Observation 65294: Phaeogalera oedipus (Cooke) Romagn.
When: 2011-03-28
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Found and id’ed by others at the SMG meeting.

The first micro-shot is of the cap surface at 400x in Meltzer’s. The cap surface is a cutis, of inflated, branched, interwoven hyphae. No gelatin nor pileocystidia.

The second micro-shot is of a gill edge at 400x in Meltzer’s. The cheilocystidia are cylindrical to clavate, thick and numerous on a non-fertile edge. No pleurocystidia were obs., 4-spore basidia were obs., there were no reactions to the reagent in any tissues.

The third micro-shot is of the stipe apex at 400x in KOH. The caulocystidia are cylidrical to clavate. No cystidia were obs at the stipe base.

The forth micro-shot are of spores from the stipe apex at 1000x in KOH. The spores are ellipsoid, smooth, no germ pore on most. On a few there is an uncertain indistinct possible germ pore, but very narrow. The apr. ave. size is 9 × 5 um.

As already discussed, these are rather confusing. Although they are also, kinda a small little brown job, and somewhat boring. But in an oddly interesting way. The spores are somewhere between Tubaria, Pholiota, or Simocybe, and it isn’t certain if there is or isn’t a germ pore. These are kinda vaguely indistinct, somewhere between Galerina, Pholiota, Simocybe, Tubaria… hard to say. Phaeogalera was created really for brown spored, small, with a cutis, and smooth spores with a germ pore, mushrooms. These don’t really have a clear germ pore, so they don’t really fit Phaeogalera either.

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Sporulator
2011-04-09 10:44:27 CDT (-0500)

The taxonomists are not even in agreement about the family those mushrooms belong to: Strophariaceae, Cortinariaceae, or Psathyrellaceae. So take your pick! :)

great backstory guys and gals…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-04-09 10:31:31 CDT (-0500)

would’ja say that the taxonomy on this one is just a bit unsettled???! ;)

So glad to see this obs
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-04-09 03:22:53 CDT (-0500)

The first time I saw its name, it was a Pholiota, and I have been wondering since then what it should look like, because the few pictures I had seen all have shown different cap and gill colours. I understand now, that it can have a more ochraceous coloured form, resembling a Tubaria (?).
Moncalvo et al in “One hundred and seventeen clades of euagarics” found it close to Tubaria. But the spores on this one is said to have a small germ pore, and Tubaria doesn’t (at least not visible). Interesting is that Berkeley & Broome initially were thinking of placing it in section Tubaria, but suggested Pholiota instead..

Several authors have tried to make it fit in different genera:
Dryophila, Flammula, Galerina, Hemipholiota, Hypholoma, Phaeogalera, Pholiota, Psathyrella. Meottomyces is the latest.

By: Sporulator
2011-04-09 02:44:33 CDT (-0500)

Where I live (southern Germany, Black Forest) this is clearly a winter mushroom. On this (german) website http://www.natur-in-nrw.de/HTML/Pilze/Agaricales/PA-543.html they say that the taxonomy of Phaeogalera oedipus is very difficult and hotly debated. They say that the species shows characteristics of Pholiota and Galerina. The newest idea (Horak 2005) is to transfer the species from the Strophariaceae to the Cortinariaceae. Somewhere in my archive I have photos of Phaeogalera oedipus, including photos of spores, cystidia etc. I will post them later today.

I second Myxomops’ question…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-04-08 17:35:23 CDT (-0500)

what is it about this genus that separates it out? And what does it have in common with Galerina (to which it is somehow linked)?

tricky little thing
By: Tatiana Bulyonkova (ressaure)
2011-04-08 15:12:24 CDT (-0500)

This species is very common where I live, it grows everywhere from forest floor to woody debris on lawns, throughout the warm season. Imagine me, a rookie who’d just begun to take interest in mushrooms, trying to identify this little creature without a microscope (5 years ago). Naturally I’d assumed that it was something well-known because it was SO ubiquitous… I tried all possible keys that I’d been able to find, and ended up near Stropharia or Agrocybe erebia… It took me three years to accidentaly stumble upon a photo of this species and finally find out what it was. And it turns out that a microscope isn’t a remedy, because two seasoned local professional mycologists had this buster in their “Strophariaceae – unidentified” folders independently for years for the same reason – this species is very proficient in avoiding keys, lists, and field guides… So when I yapped “oh, a Phaeogalera!” upon seeing the pictures “of a really strange, locally not uncommon, possibly new unidentified little thing” their expressions were just epic in both cases… :D

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-04-08 14:06:44 CDT (-0500)

my ?! has become a double ?!

Good question
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-04-08 12:02:38 CDT (-0500)

I seems like the current name is Meottomyces dissimulans…

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-04-08 11:48:20 CDT (-0500)

where do these wacky new genera keep coming from?

edit: and by new, I of course mean new to me, as the name appears to be nearly 40 years old. what makes a Phaeogalera a Phaeogalera?

Created: 2011-04-08 09:46:42 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-04-09 14:31:25 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 273 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 06:15:55 CDT (-0500)
Show Log