Observation 60040: Hydnum umbilicatum Peck

When: 2010-11-28

Collection location: Salt Point State Park, Sonoma Co., California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)

No specimen available

Proposed Names

30% (4)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features: Spores almost round, 6 – 8 micrometers
69% (4)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
spore size
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2010-12-03 02:28:15 CST (-0500)

I think the spores are a bit small for H. umbilicatum. Each square is 8.78 micrometers and all the spores are smaller than the squares by about 20%.

on the other hand…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-12-02 22:13:08 CST (-0500)

great spore shot, Alan.

i don’t have to look at the spores, in this case…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-12-02 22:12:43 CST (-0500)

the fruit body sez it all.

Spore size
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2010-12-02 19:38:38 CST (-0500)

Your spore size is right in the middle of Peck’s range for H. umbilicatum. Peck’s stated range was 0.003-0.004 inch, which translates to 7.61-10.16 microns.

Spore size
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2010-12-02 19:26:56 CST (-0500)

The spore size is a better match for H. repandum. H. umbilicatum has larger spores. The squares in the reticle are 8.78 micrometers at 1000×.

Globose spores
By: Michael Wood (mykoweb)
2010-12-02 18:35:02 CST (-0500)

According to Peck’s protologue for Hydnum umbilicatum, the spores should be globose:


What I usually see I would call subglobose. I don’t see how spore shape can distinguish H. repandum from H. umbilicatum (if we even have either in California, which is a different story entirely).

Here we go…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2010-12-02 17:32:03 CST (-0500)

Another clear case where we have to weigh contradictory evidence from two different categories of morphology one microscopic, one macroscopic.

Mykoweb has chosen to go with macroscopic evidence (a justification/explanation would be helpful), whereas I am inclined to go with the microscopic evidence (more stable, also corresponds with the lack of distinct umbilicus in the cap).

Not passing judgement, but let’s discuss our criteria, and our need for a third way of supporting our assertions…

Created: 2010-12-01 05:35:48 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2010-12-02 22:13:25 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 165 times, last viewed: 2018-02-08 01:23:28 CST (-0500)
Show Log