Notes: Syn.: Hygrophorus cantharellus (Schwein.) Fr.
|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||6.27||1||(firstname.lastname@example.org)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I’ve found the book online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/... – very good. But the monograph is more then 50 years old – does a new revision of the genus Hygrocybe in North America exists? In this work H. constrictospora couldn’t be included because the original description is published in 1985. These two synonyms I’ve found in the database at fungiworld.com:
- Hygrocybe parvula (Peck 1876) Pegler in D.A. Reid et al. 1981 ss. Hallgrímsson
- Hygrophorus strangulatus P.D. Orton 1960 ss. Arnolds 1974, 1977
Independently, your spore length 13-15(-16) µm differs distinctly to the one by Hessler & Smith which measures 8-13 µm, because your range starts where the other values end.
Sorry but about the distribution of this species in North America I couldn’t tell you anything. Is no database available which can give you these informations about?
All I could do for you is to send you a scan from Boertmann’s Hygrocybe book about H. cantharellus and H. constrictospora. Also I have the “Hygrophorus s.l. Fungi Europaei 6.” by Massimo Candusso, which contains the species of the Southern Europe. The original description of H. constrictospora is included too. If you want I will scan.
For identification I used the “North American species of Hygrophorus” By Hessler & Smith (1963), p. 153-155. They give the following spore size: “7-12 × 4-6 µm or 8-13 × 5-8 µm in two-spored forms (smaller on four-spored basidia), ellipsoid to subovoid, smooth.” The constricted spores were only few among the “normal” spores.
Hygrocybe constrictispora has smaller spores than our specimen and its spores are “pro parte majoris” constricted, unlike our material. Has it been reported from the Western North America? Thanks, Oluna
P.S. According to ICBN Art. 60.Ex.14, and Art. 60G.1(a2, the epithet “constrictospora” should be corrected to “constrictispora”. OC
David Boertmann specified the spore size of H. cantharellus in his book “The genus Hygrocybe, 2nd ed. Fungi of Northern Europe Vol.1” with (7.5-)9-10.5(-11.5) x (5-)5.5-7(-9) µm, the quotient reaches from 1.0 to 2.0, avarage from 1.4 to 1.8. Arnolds defines the spore size in his original description with 6.5-10(-11.5) x 3,5-5(-5,5) µm, Q = 1.6-2.2(-2.4).
Also the spore shapes differ distinctly. Boertmann wrote: “oblong or slightly phaseoliform, rarely a few slightly (!) constricted.” But Arnolds described the spore shape with “ellipsoideae-oblongae, obovoideae-oblongae vel cylindreae, haud lentiformae, pro parte majores strangulate”.
Perhaps it could be another Hygrocybe species? The spore shapes of your finding reminds to H. constrictospora but for that your spore sizes seems to be too big. I don’t know the fungi flora of Canada so I couldn’t determine your finding.
Created: 2011-06-19 22:29:22 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-06-19 22:29:23 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 98 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 12:02:09 PDT (-0700)