Observation 62289: Clitocybe
When: 2010-06-13
No herbarium specimen

Notes: These mushrooms were growing in the mulch.

Proposed Names

-6% (4)
Recognized by sight: Were these found in a forest setting?
45% (2)
Recognized by sight: gills also too widely spaced for Leucopax, with several series of lamellulae…back to basics.
61% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
now that makes sense…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-01-16 19:22:48 PST (-0800)

and why it’s not neatly fitting for we west coast folks.

Mycoweb says about L. albissimus…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-01-16 18:36:39 PST (-0800)

cap size up to 30 cm. B/B/F lists max cap diameter as 9.5 cm. What I have IDed as L. albissimus here in PA generally has a cap diameter of 5-8 cm… certainly not as large as 30 cm! I have found it in hemlock-dominated forests. B/B/F also state, “Singer and Smith recognized 12 varieties and forms of this species.” Sounds to me like the common West Coast variety is different from what one would generally find here.

no access here to the recent East Coast literature, alas..
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-01-16 14:19:00 PST (-0800)

but our most recent western publication, “Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest” by Trudell and Ammirati, states that Leucopaxillus albissiumus “typically occur in fall in forested areas and can be locally common in parks and other urban settings.” As a mushroom hunter in the urban Bay Area, I would agree with his habitat description for this mushroom. I commonly see it not deep in forests but at edges…of woods where they meet a road or under trees in a grassy meadow. It’s one of the more ideal drive-by mushroom IDs, since it has such an imposing presence!

As to whether it is MR or a saprobe…sounds like the jury is still out on that one, but the litter shown in this photo surely came from an adjacent tree?

BTW, Volk has done quite a bit of recent research on this species, having us westerners (and perhaps myco-philes across the nation?) mail him A. albissimus care packages, and he seems to believe (see the EOL listing) that it is MR rather than a saprobe. Don’t know if he dug down for those MR nodes, tho, and checked for tree DNA…;)

After studying a number of gill images for this species (thanks, MO!), I agree that L. albissimus can show lamellulae, but seldomly quite as dramatically as is show in this specimen. It is unusual for the gills to be so widely spaced and adnexed (Mykoweb just mentions the predominant form, decurrent). Of course there are exceptions to every rule…

And that is part of what makes taxonomy challenging and fun! ;)

Actually,
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-01-16 12:20:29 PST (-0800)

Bessette, Bessette, Fischer state about Leucopax gills, “…with several tiers of lamellulae.” Arora states that Leucopax “are strictly woodland fungi.” He goes on to suggest they may be mycorrhizal (possibly outdated). Although what I have IDed as L. albissimus does have crowded gills, the manuals genrally list a range of “close to crowded.”

I think the ones seen here are not Leucopax. But it’s hardly a slam-dunk. To me, for at least some fungi, habitat is less likely to vary than macroform. This is why I asked the collector if they were found in a forest. I’ll allow the proposition to stand since the discussion makes little sense without it.

Leucopax is a saprobe
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-01-16 08:23:52 PST (-0800)

and is therefore found in a variety of habitats. It prefers conifer litter. We find it in CA with redwood and pines, and in open grassy areas that have trees that produce litter beneath.

The gills on this specimen are not only not decurrent (and yes, there can be a bit of variation in this, but only rarely so) but too widely spaced, IMO.

But, another collection next year may tell the tale. Big difference in the textures of Clitocybe and Leucopax, best told by the collector! ;)

About the gill attachment for L. albissimus,
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-01-16 04:50:22 PST (-0800)

Arora writes “…ranging to adnate or even adnexed.” Note the decurrent lines seen in the 3rd photo. I think the main evidence against the Leucopax proposal is that the mushrooms were not found in a forest setting.

how about Melanoleuca?
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2011-01-14 12:28:16 PST (-0800)
Compare with 62302
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 08:40:15 PST (-0800)

I just posted another observation which fits the description of L. albissimus as 62302. It looks very similar but grows in conifer litter and has gills running down the stem. Sorry I don’t know how to link directly within MO format.

your mushroom has notched gills…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-01-14 08:29:00 PST (-0800)

Leucopax has decurrent gills.

Conifer mulch?
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 08:28:07 PST (-0800)

It’s said this mushroom is supposed to grow on the litter of conifers. I take it if the mulch is composed of conifer leftovers it can grow on it?

Mulch in a developed area.
By: Andrew Khitsun (Andrew)
2011-01-14 08:16:01 PST (-0800)

These mushrooms grew in the mulch in a developed area.

Created: 2011-01-13 16:57:44 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2011-01-14 20:02:23 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 220 times, last viewed: 2016-03-29 12:29:45 PDT (-0700)
Show Log