Notes: bluing noticed shortly after picking.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.99||2||(maynardjameskeenan,Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
excellent explanation! thank you for clearing that up for me and thank you for putting in term that I would understand.
This is a Pholiotina because it doesn’t have lecytiform cheilocystidia. True Conocybe all have only this type of cheilocystidia at the gill edge, which you can see here:
Pholiotina for some authors is only a section of Conocybe, for other sources it is a separate genus. The names here are both for the one species, they are synonyms. This was just published by Watling as a Conocybe, but then moved to Pholiotina by Enderle in 1999. Which you can see in the species names.
I have been thinking about why you (Alan) call them pholiotina smithii? I never knew that such a thing existed. Are you saying that pholiotina smithii is synonymous with conocybe smithii or that the mushroom would fit better into the genus pholiotina than conocybe? I am scratching my head and trying to figure this out but I am by no means an expert on mushrooms and any insight would be much appreciated, again thank you for all of your help.
You know that I do not own a microscope, I did send a few specimens to the person that I sent the suspected gymnopilus aeruginosus. He is going to look at both under his scope and if I remember correctly he has an oil immersion lens so hopefully he can get some measurements. I am just waiting to hear back from him. I will keep everyone updated When I find out more about them.
Created: 2011-11-29 22:04:27 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2013-06-26 05:23:11 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 505 times, last viewed: 2017-07-23 02:04:27 CEST (+0200)