Observation 12709: Mycena (Pers.) Roussel

The black nipple and pseudo-decurrent gills are distinctive.


Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
29% (1)
Recognized by sight: Looks like Rickenella is deprecated in favor of Omphalina. I would not consider the two to be the same though. Who is responsible for depricateing mushroom names, and on what grounds? And why should the deprication be acknowledged or accepted? Are there a group of experts who vote on this kind of thing, or does it usually come down to one person’s research and interpretation of the code? This constant name changing is really confusing.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Not sure about that…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-10-17 09:34:44 PDT (-0700)

I’m not sure that Rickenella is supposed to be deprecated for Omphalina… Does someone have a citation on a paper that discusses that?

Well, things are kinda messed up in general in Mycology, and it needs better organization. And that can’t happen without changing names. Like I just went through changing a few Tremella to Sebacina, which I never heard of. Tremella were a collection of jelly fungus, but it was found that most are parasitic on other fungus on wood, and a few were mycorrhizal on the ground. So, what do you do, they aren’t that well related, should they be in the same genus at that point? Since there is a clear difference, the ground dwelling mycorrhizal are moved to Sebacina.

In other cases there was the recent discussion on Cystoderma and Cystodermella. In other white-spored agarics there is have been movements to separate things by reactions to iodine in the spores, if amyloid or inamyloid, like Rickenella from Mycena, or Floccularia from Tricholoma. So, Cystodermella with inamyloid spores get separated from Cystoderma with amyloid spores.

And to confuse things, in other white-spored agaric genera, like Amanita, there are amyliod and inamyliod species still in the same genus. So, will someone recognize this, and in an effort to simplify move Cystodermella back to a section of Cystoderma?

At this point, with more DNA work going on, things are only going to get worse before they get better…

There is Rickenella
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-10-17 08:53:51 PDT (-0700)

A genus which was split off from Mycena is Rickenella, which is usually on moss, with decurrent gills, and has inamyloid spores, where Mycena has adnate to adnexed gills, and amyloid spores. Except many Mycena have a decurrent tooth to the gills. I see these little guys like this once in awhile, and they make me wonder. I suppose I should be collecting them and taking notes, and checking if the spores are amyloid for each one. I seem to have enough other stuff to look at, and I’ll try not to get too interested in the split between Rickenella and Mycena…

On moss covered wood
By: Dan Molter (shroomydan)
2008-10-16 17:22:12 PDT (-0700)

They were not at all viscid as far as I recall.

On moss?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-10-16 16:49:15 PDT (-0700)

Were these mostly on moss, or on wood? Was any part of them viscid?