My understanding is that Smith described M. radicatella (Peck) Saccardo in greater detail than Peck/Saccardo and adjusted a point or two from the original characterization. Although Smith was ever ready to erect a new taxon he didn’t do it in this instance.
Thanks for showing Saccardo’s write-up.
See Comment below.
My concern is whether “M. radicatella sensu A.H. Smith” refers to a different taxon than M. radicatella (Peck) Sacc.
Both Peck’s and Saccardo’s descriptions can be accessed through IF. Saccardo is just a Latin version of Peck. See below. Smith, linked in my comment below is longer. It says that the spores are smooth, while Peck says “rough”. However, Smith says that Peck made a mistake in describing the spores of the type.
IMO Smith is re-describing the same taxon, rather than trying to describe a different taxon. So I will add M. radicatella (Peck) Sacc. as an MO Name, and deprecate M. radicatella sensu A.H. Smith in favor of it. Please feel free to change if you disagree.
: Agaricus radicatellus Peck, Ann. Rep. N.Y. St. Mus. Nat. Hist. 31: 32 (1878) Registration Identifier: [#463368]: IF, MB
Agaricus (Mycena) radicatellus Pk.
Pileus thin, campanulate, glabrous, obtuse or subumbonate, whitish, when dry striate on the margin ; lamellae ascending, narrow, close, white ; stem firm, glabrous, slender, whitish, deeply rooting; spores subglobose, rough, .0003’-.00035 long.
Plant 1.5-2 high, pileus 4 -6 ’ broad.
Mossy ground in woods. Griffins. Delaware County. Sept.
This species is easily known by the long radicular portion of the stem,
which penetrates the earth after the manner of A. radicatus.
: Mycena radicatella (Peck) Sacc., Syll. fung. (Abellini) 5: 275 (1887) Registration Identifier: [#188169]: IF, MB
Mycena radicatella Peck. 31 Rep. St. Mus. p. 32. — Pileo tenui, campanulato, glabro, obtuso vel subumbonato, albido, udo margine striato; stipite firmo, glabro, tenui, albldo, profunde radicato; lamellis ascendentibus, angustis, confertis, candidis; sporis subglobosis, rugulosis, 8-10 µ. longis.
Hab. ad terram muscosam in silvis, Griffins, Delaware County Amer. bor. — Statura 4-5 cm. adaquans ; pileus 8-12 mm. latus. Recognitu facilis ob longam stipitis partem radicularem terram intrantem, more Col. radicatœ.
MycoBank accepts M. radicatella as legitimate, but Index Fungorum synonymizes it under M. galericulata. Why not go with that?
Mycena galericulata, as understood by Smith and other references known to me, is larger, tends to be at least fractionally darker in coloration, should have at least a smidge of farinaceous odor or taste, and, according to Smith, has slightly different spores, 8-10 × 5.5-7 um. This is a longer, narrower profile than the M. radicatella dimensions he lists: 6-8 × 5.5-7 um. (Spore size in my observation was 7.7-8.5 × 6.1-7.4 um., for an average Q = 1.22, closer to M. radicatella than M. galericulata.)
Thanks for your interest in this observation. (Peck) Saccardo would be taxonomically best as I understand the rules. However, Peck described Agaricus radicatella as terrestrial with roughened spores, and Saccardo’s paper is beyond my resources. In any case, Smith’s description is likely to be far more detailed than Saccardo and does acknowledge the taxonomic pedigree. It’s also accessible. So, as did Kuo in MushroomExpert, I went with sensu A. H. Smith for pragmatic reasons. Do you disapprove?
What’s the difference between
- M. radicatella sensu A.H. Smith
- M. radicatella (Peck) Sacc.
which Smith purports to describe in North American Species of Mycena.