Observation 88555: Panaeolus (Fr.) Quél.
When: 2012-03-04
Who: TimmiT
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Spores: limoniform to elipsiod, prominent germ pore, 12-13μm x (7.5)8-9μm

Cheilocystidia: hyaline, strangulated cylindrical to lageniform, very roughly 25-30μm

Pleurocystidia: not observed

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
I think…
By: TimmiT
2012-03-14 08:43:02 CST (-0500)

it’s just the angle of the photo giving that impression. I uploaded another pic with them in the same frame. I didn’t add it originally because most of the pic is out of focus.

By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-03-14 06:43:25 CST (-0500)

Are you certain that the two top photos (of the mushrooms) represent the same collection? The pic of the underside seems to show a more robust stipe than seen in the top pic. Top pic looks a lot like your post obs 88552.

By: TimmiT
2012-03-14 00:22:52 CST (-0500)

I am confident that these are not a Panaeolina given the lack of spore ornamentation. They were also black in deposit.

These are not as robust as I would expect with P. cinctulus. The stipes were quite thin and fragile and the caps were only 1cm or so in diameter. Looking at Gerhardt 1996 the shape is more reminiscent of fimicola than cinctulus and the colour of the margin suggests that they would have originally been quite dark. They were also growing from soil that was not very fertilised. I realise now what a pain in the ass it is to identify a Panaeolus.

Obs 88552 is quite different from these. They are fairly typical P. papilionaceus, growing directly from sheep dung (hard to see in the pics) with a campanulate pileus and apendiculate margin. They are also larger and a different colour and texture, and lack the pruinose stipe.

i also…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-13 22:46:30 CST (-0500)

agree. i just mentioned the possibility of it being a foe.
about the other observation.
it does resemble a pan pap, whereas this does resemble a cinct.
the only thing, pap isn’t growing directly off of dung.
i suppose the soil might be manured up??
the teeth around the margin are a dead giveaway for pan paps imo.
also, the stem is long and slender. another good detail to note.

Stem does look to be too substantial
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-03-13 21:57:08 CST (-0500)

for foenisecii. So I agree with the Panaeolus ID…

But I have made collections of both foensecii and cinctulus that exhibit very similar macroscopic characters. Viewed under my old weather – worn max 400x scope the spores for these types look almost identical.

What is it about this obs that is differebt from… http://mushroomobserver.org/obs/88552?q=CNAw

good call…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-13 21:02:04 CST (-0500)

on the spores. i overlooked that. good to know.

Panaeolina has roughened spores
By: Byrain
2012-03-13 20:42:28 CST (-0500)

Not smooth spores.

Also, it doesn’t look like Panaeolina with that red stem and black gills.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-13 20:20:52 CST (-0500)

it would.

Spore print color
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-03-13 20:17:10 CST (-0500)

would quickly settle the foenisecii/cinctulus debate.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2012-03-13 19:53:57 CST (-0500)

why not P. foenisecii?

Created: 2012-03-04 02:48:48 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-03-14 00:23:38 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 283 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 04:08:14 CDT (-0400)
Show Log