Observation 9013: Rickenella fibula (Bull.) Raithelh.
When: 2008-07-26
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Growing in wet, lowland area; some fruit bodies growing directly from the sides of pictured moss. Strongly decurrent gills. Supposedly this former genus of omphalina has been renamed something like Lorelei (after Norvell, the mycologist).

Proposed Names

-15% (4)
Recognized by sight: Macromorphology; named by Methven, but I didn’t write it down!
63% (6)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: On moss, decurrent gills, orange color, small thin.
3% (4)
Recognized by sight: Andy Methven recognized it.
8% (2)
Recognized by sight: higher res photo clearly shows cystidia on both stem and cap…BUT!!! these fruit bodies were WAY bigger than any Rickenella fibula that I have collected in CA…so I suggest Rickenella sp. until (or if) this issue can be resolved…from a photo only, alas.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
so much for in hand, quick and dirty IDs!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-12-08 10:40:46 EST (-0500)

see comments under Rickenella sp. name proposal.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-12-08 06:15:41 EST (-0500)

R. fibula is also some what common in Northern CA…

Irene, I did read that Loreleia inhabit liverwort OR moss, but I really don’t know the first thing about identifying either, or what the differences are.

These really do look more like Rickenella I think…

I also think
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-12-08 04:55:56 EST (-0500)

observation 22339 should be checked out for comparison

Oh, good, I’m not the only one…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2009-12-08 04:32:34 EST (-0500)

Good, I’m not the only one confused here… but I never wanted to delve too deeply into the whole Rickenella/Loreleia/Omphalina/small Clitocybe/handfull of others thing. I read a paper by Redhead once from Mycotaxon I think, about the time that Debbie found that little pink not Omphalina. I think it was a little clearer about where there is cystidia or not for the various genera, but I remember after reading it I was still confused.

But in anycase, I just wanted to point out, if you want to see evidence of cystidia all over for Rickenella fibula, check out obs. 28829. The new camera can focus very close, and the cystidia came out well here.

Maybe I have read the wrong descriptions..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-12-08 04:27:28 EST (-0500)

but according to them, postii is supposed to grow on/with particular mosses (Hepaticae). I don’t think the pictured moss here is one of them.
These mushrooms don’t look like postii to me anyway – wrong shape and too striate. The postii I have seen have been larger, caps often around 20-25 mm, occasionally more, and more thickfleshed, with yellowish gills.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-12-08 02:30:54 EST (-0500)

Well it is pretty certainly Loreleia or Rickenella, however, without microscopy I am not confident that it can be narrowed down to genus even…

Here is a similar dialogue, equipped with photos, from the Wild About Britain Forum posted about 3 months ago:

And here is a page from Mycologia, by Singer is 1947, noting some of the microscopic distinctions between L. postii and R. fibula:

I am having a hard time finding any definitive macroscopic features to separate the two… Rickenella have pileocystidia and caulocystidia and Loreleia do not, so you would think that any pruinose texture would rule out Loreleia…. but In the WAB post someone mentions that Loreleia will sometimes have a pruinose cap, but the stipe will always be smooth, unlike Rickenella, which are finely pruinose all over. I haven’t found any other sources to back up this assertion, but I hesitate to disregard it either.

Furthermore, you can faintly see that the pileus of this observation are slightly pruinose, and the stipe is not focused well enough to really tell if it is slightly textured or smooth.

And named for Lorelei Norvell
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2009-12-08 00:42:58 EST (-0500)

as suspected; a great (albeit infrequent) fixture of Oregon Mycological Society happenings. And what modesty! She never told me she had her own genus.

Primarily differs from rickenella by the absence of cystidia on the cap. See wikipedia link below:
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-08-18 05:54:42 EDT (-0400)
By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2008-08-18 02:55:04 EDT (-0400)

Where did this genus come from? There are lots of these former omphalinas but anybody know why exactly this s[ecies is segregated? What are the characters of this new genus?

Not as small as it appears…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-08-12 12:19:08 EDT (-0400)

…and the moss is quite a bit bigger than you’d expect, too; maybe as tall as four inches! Andy called it an omphalina, and he knew the sp., too; but the genus has been changed. perhaps someone can refresh my memory. too many new latin names to remember!

Created: 2008-08-12 10:55:01 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2010-09-03 17:06:43 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 228 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 10:34:52 EDT (-0400)
Show Log