Crepidotus mollis (Schaeff.) Staude on MyCoPortal
Crepidotus mollis on MycoBank
Alternative Names: Crepidotus fulvotomentosus Peck, Crepidotus calolepis (Fr.) P. Karst.
More Observations of Crepidotus mollis (Schaeff.) Staude (133)
More Observations of Crepidotus calolepis (Fr.) P. Karst. (9)
More Observations (all synonyms) (142)
Similar Observations (32)
List of species in Crepidotus (Fr.) Staude (73)
Public Description (Default) [Edit]
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.06||2||(Alan Rockefeller,AmatoxinApocalypse)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I’m gratful by your questions. Let me say that I’m just a beginner and that my knowledge about the genus Crepidotus is very weak. In former observations I made, I found (what I believed was) C. mollis with an hygrophanus cuticle and a gelatinous separable layer. I think that this specimen developed in the remains of a dead Quercus tree (I can’t be afirmative, because it was only a small piece of wood, but the place was dominated by Quercus suber trees) and, it seemed to me that, the cuticle was not hygrophanus and, surely, it was not separable. That’s why I put the previous questions.
By the way, Observation MO50612 refers to C. calolepis var. squamulosus.
there is not only C.mollis and C.calolepis var. calolepis, there is in addition C. calolepis var. squamulosus, which at least where I live is far more common than both the other ones … you can distinguish them also on spore width/length.
I’m curious, because what I have identified from Sweden as Crepidotus mollis has grown on Fraxinus. What I have called calolepis has been less gelatinous, and it’s only known on aspen here. But I still need to collect some and check them in the microscope…
The larger textured thick-walled surface hyphae without clamps are seen in both C. mollis and C. calolepis. But they are deeply pigmented in C. calolepis, and not pigmented in C. mollis. Except some authors will say that C. mollis can be somewhat pigmented. The spores are pretty much the same, but in the recent Italian book on Crepidotus, they have different size ranges, that still over-lap. And other authors don’t split them at all.
So, I guess I am saying it is up to you which you want to choose, either C. mollis or C. calolepis.
and supposing that C. mollis and C. cololepis are different species, this specimen should be classified C. cololepis, because the larger pigmented hyphae are thick-walled, textured, and also they are lacking clamps. On de other hand, the spores measures that I obtained match completely those of MO50612. Am I correct?
You can see there what you need for C. mollis/calolepis in the micro-shots. The larger pigmented hyphae are thick-walled, and textured, and also you can see they are lacking clamps. Those hyphae you only see in C. mollis/calolepis. You could also add the spores are ellipsoid, smooth, tan, and slightly pointed. But you can look up some of my photos of the spores here on the site. Here are a couple:
You can decide which way you want to go with the C. mollis/calolepis split. Some authors call them the same species, others split them. But even the ones that split them kinda wave their hands about the difference, allowing C. mollis to have slightly pigmented surface hyphae.
I don’t know if it is of any utility but I uploaded already some pictures that were obtained from the observation of the cuticle under a microscope. For the spores I obtained the following measures: 8 – 9.4 × 5.4 – 6.4 µm with an average of Qe = 1.5.
Well, C. calolepis is about the same as C. mollis, except with pigmented hyphae (or more pigmented hyphae, depending…) on the surface. All the rest of the features are the same. The separable thing isn’t always true, but the viscid cap is certainly different for these then the rest of the Creps. You can tell them just because they are more rubbery in the hand, when the rest of the Creps are papery to felty.
One of the features of C. mollis is that the cuticle is gelatinous when moist and separable. Although the weather was dry at the time of the observation no part of the cuticle was separable. It seems to me that the cap cuticle is similar to the one in observation MO49874 which stands as C. calolepis.
Created: 2011-03-31 21:47:09 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2011-04-03 21:57:53 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 181 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 01:52:06 CEST (+0200)