Observation 64032: Galerina clavata (Velen.) Kuhner
When: 2011-02-28
Who: Byrain
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Found growing scattered on a mossy slope. The pictures were taken the morning after due to my main camera failing to work in the field prior to finding them.

Proposed Names

44% (3)
Recognized by sight: Moss habitat, general appearance, rusty orange/brown spore print.
-48% (2)
Used references: Smith AH, Singer R. (1964). A monograph of the genus Galerina Earle. Available from: http://www.hti.umich.edu/...
Based on microscopic features: Ornamented spores with plage, but no germ pore; strongly tibiiform (and occasionally forked and bicaputate) cheilocystidia, but no distinct pleurocystidia; basidia 4-spored; lacks veil.
48% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Looks like what you’ve been calling Galerina clavata
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2011-03-05 22:32:59 BRT (-0300)

I didn’t make the initial collection, but I was given dried samples (which I still have) and looked at them under the microscope pretty thoroughly last night. I’ll get some images when I get a chance.

From the micrographs you posted, it looks like this collection is the same as what you’ve been collecting. However, there are key differences with Galerina clavata, notably the spore size. Also, the pileus trama and cuticular hyphae lack any kind of encrustation, something else G. clavata and allies are supposed to have. As for a plage, there’s a distinctly flattened zone on some of the spores when seen in side view, something I see in one of your images as well. I interpreted this as a plage, though I could be mistaken.

It would be good to sequence these and see how they match up with what’s in Genbank, particularly with those from Gulden’s collections. I’ll talk to Alan Rockefellar about getting sequence data.

Here are…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-03-05 12:49:57 BRT (-0300)

Here are some other obs. from Cali. with micro-details you can use to compare:


By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-03-05 12:46:08 BRT (-0300)

Also rules out G. tibiicystis since it is not with Sphagnum, and the spores aren’t dextrinoid (or roughened enough, or have a plage, I’ll bet these don’t have a plage…). Oh, wait I didn’t look at it under the scope… oh, wait you did?

Yeah, the Calif. form of G. clavata agrees in all cases except for the spore size. The ave. spore length in CA samples is 9.5um, but in the European descriptions it is more like 12um. But all other features agree.

Love to see some dna work done on these, to see how far they differ. If they should be a separate species or a var. mesospora or something…

Micro features not really consistent with G. clavata or G. tibiicystis.
By: Peter G Werner (pgwerner)
2011-03-05 11:07:32 BRT (-0300)

I really don’t think that this is G. clavata. The spore size is about 8.5-12.0 X 6.0-8.0, which is clearly too small for G. clavata. Also the pileus hyphae lack encrustations, which is also supposed to be characteristic of that species. On the other hand, I also don’t see any clamp connections, including in places like pileus hyphae, where I would expect to see them if they’re present at all. That would rule out G. tibiicystis.

Created: 2011-03-02 16:24:47 BRT (-0300)
Last modified: 2011-03-05 22:20:32 BRT (-0300)
Viewed: 144 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 19:21:24 BRST (-0200)
Show Log