Notes: Mycena clavicularis has “cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia similar, scattered to numerous, (22)30-38 × 9-12(14)µm, broadly clavate, enlarged portion covered with short obtuse projections, hyaline”
Mycena rorida has “cheilocystidia … smooth, fusoid-ventricose to nearly cylindtric, often irregular in outline, 26-34 × 6-10 µm” [A.R. Smith, _North American species of Mycena" pp. 430 & 404, resp.]
|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||6.24||1||(email@example.com)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Sorry, my first visit on this site. I did not see your micro features drawing when i wrote my comment. And the observation was flagged as “Recognized by sight” (or is it just the name that is flagged with this? Apparently I have not yet fully understood how this site works).
I agree, the cystidia do not seem to match R. rorida. But you might also want to look into some of the newly described Roridomyces species, at least one has pyriform and verrucose cheilocystidia (R. palmensis).
I just reacted spontaneously because the specimens on the photo do not resemble what I usually would call Mycena clavicularis in my experience from Northern European sites. I have zero experience from collecting fungi in North America and withdraw my opinion on this.
“The thick slime coat on the stem and the crenulate cap margin” are good characters for both species. You have to look through the microscope, identification “by sight” does not work here.
The thick slime coat on the stem and the crenulate cap margin are good characters.
Created: 2011-04-04 19:53:58 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-04-24 07:15:16 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 145 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 05:48:52 EDT (-0400)