Observation 63422: Flammulaster Earle
When: 2011-01-28
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Photographed on Friday ACCF foray.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Habitat -
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-02-10 13:02:29 CST (-0500)

Well, from the given sources, it doesn’t sound like you can tell anything from the habitat info at all… From Funga Nordica it says:

“On deciduous twigs and leaves, etc. in damp habitats, less often on leaves of grasses”

So, we have it from deciduous debris to conifer, leaves, grasses, it seems like the given habitat is rather broad. Doesn’t seem like you can rule anything out with the habitat info…

I am rather jumping in with both feet, perhaps, but I will leave it to you to get the microscopic details on your collections for comparison. I should try and look up the one from Los Trancos, I think I have that around, it was on wood, and is noticeably lighter in color. There might be variations in these tiny Flammulaster guys out there.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2011-02-10 12:33:42 CST (-0500)

Debbie, I have saved similar collections from under Eucalyptus, Lithocarpus, and Alnus, so there are collections to look at.

Douglas, do you think that the species under Eucalyptus is the same as that found on Lithocarpus catkins? Certainly at least same genus.

Furthermore, I don’t know about F. rhombosporus, as it is not reported with association of any of the trees I can predictably (and exclusively?) find it with.

The MycoQuebec site says:
“Habitat: gregarious among the litter of deciduous forests in wetlands, and moss, willow catkins and occasionally rabbit feces.”

And this flickr page:
“Habitat: coniferous woodland”

Seems very different habitat preference.

Um, no, not really…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-02-10 12:15:38 CST (-0500)

Yeah, well, We’ve seen this very small Tubaria/Flammulaster type thing up and down the coast for a few years now, and really didn’t have much to say it isn’t all the same species. They all look the same at least. I’ve looked at one, and I looked at another quickly just enough to tell it was the same. I’m then just saying the rest that are similar are the same species. Not sure there is going to that much variation in Flammulaster on the California coast to say that there are more species that look the same macroscopically, but differ microscopically.

Or I guess I can say, do you have any evidence that this one is different than the one I put under the scope from the Stanford Campus? Macroscopically they have the same features…

Of course I’ve only looked at the one. I think maybe Else could say better if I’m just pulling names out of the air here…

It seems fairly distinctive
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-02-10 12:14:32 CST (-0500)

A small, pale, scurfy AND granular agaric, often on tanoak catkins and debris, other times on humus or as in this case, on the woody rhizo-thing of a sword fern.

are there enough macro characters from the photo…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-02-10 12:08:58 CST (-0500)

to make a specific determination? or even better, did you actually look at this at the ACCF foray, Doug? As far as I know, it didn’t get saved…

you are correct; I missed it in my search.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-02-10 12:06:58 CST (-0500)

I killed the old obsie since this one has a potential sp. name.

By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-02-10 12:02:09 CST (-0500)

Hi Debbie, you posted this collection the other day!

Created: 2011-02-10 11:44:40 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-02-10 12:36:51 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 67 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 20:09:30 CDT (-0400)
Show Log