Notes: Habitat: in sandy soil, ~1/4 mile inland from the shore, growing in thick patches of dune grass (Ammophila sp. ?) beneath Shore Pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) and Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis)
Habit: scattered to gregarious
Odor: slightly sweet, fragrant, distinctly un-raphanoid
Taste: … can’t remember (sava?)
Pileus: 4-8.5cm in diameter, white to buff brown, lighter at margin, broadly convex to nearly planar in age, context white and unchanging, inrolled when young, subviscid, exceeding lamellae at all stages of development.
Lamellae: close, sinuate w/ a slight unpigmented decurrent tooth, white to pale pinkish brown to light earth brown at maturity, lamellulae present (2 series), edges lined with fine white encrustations (cheilocystidia), ventricose, ~1cm broad at thickest portion
Stipe: 5.5-8.5 cm in length, equal above (8-12mm thick) with gradually enlarged base (up to 20mm), pearly white discoloring light brown to earth brown with age/handling, stuffed when young to hollow in age, surface dry, sparsely fibrillose, texture fibrous to slightly twisted-fibrous, fissuring longitudinally to reveal a pallid background, apex persistently white, dandruffy to mealy (caulocystidia).
Pileipellis: an ixolattice of long, slender (2-4μm wide), septate, clamped hyphae.
Cystidia: Pleurocystidia absent. Cheilocystidia abundant, cylindro-clavate, up to 100μm in length, often in large bouquet-like clusters, varying in thickness throughout (3-5μm), enlared at apex (5-9μm), infrequently enlarged/swollen below. Caulocystidia present, similarly clustered and shaped.
Spores: Broadly elliptical to amygdaliform, some slighty citriniform (having a distinct nodule opposite the apiculus), inequilateral in profile, asperulate, most containing one large droplet, non-dextrinoid
9μm-11μm x 5μm-6.5μm (x=10.2μm x 5.9μm, m=20 s=1)
|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)
it took seeing entire cystidia for the first time years ago, disembodied from their host tissues, to know that there was a lot more length and shape than meets the eye. every now and then, with luck/practice, I’ll catch a cheilo still attached and perfectly in focus, top to bottom.
as a side note, these spores were unmistakably asperulate (to borrow a phrase from the aforementioned text), though somehow their ornamentation seemed to be way more visible in Melzer’s than KOH.
the same publication listed the following species as possibilities given exclusively asperulate spore ornamentation (as in no combination of wrinkling and warts, just warts):
When looking at or measuring cystidia it is important to get the whole thing rather than just the part sticking out of the gill. I used to think that the only way to do this was a crush mount, but I have recently discovered a new way which I think is better. You can see the whole cystidia by looking at a cap cross section using the 100x oil immersion lens. You can’t see the whole cystidia all the time, but if it is close enough to the top of your section you can clearly see the whole thing. Works well with all kinds of cystidia, though it is a good idea to have several sections for cheilocystidia because they are only on the gill tips, so there is statistically less of a chance of the cut being at just the right place to allow you to see the whole thing.
Here is an example of a pleurocystidia that is still embedded in the gill.
For some reason I can’t see the whole cystidia very well with the 40x objective, I think the extremely narrow depth of field with the oil immersion objective is what makes this work.
Going through the available literature at state was making the process of elimination feel pretty daunting (there’s some two-volume, ring-bound monster of a thing covering every nook and cranny of Hebelomology one could possibly imagine). I’ll mount this again and get good detail on cystidia and dextrinoidity.
For Hebeloma you need to make sure there are cheilocystidia, and no pleurocystidia. Then after you do that, you need to really crush the gill mount. There is a bunch of significance in how much the cystidia is swollen at the base, which is a very subtle thing. Sounds silly, but true. Crushing the gill well is the only was to separate the cystidia and tell what the base looks like. Also you need to get how dextrinoid are the spores.
But having said that, you have swollen ends to these cystidia, not all Hebeloma have that so clear, so that narrows it down. But given the amount that Hebeloma are studied in California, even all that won’t really help. But getting more good obs. is all you can do at this point…
Created: 2011-11-09 22:16:46 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-01-24 16:11:21 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 156 times, last viewed: 2017-02-21 08:43:48 CST (-0500)