When: 2015-07-10
Collection location: Norfolk Co., Ontario, Canada [Click for map]
42.6412°N 80.5696°W 203m [Click for map]
Who: Chris Hay (hayfield)
Notes:
sandy tallgrass prairie restoration
growing singly, found a few times
thin stem (a few mm across)
cap about 1cm across
no veil/ annulus present (viewed under dissecting microscope)
brown spores and gills
two fruiting bodies collected, both already old and dry
KOH reaction: distinct darker brown (nearly black) colour change vs. dH2O control of only slightly darker brown than dried cap surface
My original microscopy notes:
spores ovoid-oval-elliptical, with germ pore, smooth
gill trama parallel
Greg Thorn additional microscopy 2017-01-20:
Spores: 11.2-13.6 × 7.6-9.2um, germ pore 1.5-2um wide
cap cuticle filamentous (? I’m not confident in my ability to tell, section/setup micro properly) *Greg says the specimens are too old and dry for anyone to assess this feature properly
Psilocybe, Stropharia, and Tubaria have filamentous cuticle
Agrocybe, Psathyrella, and Panaeolus would’ve been my guess, but cuticle should be cellular then
Need to look into this more, and other features
I mistook earlier for another Psathyrella ammophila (also present in this prairie)
Sequencing notes:
Prelim partial sequences match to Agrocybe in GenBank blast uery…
Final sequence of partial SSU through to partial LSU (including ITS in middle) returns Agrocybe smithii as top hits and other unrelated LBMs, not Agrocybe pediades sequences of the same regions that are also available in the database… could be multiple reasons why, not further investigated
Species Lists
Images
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.29 | 1 | (Pulk) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.84 | 28.03% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.83 | 1 | (Alan Rockefeller) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.05 | 1 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 5.07 | 1 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-0.55 | -18.38% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.05 | 1 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 5.07 | 1 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-1.37 | -45.53% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 5.07 | 1 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.05 | 1 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.37 | 45.53% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 10.11 | 2 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.82 | 60.67% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.05 | 1 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.83 | 27.82% | |||||||
| User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 5.05 | 1 | (hayfield) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.83 | 27.82% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
The Agrocybe pediades I have sequenced matched A. pediades sequences from all around the world. Are you able to share the sequence data?
https://mushroomobserver.org/401154?q=1WtXd A. pediades is a species complex: Malysheva et al. 2011 ITS is not sufficient to delimit species among closely related species in Agrocybe: Malysheva et al. 2019