Observation 96662: Arxiomyces vitis (Fuckel) P.F. Cannon & D. Hawksw.
When: 2012-06-01
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Collected at the PNW Key Council foray by Emma Harrower
The following ID was suggested by O. Ceska (2014-07-19):
Arxiomyces vitis (Fuckel) P.F. Cannon & D. Hawksw. (Syn.: Phaeostoma vitis (Fuckel) Arx)

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
DNA work has been done on this
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-09-08 17:05:48 PDT (-0700)

Emma Harrower secured the specimen and gave it to her fellow students for the DNA work. I will trace them down and I hope they will prove you right. Adolf

old Nectria
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-09-08 12:52:49 PDT (-0700)

with Stilbelloid anamorphs?

A&O
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-14 14:47:17 PDT (-0700)

thank you for the clarification. there is nothing to indicate scale in your images, so I assumed they were larger.

Miniture agarics?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-06-14 14:43:32 PDT (-0700)

The width of the field is ca 4 mm. It is hard to imagine agarics so small. The “stipes” are only around 1 mm tall.

/readies rotten fruit shield
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-14 14:07:32 PDT (-0700)

something about these gives me the impression that there were once pilei where there are no longer, though it seems something of a stretch to think that whichever of you two who observed this would have found a bunch of agarics, every last one of which at just the precise age/stage of decomposition for there to be zero trace of cap or gills (but plenty of intact stipe). I can’t remember when or where, but I know I’ve also seen some ephemeral agarics with tomentose bases that kind of caved in, leaving a sort of crater of tomentum around the base of the stipe, not unlike what we’re seeing here.

coming back from the limb now…

we have all been there with the temporary name…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-06-14 13:49:10 PDT (-0700)

always better to call it something other than fungi; if nothing else, you will have folks looking harder to prove you wrong! ;)

BUT, when quite unsure of what a fungus really is…prob. best to use a lower confidence level.

The best one can do in Mushroom Observer
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-06-14 13:39:34 PDT (-0700)

In the herbarium practice, it is usual to use a two-tier system for the locality description, i.e., geographic definition + the description of the collecting site. In Mushroom Observer one has to fit the both in one single line that – in addition – has a well defined syntax.

We interpreted the mycelium matt as the primordial sclerotium, hence the Typhula sp. label. Pistillaria sp. would be a better choice if the hyphal mat were the permanent structure. There were no spores found on the specimen, which would indicate that the fungus was still too young. We posted this observation with the hope that somebody would tell us what it is. Give us a better alternative to the “Typhula sp.”

project names and location names
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-12 02:27:08 PDT (-0700)

are better left unmixed, imho. I say tell us where it is in the location and what project it’s a part of elsewhere. My $0.02.

as a side note, what makes you think it’s a Typhula?

We don’t know
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-06-08 10:58:21 PDT (-0700)

We hope that the specimen was preserved at the Central Washington University,
Ellensburg, but because we are not sure, we did not check the herbarium specimen field. Emma Harrower left us a note that she found clamps in this specimen, but no ripe spores. The width of the photo field is ca. 3.5 to 5 mm. The specimen itself (piece of bark) was about the size of an average postal stamp. Let’s hope it did not get lost. O&AC

even weirder…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-06-08 09:43:24 PDT (-0700)

is their growth from those “mycelial volcanos!”

any micro on these? Oluna sets a high personal standard, ya know. ;)

ah, never mind. I see that there is no specimen. too bad.

odd looking
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2012-06-08 09:00:39 PDT (-0700)

Strange – they look gelatinous.

Created: 2012-06-08 00:44:34 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-07-19 18:08:05 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 665 times, last viewed: 2016-11-22 10:20:41 PST (-0800)
Show Log