Observation 7718: Gymnopilus luteus (Peck) Hesler
When: 2008-06-01
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: I was very surprised to find these Big Laughing Gyms in Bluefoot habitat during Bluefoot season. In the second photo I included some P. ovoideocystidiata that were growing near by.

[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:07:34 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Wayne National Forest, Ohio’ to ‘Wayne National Forest, Ohio, USA

Proposed Names

65% (6)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: This is the same kind of mushroom that MycoWalt identified as Gymnopilus luteus in observation # 10228.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Can’t be luteus with that rusty brown sporeprint…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-09-01 10:34:51 CDT (-0400)

…I believe that your first name, spectabilis, was correct.

By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2008-08-31 20:56:18 CDT (-0400)

I used the common local name for the Psilocybe because there has been some confusion about which Latin name is correct. When I first posted pictures of these mushrooms at another website, I identified them as Psilocybe caerulipes. However, when I sent specimens to Gaston Guzman he replied that they were not P. caerulipes, but were instead a new species. Four months later he emailed me saying it was not a new species; someone had collected it in 2006 in Pennsylvania and it had been named Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata. The different characters he mentioned were spore shape and the presence of an annulus, which was there on some of the specimens I sent him. But as you can see, not all bluefoot specimens have an annulus. In fact, annulate forms are rare in the wild. Most mushrooms display a “barely perceptible annular zone”, which matches the discription of P. caerulipes. Furthermore, no microscopy photos of P. caerulipes are available for comparison, and the existing drawings show variability in shape and size of the spores. I don’t know what formula Guzman uses for splitting taxa, but the two characters he cited don’t pass empirical muster; the one is highly variable, and the other is based on comparison of a SEM image with a drawing.

I don’t know what species bluefoot is, so I use the common name. Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata is also a good name insofar as it refers to an identifiable kind of mushroom, but it might be con-specific with other wood-decaying psilocybes. To my knowledge mating studies have not been done, but there is one undocumented report of mating compatibility between Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata and Psilocybe cyanescens. If it turns out all the bluing wood-decaying Psilocybes are actually a species cluster with varying degrees of inter-fertility between the named kinds, then it will not be the first time a large group of different morphological kinds finds itself reclassified under a single species epithet. If that happens, then I believe the correct species name is Psilocybe caerulipes, which is the older and more generally descriptive Latin name.

bluefoot? are you refering to the psilocybe sp?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-06-08 10:51:39 CDT (-0400)

The trouble with common names…cultivated blewits from Europe are also called bluefeet.
I assume that your Gymnopilus spectabilis is the psychoactive variety, but still terribly bitter? Out West, we just get the bitter; not even the fungiphilic, muscaria munching deer will eat ’em!

Created: 2008-06-07 23:11:16 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2011-03-01 20:45:34 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 912 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 06:52:01 CDT (-0400)