Name: Parasola conopilea (Fr.) Örstadius & E. Larss.
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2017 James Baker (cepecity)
Copyright © 2016 zaca
Copyright © 2015 zaca
Version: 4
Previous Version 

First person to use this name on MO: Europe-coprinologist
Editors: Alan Rockefeller, walt sturgeon, Byrain


Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Parasola conopilea

ICN Identifier: missing

Index Fungorum search

MycoBank search

Author: (Fr.) Örstadius & E. Larss.

Citation: Mycol. Res. 112(10): 1180 (2008)

Deprecated Synonyms: Psathyrella conopilus (Fr.) A. Pearson & Dennis

Misspellings: Psathyrella conopilea

Brief Description: [See More | Edit]

Cap: 2-5 cm; broadly conical, often becoming broadly bell-shaped or nearly convex; bald; sometimes becoming radially wrinkled; dull reddish brown, fading to buff; changing color markedly as it dries out; without veil remnants.

Gills: Attached to the stem; close; brownish at first, becoming dark purplish brown to nearly black; with whitish edges.

Stem: 6-19 cm long; up to 5 mm thick; equal; fragile; hollow; bald or very finely silky; white; without a ring.

Flesh: Thin; fragile; watery brownish.

Odor and Taste: Not distinctive.

Spore Print: Black.

Microscopic Features: Spores 14-19 × 7-8.5 µ; ellipsoid; with an eccentric pore; smooth; dark brown in KOH. Pleurocystidia absent. Brachybasidioles present. Cheilocystidia mostly fusoid-ventricose with a fairly long neck; hyaline in KOH; thin-walled; to about 70 × 20 µ. Sphaeropedunculate elements also present on gill edge. Pileipellis hymeniform; setae reddish brown in KOH, aciculate, thick-walled, 100-250+ x 4-10 µ.

Descriptions: [Create]


Add Comment
Parasola conopilea
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2018-09-13 21:37:16 WIB (+0700)

I emailed GenBank to let them know that they incorrectly had Parasola conopilea as the name when it should be Parasola conopilus (according to my memory and also Index Fungorum and got the following reply. Index Fungorum fixed it yesterday, so I fixed the name here too by editing the spelling.

From our taxonomist:

The name is now corrected at Index Fungorum as Parasola conopilea, and we made the same update. Some text to explain this rather messy update via Shaun Pennycook:

The protologue description is under Agaricus conocephalus (Syst, Mycol. 1: 304. 1821) - then on p. 504, Fries says the “A. conocephalus” sensu Albertini & Schweinitz and sensu Fries is designated as Agaricus conopilus Fr., because it differs from the original Bulliard A. conocephalus.

Although pilus is a Latin noun, the epithet conopilus is a masculine adjectival compound epithet, with feminine form conopila and neuter form conopilum. However, it translates as “conical-haired”, which as far as I am aware is NOT a character of Agaricus conopilus. On the other hand, conopileus is an obvious character of this taxon (and it is cognate with the “original” epithet conocephalus).

Fries (1838, p. 231) listed it as Agaricus (Psathyra) conopilus under “section” Conopili; but Fries (1874, p. 304) changed (corrected!) the epithet to Agaricus (Psathyra) conopileus, under “section” Conopilei {see } For my money, the original orthography “conopilus” is an obvious orthographic error (which Fries was somewhat prone to), and the correction to conopileus /—a /—um is permitted by ICN Art. 60.1.

Karsten’s Psathya conopilus is a correctable error, typical of several of the authors of the period when Agaricus names were being recombined into new genera (Quélet did this numerous times in the first of his Champignons du Jura papers) - it is as if the masculine Agaricus epithet was so ingrained in their minds that they forgot to change it to feminine to agree with gender of the new genus. Quélet (1872, p. 148) had Psathyra conopilus, but subsequently corrected this (Enchiridion 1886, p. 116; Flore Mycol. 1888, p. 59) to Drosophila (Psathyra) conopilea.

By: Byrain
2012-11-23 13:58:25 WIB (+0700)

More info here –

Edit: Broken link removed.

Number of users interested in this name: 0