Observation 60929: Coprinellus micaceus (Bull.) Vilgalys, Hopple & Jacq. Johnson
When: 2010-11-22
(46.29765° 13.4815° )
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Help appreciated! Determination uncertain. Expert opinions (Ref.:1. and 2.) disagree. Ref.1. considers true C. auricomus much less robust, paler and not of so fasciculate growth. Could be C. micaceus, but in this case the lack of velum remnants on pileus remains a secret. Ref.2. relies on description on Kees-Uljee`s page. The description there corresponds in general well to the observation. However, most of pictures on internet (including on Kees-Uljee`s page) definitely show much more gracile Habitus for C. auricomus. Unfortunately, cystidia has not been studied. Any idea?

Description: Growth fasciculate or a few together, over 150 fruitbodies present of all ages; pileus height up to 3.5 cm when still closed, diameter 4.5(6) cm when old and open, orange-brown when young, chestnut brown and shiny in the center when grown up, no velum remnants; stalk 4-6 mm diameter, 12(14) cm tall and white; SP black, caps disintegrated completely in a black mass with time.

Habitat: A small meadow in mixed forest, grazed grassland, near a sheep stable, in short grass, many sheep drops around, in reach of solitary Betula pendula and Picea abies roots, almost flat terrain, calcareous ground, quite sunny place, exposed to direct rain, average precipitations ~ 3.000 mm/year, average temperature 8-10 deg C, elevations 440 m (1.450 feet), alpine phytogeographical region.

Substratum: soil

Code: Bot_479/2010_IMG3317

Place: Northeast slope of Mt. Kobariški Stol ridge, Čirče place, south of village Žaga, East Julian Alps, Posočje, Slovenia EC

Canon G11, 6.1-30mm/f2.8-4.5

Proposed Names

-40% (3)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
Used references: (1) Personal communication with Mr. Anton Poler.
(2) Personal communication with Mr. Gregor Podgornik, NAC, Tolmin, Slovenia.
(3) http://www.grzyby.pl/... .
(4) http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Parasola_auricoma.html .
(5) http://www.amanitacesarea.com/coprinus-auricomus.html .
(6) R.M. Daehncke, 1200 Pilze in Farbfotos, AT Verlag (2009), p 554.
(7) http://www.waterwereld.nu/inktzwameng.html .
Based on microscopic features: Spores smooth, red-brown with large apical pore. Dimensions: 10.5 (SD = 0.7) x 6.2 (SD = 0.4) micr., Q = 1.72 (SD = 0.10), n = 30. Motic B2-211A, magnification 1.000 x, oil, in water.
Based on chemical features: No distinct smell.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Spore shape of my observations speaks in favor of C. micaceus
By: amadej trnkoczy (amadej)
2010-12-18 04:41:43 PST (-0800)

Thank you Douglas for the links to your both observations. Spore shape of my observations speaks in favor of C. micaceus and also habitus of your P.auricomus is something which seems to me evidently different from my last observation. My previous observation of C. micaceus ( http://mushroomobserver.org/17352?q=36Py ) seems to me very similar to yours (colors, size).

Yet, my present observation doesn`t seem to me so close to both yours and my observation of C. micaceus. Also C. micaceus is supposed to grow on wood or wood debris buried in ground. That was hardly the case in my last observation (while it was clear for http://mushroomobserver.org/17352?q=36Py ). There were well over hundred, may be two hundred or more caps there on an area of about 1,5 m2 (15 square feet) with almost 50% ground coverage. The ground was plain heavily grazed short grass, no tree stumps or any sign of buried wood close to the place. But, unfortunately, I didn`t pay sufficient attention to this. Anyway, let be as it may. I hope next year they will be again there.

It is veil.
By: amadej trnkoczy (amadej)
2010-12-18 02:25:53 PST (-0800)

Irene thank you for the useful link. Unfortunately one has to key out this kind of mushroom immediately. Now it`s too late. They disintegrated completely.
Thinker, this is what I found in Arora, Mushroom Demystified, p 348: “… surface (of the cap) sprinkled at first with minute glistering whitish particles (universal veil remnants) which disappear in age…”. So it is the veil.

Just for comparison -
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2010-12-18 02:23:36 PST (-0800)

I guess I would vote for C. micaceus, but just for comparison, here are my obs. of C. micaceus:

http://mushroomobserver.org/45720

And Parasola auricoma:

http://mushroomobserver.org/45571

With photo of spores for you. These are both from the area just north of Geneva, Switzerland.

Let’s see
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-18 01:21:19 PST (-0800)

if this helps:
http://www.grzyby.pl/...
There you can read about the characters of the group Micacei, then look at the description of the species C. micaceus.

This is still the best Coprinus-site I know, although it hasn’t been updated (and will not be) since 2003, when Kees Uljé died.

sorry amadej…
By: jimmiev
2010-12-17 14:48:03 PST (-0800)

I don’t know what they are either.

I am very curious but have never been able to find information on the topic, it’s been bothering me for a while.

Hm….?
By: amadej trnkoczy (amadej)
2010-12-17 12:58:08 PST (-0800)

Hm…? Sorry Thinker for my lack of knowledge. I thought that minute glistering particles usually present on caps of C. micaceus (name) are remnants or pats of the universal veil. So what are these white tiny dots?

pruina
By: jimmiev
2010-12-17 12:09:48 PST (-0800)

= veil remnants on C. micaceus?

Heavy rains?
By: amadej trnkoczy (amadej)
2010-12-17 11:49:02 PST (-0800)

Thanks to both for your comments. First, I made a lapse in my original (now edited) comment by writing down C. disseminatus as a possible alternative (much too small). I meant C. micaceus. Bit my ignorance could not accept the complete lack of veil remnants even on the youngest caps (second picture, for example). As far as I can remember there had been no rain storms days before I hiked this beautiful place. But that`s not sure. I will check at our meteorological survey. Just curious. Thanks again.

agree with Irene,
By: Tatiana Bulyonkova (ressaure)
2010-12-17 10:02:59 PST (-0800)

it just doesn’t have the Parasola air about it, I’d agree that C. micaceus is a promising variant, growth in dense groups, golden colour and relatively fleshy fruitbodies are quite typical :)

Parasolas’ caps do look like tiny umbrellas – folded at first, then open, and their stipes are usually very frail and straight, never curved (nothing scientific, just my field impressions).
I’d say
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-12-17 08:48:46 PST (-0800)

not auricoma, not Parasola, they are tiny mushrooms.
I’d check in the vicinity of Coprinopsis micaceus. If there were veil remnants, they could easily have been washed away.

(Edited) Sorry, I meant Coprinellus micaceus..

Created: 2010-12-17 08:23:13 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2011-04-28 09:50:39 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 259 times, last viewed: 2016-06-24 14:35:15 PDT (-0700)
Show Log