Observation 60434: Hebeloma (Fr.) P. Kumm.

When: 2010-12-07

Collection location: Foster City, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Tom (LanLord)

No specimen available

Hard to consider this species growing in the west coast, but certainly didn’t look like crustuliniforme. There was a great deal of brick red in the cap colour.

Perhaps I should go dig under these to see if there are some bones down there??

Proposed Names

-8% (2)
Recognized by sight
75% (2)
Recognized by sight
27% (1)
Recognized by sight: pale-stemmed and growing with poplars, but needs to be verified by microscopic characters

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I’d go with Hebeloma…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-12-08 11:18:39 CST (-0500)

Hebeloma looks fine here, but I think most of the Hebeloma you come across in California are all unknown. There are a few (in)famous studies of Hebeloma in the western US, and they were abandoned at the death of the principles. But from my limited experience, it seems to me that Hebeloma is much easier to understand in Europe than in California. Here the genus is not that bad, with pretty much all of what you find described in the various texts. In California I looked at Hebeloma for a little while, and gave up, since everything I looked at seemed to be an undescribed species, and then I would never see it again… I think Hebeloma has a larger diversity in California, and you just don’t find each species all that often.

But you certainly aren’t going to get anywhere with the genus, without microscopic details, it is one of those genera…

Oh, also you should take better photos of the details of the stipe, and the base, to get more info there. These look like close ups of the mushrooms, and no broad look at the whole mushroom, hard to tell the features…

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-08 10:41:00 CST (-0500)

you have to ask Linkoff :-)

Then why
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-12-08 10:37:53 CST (-0500)

would it be spelled “syriense” in Lincoff?

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-08 09:57:31 CST (-0500)

Hebeloma syrjense was originally described from Finland. The type collection came from a place named Syrjä, thats where “syrjense” comes from.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-12-08 09:52:45 CST (-0500)

What’s up with that deprecation? I very much doubt “syrjense” is the right spelling; “syriense” seems much more plausible (and is the spelling in Lincoff and other written sources that I’m sure were copyedited and proofread).

Particularly, an “rj” consonant combination is not at all common in any of English, Greek, or Latin.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-08 09:04:34 CST (-0500)

for the explanation! Never heard of that before..

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-12-08 07:02:54 CST (-0500)

He thinks it could be H. syriense, which is known for fruiting near human remains.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-08 05:40:44 CST (-0500)

I agree, they don’t look like crustuliniforme. They are usually paler, and with conspicious dots on the gills (several species have them too).
Hebeloma is a terrible genus, with so many species that look alike. Only a few of them have significant spores or cystidia.

Created: 2010-12-07 17:40:04 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2010-12-09 03:03:01 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 112 times, last viewed: 2017-06-08 07:25:45 CDT (-0400)
Show Log