Observation 98991: Galerina atkinsoniana A.H. Sm.

When: 2012-07-02

Collection location: Oxford Co., Maine, USA [Click for map]

Who: Jimmie Veitch (jimmiev)

No specimen available


9.4-10.8 × 6.0-6.7 microns
9.4-10.8 × 6.0-6.7 microns

Proposed Names

28% (1)
Recognized by sight
56% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Spore size
By: Byrain
2016-06-26 18:18:32 PDT (-0700)

A Monograph of the Genus Galerina Earle – Smith & Singer records Galerina atkinsoniana spores as (10.5) 11-15( 16.5) X 6-9 µm. These seem a bit bigger than yours?

Also, where does G. decipiens fit in? The other species in this part of the key is G. perplexa, maybe this is what Douglas meant? G. decipiens is in Stirps Hypnorum with absent pleurocystidia.

By: Eric Smith (esmith)
2012-07-24 15:20:18 PDT (-0700)

You take excellent photos, we all know that. The only criticism I have of this photo is the subject to background ratio. They’re too “far away”. If you’d hand painted this photo, you’d realize that you’d spent hours painting moss in the foreground with some smallish mushrooms in center back. If you want to keep the mossy hummock “feel” to the photo, crop it with a wide aspect ratio. You have a beautiful, graceful arch as a horizon line in the back! But not one in the foreground. It lacks “rule of thirds”. Even a small object like a leaf or pine cone to show habitat and scale in the foreground will add a bit of interest and value to the photo. Would I put it in my field guide as is? No. If you do a nice crop I’d certainly vote it “Good enough”. I try to reserve “Beyond” for photos that make my mouth hang open a little, so I tend to “vote down” ones that are getting high praise…usually with a “good” or “useful”. Don’t feel bad, my obs are littered with “useful” photos, and you know what…they’re right. But nobody loves a critic…

By: Jimmie Veitch (jimmiev)
2012-07-24 07:12:12 PDT (-0700)

really appreciate the input Douglas— pilocystidia was abundant and i’ll look into the basidia. seems there is a ton of variation in G. atkinsoniana from what i see in the Smith & Singer monograph

Bob can i have some tips to make the in-situ pic better than useful

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-07-23 12:18:33 PDT (-0700)

Well with this one you certainly have a Galerina in sec. Galerina. With the straight smooth-but-finely-pruinose stipe, that darkens from the bottom in age. Also it is more clearly that with the pleurocystidia.

And you have pileocystidia, but that gets you to two different species, that most people recognize. There is Galerina atkinsoniana and Galerina decipiens. G. atkinsoniana has two-spored basidia, and fairly numerous large pileocystidia, esp. at the center of the disc. G. decipiens has 4-spored basidia, and has more or less scant pileocystidia that are thin, and smaller than the cheilocystidia.

The pileocystidia here look to be fairly numerous, and rather similar to the cheilocystidia, so I guess I’d go with G. atkinsoniana. But it would be good to check on 2- or 4- spored basidia. (Also with the with basidia, this will be what most of them are. You will find 10% of basidia kinda random in number of spores (1-4, don’t think I’ve seen 5…) in either case.)

Strangely it seems that in this pair of species, there isn’t much of different in spore size, but I might have to look that up. Where in G. vittiformis the difference between 2- and 4- spored basidia results in consistently different spore size.

Created: 2012-07-02 18:21:52 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2012-07-23 12:06:01 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 223 times, last viewed: 2018-04-02 07:48:09 PDT (-0700)
Show Log