Name: Xeromphalina campanella (Batsch) Kühner & Maire
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2021 Eva Skific (Evica)
Copyright © 2021 Eva Skific (Evica)
Copyright © 2021 Dave W (Dave W)
Copyright © 2021 Dave W (Dave W)
Version: 13
Previous Version


Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Xeromphalina campanella

[#259499] Index Fungorum

[#259499] MycoBank

GSD Species Synonymy

Author: (Batsch) Kühner & Maire

Citation: Icones selectae Fungorum, 6 Texte general 6: 236 (1934)

Misspellings: Xeromphellina campenella


Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Family: Mycenaceae

Genus: Xeromphalina

Show Subtaxa

Notes on Taxonomy: [Edit]

Parent group: Xeromphalina campanella group
X. campanella is indistinguishable from X. enigmatica absent DNA or mating studies.
Both are indistinguishable macromorphologically from X. kauffmanii, which is an eastern N. Amer. endemic, has a distinct substrate (hardword), and has smaller spores.
Aldrovandi et al. Mycologia 107(6) 1270-1284 (2015).

Brief Description: [See More | Edit]

[Description is for X. campanella]

Cap: 5-25 mm across; convex, becoming broadly convex with a central depression and an arched margin; bald; dry; widely lined on the margin when wet; brownish yellow, rusty, yellowish, or orange; usually darker towards the center; fading.

Gills: Running down the stem; fairly distant; usually with many cross-veins; pale yellow or orangish.

Stem: 1-5 cm long; 1-3 mm thick; more or less equal; smooth; yellowish above, darker below; bald above, finely hairy at the base; rather wiry and tough; often curved.

Flesh: Insubstantial.

Odor and Taste: Taste mild; odor not distinctive.

Spore Print: White.

Microscopic Features: Spores 5-8 × 3-4 µ; smooth; elliptical; weakly amyloid. Pleuro- and cheilocystidia fusiform; up to 55 × 14 µ. Caulocystidia clavate to fusiform; up to 75 × 15 µ; thin-walled; hyaline in KOH. Clamp connections present.

Descriptions: [Create]


Add Comment
Talked it over with other admins
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-12-06 16:12:01 EST (-0500)

I’m going to write a quick script to take care of these cases. @newmy51 (I’m sure you’re reading this, haha!) and Pulk, I hate to do this, but please ask me to help when this situation arises in the future. We’re going to try to start doing this “right”.

To wit: This script will systematically propose X. campanella group for all observations currently called X. campanella. If you have already voted on X. c., it will transfer that vote to X. c. group, and vote down X. c. to as if! If you have not already voted, then by default it will enter a vote for you at or just above whatever the current consensus vote is for X. c., and again vote down X. c to as if!

I’ll make it so I can run this for multiple users. So if Danny, for example, agrees with you, Pulk, I can have it transfer all of his votes automatically, too. But since X. c. group will already have been proposed for all these observations thanks to running it once already, it will skip that step.

Let’s see how well this works in practice before I make this publicly accessible from the website. There are lots of pathological edge cases which may or may not occur “in the wild”. And it may turn out to be very easy to detect and flag those edge cases, inform the user, and leave them alone. But there is too much potential for things going south in a hurry! I want to watch the first several carefully.

This particular case should be nice and easy since there is no synonymy to worry about, just two simple names.

So here’s the problem, Joe
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-12-06 12:54:45 EST (-0500)

Joe, in principle I agree with you, but in practice we have no way to propose the correct name – Xeromphalina campanella group – for 286 observations in anything resembling a sane workflow. So I’ve already been supporting Danny taking advantage of this “exploitation” on MO to accomplish something almost as good. This is, in fact, the perfect case. We know 100% confidently that for all but one of those 286 observations X. campanella is not the best name. Until we build the appropriate tool to propose new names in bulk (and I’ve described its heuristics in some detail on pivotal, I’m just waiting until I have time to implement it), I support what Pulk is doing here.

Pulk, sorry, I have worked with and have discussed this issue at length with Danny already, so I know he’s on board and I know I can trust him. I just needed to make sure you were also on the same page.

Adolf, for what little it’s worth, I do hear your opinion concerning “fuzzy” taxonomy (and voting and all the rest of the dead horses you continue to flog). But I respectfully (for my part at least) disagree with you, and see no further point in engaging you on any of those subjects. This is why I am happy to help you sometimes but apparently completely ignore you other times. This would normally be one of those “other” times. Pleases don’t make me regret bending my rule in a moment of weakness.

Agree with Jason
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2017-12-06 11:32:29 EST (-0500)

Best practice: propose correct name

X. campanella is a legit Name. Like any other legit Name, it can be misapplied. If you feel a need to respond, the correct response is: propose/vote for a better name for the Observation(s) (creating the better name if needed), rather than changing the misapplied Name.

X. campanella is morphologically indistinguishable from X. enigmatica
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-06 10:39:34 EST (-0500)

Aldrovandi et al, 2015:

Only observations with DNA sequences (or mating studies… ha!) have any chance of being identified to species.

Nobody identifies a mushroom on MO as X. campanella as opposed to X. enigmatica (obs 293127 would be the only candidate here, but X. enigmatica actually is found in the PNW).

IMO, the con of changing observation names in a weird way here is a lot less than the con(s) of 286 misleading observations telling the internet something wrong and/or the nightmare of filling the activity log (and my week) with votes and name proposals and rehashing this discussion 286 times.

Group as a taxonomic rank
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2017-12-05 20:54:24 EST (-0500)

is not defined in the International Code of Nomenclature. MO should get rid of such designations.

Sorry to undo what you did, Pulk
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2017-12-05 19:32:48 EST (-0500)

Would you mind convincing me it’s the right thing to do before summarily changing 286 observations without the observers’ consent! I have to occasionally pretend to be watching these sorts of things…

current authorship: (Batsch) Kühner & Maire
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-02-02 19:36:10 EST (-0500)

The current authorship is (Batsch) Kühner & Maire
and Oluna & Adolf Ceska created a new Name with the correct authorship.

It would be nice to combine the two names, so that only the correct authorship shows when a user creates a new Observation. Seems like the right thing to do is to deprecate the instant Name in favor of the Ceskas’ Name, and also copy the Classification, Description, etc. to the Ceskas’ Name.

Is there a better way to deal with this?

Number of users interested in this name: 1