Notes: Brought to 2011 OMS Fall Foray. Growing on moss-covered log.
Spore size 5-8 × 4-5 microns are too small for M. rubromarginata (9-13 × 6.5-9), but that’s perhaps because I measured only a few found when examining a gill from a dried specimen?
The shape of cheilocystidia matches and so does the number (22) of gills reaching the stipe.
|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
From A. Aronsen’s page on M. purpureofusca (http://home.online.no/~araronse/Mycenakey/purpureofusca.htm):
“Maas Geesteranus (1986c: 300-301) discussed how to separate it from M. rubromarginata and mentioned the cheilocystidia as a reliable character. The cheilocystidia of M. purpureofusca have broadly rounded apices, whereas those of M. rubromarginata have narrow necks.”
On page 359 of Funga Nordica, there are pictures of cheilocystidia of M. rubromarginata and M. purpureofusca side by side. I picked what appeared to be a better match. But I am not sure, of course.
The presence of clamp connections would also argue in favor of M. rubromarginata, but I was not looking for them.
Where did you get the name Mycena rubromarginata for this id? How is this different than Mycena purpureofusca?
Created: 2011-11-02 08:56:13 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2011-11-02 08:56:16 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 151 times, last viewed: 2017-02-12 13:55:58 CET (+0100)