.. :-)

D.

Wow! one specimem-big debate
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2010-11-07 08:56:14 PST (-0800)
Never thought one specimen would generate so much discussion. My work sheet for this “collection” is starting to look real messy. To answer a couple of questions from Darv and Peter; I don’t have another photo from a different angle. I tend not to spend a lot of time on single specimens and normally would not have even collected it if it hadn’t it been for the Yosemite Survey and the fact it did look somewhat unique for the area. Peter, I did originally mount it in KOH and looked at more than just the gill edge. However, everything was hyaline, no yellow inclusions that I could see, so I elected not to photograph something that would look like a near blank photo with vague blurry lines.
sorry Dimi, I don’t pore over what you write…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-07 08:41:01 PST (-0800)

and I commented here before I saw the thread on Mushtalk.

Nonetheless, L. squamosus var. squamosus isn’t a bad first guess. We’ll see how it pans out, with time. MO is a process, not carved in stone.

“What I questioned is your clue to slap a species name – indeed, it did not impress me as squamosus exactly.” DB

OK Dimi, vague feelings of unease about ID, all well and good. But it’s not science and fact. If you recall, you also thought the Sierra muscaria was “different”, until the DNA proved you wrong. Point being, even you can (and do) get it wrong. We’re all just human beings trying to make our way in a confusing taxonomic world.

I await further concrete information, from any source. Until then, I’ll stand by my ID.

Isn’t she using habitat info?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-07 08:26:08 PST (-0800)

Dimi – isn’t Debbie using habitat info? Using what we know, purple-black spores, smooth with germ pore, looks like Stropharia, and lacking chrysocystidia, – ok, that pretty much gets us to Leratiomyces, yes. Then using the location, season, and habitat, I think Debbie is quite reasonable to suggest the name Leratiomyces squamosus var. squamosus since that is the one that has been used from that area?

I don’t think the seriousness of the site is in question? This is rather a community site, and doesn’t have a serious or not serious nature in itself. But more a clearing house of people’s opinions, which are or are not up to a certain level of seriousness.

One thing that might help on the site, and I wanted this for quite some time, is to have a vote for 0% on a species, that says – “There isn’t enough information to tell” or something like that. Often I see a species voted as (usually 100% “I’d call it that”), where I see no features recorded that would get there. But since there are no features recorded, I can’t really say that the name is doubtful, or not likely, since I don’t see enough info to even say what it isn’t, much less is. I would be nice to be able to vote a 0% for a name, until the author of the obs. adds more info. In this case you could vote a 0% against Debbie’s suggested name perhaps.

(Also I think the glib “I’d call it that” should be removed, and be replaced with “Verified with microscope”, and that might help. So a list of obs. for a species could have the microscopic details at the top of the list, and only photo obs. below those…)

You missed the point Debbie.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-07 08:07:29 PST (-0800)

In my original writing on MushroomTalk when I spoke that this is not a Psathyrella, I wrote this:

“But then I look at the photo — this friends is Stropharia, or Leratiomyces, not sure which names applies these days”

I have never questioned Leratiomyces being the genus.

What I questioned is your clue to slap a species name – indeed, it did not impress me as squamosus exactly.

DNA “confirmation” you’re unlikely to get as unless Peter produces some neat document showing real data there is not much quality data to compare against.

D.
objection….
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-07 07:56:57 PST (-0800)

leading the witness, your honor!

perhaps we should just wait for the DNA on this one, rather than casting aspersions right and left?

indeed it is a Leratiomyces, and perhaps it is a squamosus, but I can wait for the DNA confirmation. Can’t you?

Peter, do you have a rough estimate on how many species of Leratiomyces in California?
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-11-07 07:28:31 PST (-0800)

Peter, do you have a rough estimate on how many species of Leratiomyces we have in California? During your research on Strophariaceae did you study them exhaustively with collections from the mountains, the coast and suburbia? Did you do molecular analysis to all/most of them? Do we have that data somewhere? What part of your research on Strophariaceae is available to the public? During my observations I think we have more than two, but would be nice to know what existing research we have to base out observations on.

D.
Chrysocystidia and Stropharia & allies
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2010-11-06 23:53:28 PDT (-0700)

That’s a hell of a yellow color cast in the photo, and that, unfortunately, prevents me from saying conclusively whether I see yellow inclusions, but I’ll go on your observation that there are no yellowish inclusions when mounted in KOH.

All proper Stropharia have chrysocystidia. If they don’t, they’re either Leratiomyces (which I think these are) or the yet-to-be properly-renamed Stropharia semiglobata group (which aren’t Stropharia s.s. either, though in Strophariaceae), but obviously, macroscopic features and spores are all wrong for this specimen to be the latter. Two possibilities if its Leratiomyces, that being either Leratiomyces squamosus or the (yet to be renamed) Stropharia riparia proper.

fabulous find, at any rate, Ron.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-06 17:06:24 PDT (-0700)

obviously Stropharia rather than a psath… (non-hygrophanous, scaled, viscid cap, blackish-purple spores, not nearly fragile enuf for psath status. Indeed that fibrillose veil is sim. to the other, more fragile Yosemite Psath but that one does clearly have a hygrophanous cap (not to mention it was common as dirt this past spr. summer. or was that IN dirt?)

oh yeah, and the spores are a pretty good match too, 12 × 8, elliptical, germ pore…and no chrysocystidia.

aaaaand why not also the fact that it at occurs around 5,000’ elevation in the mountains in the fall…and our Sierra Fall is a bit later than the PNW one…check out very similar photos already on MO.

I did note the use of KOH in my earlier posting/comment.
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2010-11-06 14:11:21 PDT (-0700)
According to Largent, Chrysocystidia will turn yellow or brown in alkali solutions, but as i noted before, when i used KOH everything on the gills was hyaline, although i could see the clustered, somewhat clavate cystidia. In order to make something show up in a photograph, I had to use Congo red.
More about chrysocystidia…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-06 13:59:45 PDT (-0700)

In Stropharia, chrysocystidia are “usually” present, and there are a few species where the chrysocystidia are on the gill face, and not on the gill edge… so you are still moving towards Stropharia here. Not sure of the species… in Yosemite? You should try and look up the species list that has been put together so far for the Yosemite survey and see what other Stropharia species has been obs. from there.

microstructures
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2010-11-06 13:31:41 PDT (-0700)

The microstructures you have are either basidioles or clavate cheilocystidia.

Use KOH when looking for chrysocystidia.

Chrysocystidia.
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-06 12:22:33 PDT (-0700)

Here is a photo of chrysocystidia for you:

http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/69562

And what you have there doesn’t look like chrysocystidia, it might be a little better to get photos in KOH, but still. If that is true, doesn’t look like Stropharia?

Leratiomyces squamosus var. squamosus…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-11-06 10:02:11 PDT (-0700)

lacks chrysocystidia. The spores seem to be a good match for this mushroom as well.

Added micro photos of gill edges
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2010-11-06 09:30:54 PDT (-0700)
and not sure what to call those clusters. They don’t look like the Chrysocystidia that Largent shows of Stropharia hornemanii and they were hyaline in KOH. The photos are in Congo Red.
Check for the cystidia…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-11-06 05:21:54 PDT (-0700)

Check for the chrysocystidia on the gills.

Created: 2010-11-05 20:54:59 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-12-03 10:25:22 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 739 times, last viewed: 2016-10-31 12:32:50 PDT (-0700)
Show Log