One of the observations on display at the 2014 All California Club Foray. Observations from 24 January are not necessarily from location anywhere near Albion; they may have been collected on the way here.— Joe Cohen
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.16||1||(OMS)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Yeah, well, it is actually more complicated than that. But I don’t really want to say too much, since it depends on unpublished data. I am a bad person. But the photo on my avatar actually that collection does not match with G. semilanceata. But when I look under the scope, I can’t really tell a clear difference, but the sequence is different enough. Still in the same section of Galerina, but as different as G. semilanceata is different from G. clavata. So, there is an another one out there. And I still think that G. clavata might be out there, I got a sequence of a collection from New Mexico, and from Europe, that matches G. clavata and sequences online for that one. So, it does exist in N. America, and might be in California, but probably rare.
So Galerina clavata has larger spores & is European, what we have on the west coast as shown in this observation & your avatar is G. semilanceata, and there might be something around with larger spores that is G. heterocystis which is not the same as G. clavata? Thanks for the story.
Ok, so a story on this. Ok, there are a number of names to play with here, but mostly Galerina heterocystis, Galerina clavata and Galerina semilanceata. G. heterocystis was favored by Smith and Singer, and used in Arora. But the description in Smith and Singer is just wrong, in terms of spore ornamentations and cystidia shape. Also this name is semi-tropical, so not sure how understood this taxon is at this point. G. clavata is a European species, and well described in a number of publications. What we have here, as the common Galerina in section Tubariopsis in mossy habitats up the coast from Pt. Reyes to Vancouver at least, matches these descriptions quite well. Except that the spore “range” is listed at 12-15um long, and what we find here has a more consistent spore size, with an average length of 9.5um. So, there is G. semilanceata, which is a Peck name from 1895 outside Seattle. This one was roughly described by Peck, and quickly described by Smith and Singer, and they make a big deal about the veil. Which these do have a veil, but it is fibrous, and light, and really disappears almost as soon as it breaks from the cap margin. If you don’t make such a big deal about the veil, they list a spore size with a length of 9-10um. Also a collection has been sequenced from the Seattle area, and a collection from Pt. Reyes, and they agree, where the Seattle collection was id’ed as G. semilaceata. And, G. semilanceata is an older name than G. clavata, so if they are found to be same, then G. semilanceata wins. Given that this one is found often, up and down the coast, and has a veil which isn’t that big a deal, and no collections have been found with a large veil (more like G. marginata say), then we should go with the local older name here, and assume that the veil thing wasn’t that big a deal.
I hope that makes sense?
I don’t know the answer. I will see if I can figure out who determined the name and ask her/him.
G. clavata or another species?