Observation 86731: Phaeocollybia R. Heim
When: 2012-01-14
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

60% (2)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: until George can tell me the specifics of this particular ID.
28% (1)
Recognized by sight: Large size, stuffed stipe with ivory pith that slowly stained orangish-tan and darker overall colors than P. kauffmanii

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
I get that Dave.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-02-06 11:24:29 EST (-0500)

And I also agree about the potential abuse of the As IF! choice, although sometimes it can be darned satisfying. ;)

But it’s all about one’s perspective, of course. IF you do live on the west coast, and if you ARE well familiar with both Phaeocollybia and Chroogomphus AND you know the ID abilities of both the poster of this sighting as well as the pool of identifiers that are normally at SOMA camp, well, then an AS IF! can be perfectly appropriate!

Our Noah is just as likely to AS IF ya as he is to throw you an ID bone. And most times, I bend over backwards to see the point of view of others, and ways that a wrong ID can be made. Heck, I make ’em myself!

AT any rate, I do sincerely hope you can sneak away to the west coast someday during our mushroom season. Nothing beats that in-hand experience. I adore traveling to the east for the very same reason, but a few trips here and there, even spent in serious study, do not provide me with the constantly reinforced, on the ground expertise of those who live there.

I would certainly like to come out to CA.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-05 22:50:27 EST (-0500)

For me, seeing this stuff on MO is like a portal into an alternative fungal universe! Unfortunately, for the time being, my work schedule (I teach mathematics in a community college) kicks in just when the west coast mushrooms start up. Maybe one of the Januarys, between semesters.

I agree with the “in hand” comment.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-05 17:44:07 EST (-0500)

But initially I did not find it obvious that the mushroom had been scrutinized. That’s why I persisted.

Is it really necessary to pummel one’s proposals with multiple “as if”s? It’s not like I called this thing Boletus edulis or some such thing. As noted by several memebrs, the photo does look like a Chroogomphus. That’s why I continue to allow the proposal to remain posted. I think it — and the subsequent disussion — adds a bit of depth… especially regarding the obvious subjective aspect of viewing/interpreting photos. Returning to my previously used “pickup basketball” metaphor… IMO, the game goes a lot better when there’s not a lot of “in your face” attitude.

in hand always beats photo ID…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-02-05 11:51:01 EST (-0500)

obviously these were looked at and identified by those familiar with both species cited here. George is also a good identifier; Noah has had more direct experience with the Phaeocollybia recently in the PNW, but even then, and even in hand, these can be a bitch to ID.

gotta give some props to those who put these species up on MO: in hand, it is simple to ID them to genus; as we have shown, that specific is a little less simple.

not always possible to ID with certainly from a photo.

come on out to CA Dave, and learn these species firsthand!

Yeah, I see that now.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-04 23:14:19 EST (-0500)

Thanks Noah. Duh!… It should have occured to me this was collected/examined at a foray. Still, I think it’s good to point out similarities/differences. A picture may paint a thousand words… but when it comes to a picture of a mushroom, that may not be quite enough words :-)

I can see why
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2012-02-04 17:36:57 EST (-0500)

you would want to call this a Chroogomphus, the stature and color are the same, but the fibrous stipe is enough to separate them.

Okay.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-04 17:26:36 EST (-0500)

Mystery — at least it was for me — solved. I just downgraded my proposal to “doubtful”. I’ll let it stand like that because, if one has only the photo as a means of ID, then the Chroo proposal looks okay… at least it does to me.

Thank you Noah
By: George Riner (mycogeo)
2012-02-04 16:31:51 EST (-0500)

I was going to add that there was a “?” on the ID slip with this one.

I saw the specimen in person.
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2012-02-04 15:03:02 EST (-0500)

and pulled it apart, so that’s how I know the stipe was stuffed.
I think I called it P. kauffmanii when I saw it but was unsure, and I don’t think I put a name on it.
It is probably P. benzokauffmanii, based on the macro features, but… need more info.

Gills are not visible due to photo angle.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-04 13:47:15 EST (-0500)

Just like the one specimen seen in the Phillips account of C. vinicolor.

http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/...

Also note the long tapered stipes in the Phillips photo. Isn’t this one reason for calling Chroo “Pine Spikes”?

Given the amount of info here, how does one determine the stipe to be stuffed? Otherwise, the online photos of P. benzokauffmanii look like a good match. Still not convinced against Chroo… that is, unless we’ve got some “insider trading” info floating around… Sounds like you had examined this mushroom, Noah.

Is C. pseudovinicolor found in CA?

maybe not kauffmanii…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-02-04 10:45:44 EST (-0500)

but undoubtedly a Phaeocollybia.

Hard to get all of those long roots, esp. when the ground conditions are so dry.
That stipe is way longer than any Chroogomphus, and is obviously broken to boot.
We collect Phaeocollybia sp. all the time along the west coast; they are pretty common.

Viscid caps turn dry and shiny under dry conditions…note the poor condition of other specimens posted here by George from that weekend.

And IF a Chroogomphus, Dude, where are my decurrent gills and veil???

It’s a Phaeocollybia, but WHICH Phaeocollybia…???

The dry shiny cap
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-04 09:54:26 EST (-0500)

reminds me of a Montana pine woods collection I IDed as C. pseudovinicolor. I see no posted evidence (ie. spore color, taproot, special habitat…) that sways me away from this opinion.

Why is this a Phaeocollybia and not a Chroogomphus?

another opinion
By: SoCalHunter
2012-02-03 21:15:53 EST (-0500)

Looks incredibly similar to Chroogomphus sp. with that maroon coloration.
What color was the interior of the stipe?

Not sure what to think…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-02-03 20:21:02 EST (-0500)

Not sure what to think of this one, maybe Phaeocollybia, but really dried out? Maybe not? Not enough info here to tell? The cap doesn’t look umbonate enough?

it’s a Phaeocollybia…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-02-03 19:55:23 EST (-0500)

but how did you get to kaufmanii?

not challenging the ID, just curious. this genus confuses the heck outta me.

I’ve never collected Phaeocollybia.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-02-03 16:55:01 EST (-0500)

And I’ve collected Chroogomphus only once. But this looks like a Chroogomphus to me. Info on Phaeocollybia that I found describes a very large viscid/sticky capped mushroom. Was the taproot observed?

Created: 2012-01-21 00:03:38 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-02-06 11:15:45 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 238 times, last viewed: 2015-06-09 00:20:20 EDT (-0400)
Show Log