Observation 87914: Panaeolus (Fr.) Quél.
When: 2012-02-17
Herbarium specimen reported
0 Sequences

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features: spores are too big and have a germ-pore.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-04-06 11:13:19 PDT (-0700)

sorry, missed your comment…

these micrographs were horrible.
i no longer have the specimens.

i can look on old drives and calculate the statistics w/ the information i have.

What were the spore statistics?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-04-03 15:21:22 PDT (-0700)
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-15 06:38:14 PDT (-0700)

i no longer have the specimen.
it was misplaced with a few others.

I am not sure that spore size alone is enough to separate species
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-04-15 03:13:38 PDT (-0700)

Check the cystidia?

spores are too big.
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-15 00:45:30 PDT (-0700)
Why not Panaeolus cinctulus?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-04-15 00:26:41 PDT (-0700)
thank you.
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-14 23:49:30 PDT (-0700)

still trying to figure out what it is.

Beautiful little mushroom.
By: Kari (Kari)
2012-04-14 19:23:42 PDT (-0700)

Fantastic photography, too.

any thoughts?
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-04-14 17:59:18 PDT (-0700)
they are…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-17 07:45:18 PDT (-0700)

i accidentally uploaded the wrong files.
i will fix when i get home from work.

Spore size
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2012-03-17 06:34:52 PDT (-0700)

seems off?

Created: 2012-02-17 17:36:29 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2014-04-06 13:31:36 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 230 times, last viewed: 2015-12-04 13:02:00 PST (-0800)
Show Log