|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.25||1||(firstname.lastname@example.org)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
as Mycena excisa (Lasch) Gillet sensu A.H. Smith" [no parentheses] in his thesis “A TAXONOMIC INVESTIGATION OF MYCENA IN CALIFORNIA” p. 28-30
For the needs of MO, “(sensu A.H. Sm.)” can be dropped. Also note the different combining author in A.H. Smith (and in B.A. Perry), and in Index Fungorum.
That’s the nomenclature.
Now, what is this particular collection?
Mycena excisa? Most probably not, since M. excisa has pleurocystidia scattered or abundant (Smith’s description). [Oluna: “Scattered pleurocystidia are sometime difficult to find.”]
Mycena maculata? Mycena maculata lacks pleurocystidia but its cheilocystidia are inconspicuous and embedded and form a dense layer; the spore size does not fit either; no red spots on the sporocarps even one or two days after we brought it home.
Mycena galericulata? Cheilocystidia are close to this species, but spores are shorter and wider.
The supporting specimen is in the UBC herbarium waiting to be accessioned. It is labelled "Mycena excisa "
This specimen and the supporting MO observation need further study. Until it is done, let’s keep this MO observation name as well as the name on the label as "Mycena excisa ". [Pity that the MO naming system does not allow Mycena cf. excisa!]
Ask the First person to use this name on MO: Michael Wood
We would also like to know why.
Is it distinct in some way from Mycena excisa (Lasch) Gillet?
Created: 2011-03-09 05:38:01 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-03-09 05:38:03 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 157 times, last viewed: 2016-11-28 18:35:51 EST (-0500)