Notes: On a decomposing log of White Birch (Betula papyrifera). Although this mushroom keys out quite well as Golden Pholiota, the date is very early for this type, and the habitat seemed unusual.
|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||4.30||1|
|Promising||2.0||14.22||3||(Dave W,Shroomin Yooper,mycotrope)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Following Kuo that is correct. Spore size is needed. Being a field guy I have been calling them all P.aurivella. Of course we could lump them both under the common name fat pholiota. Or we can puzzle about Pholiota adiposa and as Kuo states enter Pholiota hell, whatever that is…
At least only by observation.I couldnt reach them off a raised boardwalk but had a good view but no camera.
You went the extra mile fishing it out of the compost (thanks), and are rewarded with a monkey wrench of sorts. Sigh. I say we stick with the more complete data of spore size for now which indicates P. aurivella. I hadn’t opened your spore image, so didn’t notice the micrometer.
that I have reason to believe the micrometer on my 400X scope registers a bit low (based on observations of spores coming from mushrooms of known ID). So actual spore size is probably a bit larger than what the pointer indicates. I think these spores have length averaging a little under 9 mu.
But… I fished the discarded cap out of the compost, and applied some KOH to it, which turned a bright orangish red. Kuo lists the red with KOH criterion as pointing toward P. limonella. I can find no info regarding the KOH reaction with P. aurivella.
Kuo also mentions that this sort of analysis is a possible pathway into “Pholiota hell.”
If I read you correctly, Pholiota limonella is a possibility here, and a determination could be made through spore measurement. Correct?
Although more common in the fall I see this nearly every spring.
From Michael Kuo: Mating studies on Pholiota limonella and similar mushrooms (Farr, Miller & Farr, 1976) revealed that several species previously defined on the basis of differences in physical features were quite willing to mate, suggesting that Pholiota limonella is a physically variable species. Pholiotas matching the physical descriptions of Pholiota limonella, Pholiota abietis, Pholiota connata, Pholiota squarroso-adiposa, and Pholiota subvelutipes were all compatible; since Pholiota limonella is the oldest species name in the group, the authors followed taxonomic rules and reduced the other names to synonymy.
Specimens matching the description of “Pholiota aurivella,” however, were not compatible with the others. Since the description of Pholiota limonella had to be widened to accommodate variation in physical features, the authors found precious few physical features that adequately separated Pholiota aurivella from Pholiota limonella—except for spore dimensions; the spores of Pholiota aurivella collections were somewhat larger (8.5-10.2 × 5-6.5 µ).
if your spore examination precludes the possibility of this being P. limonella (Peck)Sacc.
Created: 2011-05-26 06:36:47 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-05-26 15:19:14 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 157 times, last viewed: 2017-06-09 10:59:07 PDT (-0700)