Please do not re-click a link while waiting for a page to load. (It’s slower and degrades site speed for all users.)
To get images for machine learning, see MO Images for Machine Learning


spored 9.5-12 × 5.5-6 microns, wall up to 1 micron thick, germ pore broad


Note yellow tones near center of brownish mature cap and grayish young cap

Proposed Names

60% (5)
Recognized by sight: gray cap becoming browner with yellow near disc. Stipe variably whitish to yellow. On very decayed live oak in forest setting.
27% (3)
Recognized by sight: Doesn’t seem like a very good match for the real B. reticulatus, the stem is too yellow to start.
Used references
Based on microscopic features: The spores are a bit wide & the spore wall is a bit thick too.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-04-08 17:56:14 BST (+0100)

I wonder where Singer and Ricken’s types are? I’m having trouble finding them.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2014-04-08 17:49:31 BST (+0100)

At least it tells us that it is a species that needs a new name :-)

Yes, I did make some BlastN
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-04-08 17:01:46 BST (+0100)

comparisons, but as you guessed, didn’t resolve anything (as far as I can tell).
The top hit is Bolbitius aleuriatus – a very strong match. But, the specimen is from California… This is the problem with GenBank!

The second hit is Pluteolus muscicola – I’m assuming an old/alternate name for Bolbitius of some sort. From New Zealand. Already the second hit is a much weaker match.

Third hit is Bolbitius aleuriatus from Estonia, but a weaker match (93% identity).

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2014-04-08 08:23:16 BST (+0100)

Have you made any comparison with other sequences in Genbank or Unite?
Not that it would settle anything, but maybe there’s a match somewhere..

If you haven’t done it, try this:

paste ITS sequense, choose blastn, mark UNITE+INSD, and submit,
and you’ll get a list of the closest sequences.

I have a sequence from this specimen
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-04-08 04:39:20 BST (+0100)

The length/lack of text wrapping on MO is annoying, so if you want it
just send me a message.

By: Byrain
2014-02-15 17:27:25 GMT (+0000)

I do not think this is not B. reticulatus sensu stricta because the stem is too yellow & the spores do not fit.

Christian, I guess you can call this B. aleuriatus sensu CA, but that doesn’t really change that we probably need a new name for this and this probably has little to do with the real European concept. And yea,pileipellis structure is not too important, however I agree with Douglas that its always a good thing to check when dealing with lbms.

Also, it occurred to me that there is one more possibility, this is a undescribed variety of B. titubans. Yea, I’m not too sure about that either & would not propose a such name without stronger evidence, but then the stem is pretty yellow and the micro fits.

Edit: Just felt I should emphasize that cheilocystidia is very important here because it rules out Conocybe, even though we probably can all agree that this is not likely Conocybe…

any comments…
By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-02-15 16:32:03 GMT (+0000)

as to why this isn’t Bolbitius reticulatus (Persoon) would be very much appreciated.

Cheilocystidia and pileipellis structure
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-02-15 16:18:57 GMT (+0000)

I have the photos, I’ll add later. The pileipellis is a cellular derm, just like almost (all?) Bolbitius.
It’s not really helpful for distinguishing much…

I don’t have an attachment to the name B. aleuriatus (s.s.), but I do to B. aleuriatus sensu CA
for some very good reasons: that’s what people call it, and people understand which species I’m talking
about when I say it. I would say the ‘gray-capped Bolbitius’, but then someone would surely complain about the fact that there is ‘no gray’ in these…

Looks like we need a new name for this one….
By: Byrain
2014-02-15 05:26:47 GMT (+0000)

Or at least to find an already described name that fits, which does not appear to be B. reticulatus/aleuriatus.

Edit: Out of curiosity, what’s the attachment to the name B. aleuriatus? Its a European name just like B. reticulatus and the European authors seem to be going with the latter now. Kind of seems like going backwards instead of forwards…

And nice micro btw, the only thing really missing is the cheilocsytidia & pileipellis structure. :)