|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.39||1||(Gerhard)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
they really look more like capitatus than lacrymalis. I will look at the find once more. Cannot even remember this. One thing is clear: it is much brighter, more lemonish and not golden yellowish.
Upon revising it will maybe prove that lacrymalis is also not rare then? Part of the collection should be in Vienna too at my colleague.
Still I believe it was the right ID.
if I have a photo of D.lacrymalis. I have seen it once or twice. When I am starting uploading again I will have a look. I have so many photos that are still not up here.
That was helpful. the difference between Dacrymyces minor and D. lacrymalis is a bit confusing though… I’m not sure I have seen any photos that clearly show the difference.
I don’t know of the situation in America but in Europe it is quite easy – whereas both species have unclamped hyphae and spores with 3-7 or more septa the spores of minor do not possess thick walls and septa as in stillatus. To distinguish them from D. capitatus which features the trademarks of minor microscopically you have one macroscopical detail: the basidiomata of D. capitatus are stipitate, the ones of minor sessile. Also minor never coagulates into a mass like stillatus does. The fruitbodies are remaining pustulate to pulvinate and can reach up to 2 mm in diameter. The similar D. lacrymalis that is also sessile has a whitish and flabellate margin and become from pustulate to pezizoid or cup-shaped. D. minor is quite common but often misidentified or overlooked, on the other hand D. lacrymalis seems to be very rare. This applies to ideal stages of course.
How do you distinguish Dacrymyces minor from D. stillatus? I’m working on one of these Dacrymyces now and am a bit confused. :)
Created: 2012-06-13 09:53:06 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2012-06-13 09:53:08 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 79 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 02:28:51 CST (-0600)