When: 2014-06-14

Collection location: Moon Lake State Forest Recreation Area, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]

Who: Dave W (Dave W)

No specimen available


Proposed Names

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
I’d say
By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2014-06-20 03:26:36 CEST (+0200)

Shaggy mane, Chicken mushroom, Sheepshead, Man -on-horseback, Bears head, and many other ethnic named mushrooms. Should be self explanatory for several if not many species.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-06-20 03:18:47 CEST (+0200)

But I lifted the quote about microscopic features from “Mycenas of Norway” as a means of possibly answering my own question about distinguishing between the two species. I did not scope these, so yes, I am hedging my bets here. If I had observed specific micro features, I’d be more comfortable calling it by one name.

An ongoing issue (in my mind) is… which types of mushrooms may one comfortably call by name in the absence of micro analysis?

By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2014-06-20 03:08:50 CEST (+0200)

In your original post you stated that you did not use a microscope to ID your species. In your latest post you cited various microscopic features which you clearly did not identify in your original observation. May I ask why? It seems to me that as Walt said, you are “hedging” your bets. Unorthodox? Perhaps!

Thanks Eric.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-06-20 02:39:07 CEST (+0200)

Actually, I had originally wondered about the marginate gills seen in this example. Seems like a good character for separating the two species. But one report I just now read says that the gill edges of haemoatopus are sometimes dark. This source (Mycenas of Norway) also adds, “M. haematopus is the only member of sect. Galactopoda (Earle) Maas Geest., but it is not always easy to tell it apart from M. sanguinolenta belonging to sect. Sanguinolentae Maas Geest. The cheilocystidia of M. sanguinolenta are generally more sharply acuminate, but an even better feature to differentiate the two species is the shape of the caulocystidia. In M. sanguinolenta they are usually narrowly tipped.”

So it looks like… surprise surprise… observing a subtle micro feature may be necessary here. Interesting that these two species names are placed into different sections of Mycena.

Phil, my use of the word “bias” is in the statistical sense, and not meant to imply that an author intentionally favors one name over an other for some arbitrary reason. For instance, in the case of M. sanguinolenta, the “pine” hypothesis may be based upon a limited number of observations in which this mushroom is collected under pine. Perhaps reports of its occurrence in other habitat are simply lacking. Discussions like this one may help to change the status quo.

By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2014-06-20 02:21:02 CEST (+0200)

You rock!

By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2014-06-20 01:28:58 CEST (+0200)

fine explanation and nifty dog.
Dave. In reference to your hypothesis that habitats in field guides are more specific than those found in nature I would venture to say that those guides are authored by, and verified be profesional mycologists who have been trained to record their findings by observing any and all data pertaining to the species at hand. If any bias is to be presumed; I say bias is a tool of the uninformed.
Back to the main point! Unfortunately, there are relatively few fungophiles foraging in our fabulous forests.

By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2014-06-20 00:37:51 CEST (+0200)

ticked of the list of attributes for M. sanquinolenta pretty well. There is definitely overlap of characteristics, and I have not seen M.s more than once in the field. The small fb does not have the bell/campanulate profile of M.h. That does not mean it is not M.h, and surely this might be growing on buried, decayed wood. But I would go with M.s until we get mor info.

Dave – I know you know that a quick review of photos of M.s on MO provides no reassurance. This one did not get properly identified either: http://mushroomobserver.org/95723?q=21que. But M.s is a cool name. You should go for it.

By: Eric Smith (Magnavermis rex)
2014-06-19 23:55:30 CEST (+0200)

the terrestrial appearing habit, smaller size and wood preference already mentioned, I also separate sanguinolenta in the field by the more sordid color, the way the cap fades and leaves a darker disc is a little different than haematopus, it doesn’t grow in clumps of more than two or three, usually singly, and most importantly, it has darkly marginate gill edges that I can clearly see on the left side of the big specimen in your gill shot.

The habitats reported in the various guides…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-06-19 22:16:51 CEST (+0200)

are sometimes more specific than one actually finds in nature. Such a report may reflect the inherent bias associated with a relatively small sample, or maybe a regional bias. I think that the habitat in this obs is sufficiently ambiguous for there to be some doubt assigned to the haematopus ID. Nice call on the wood type, Phil. And with birch, sometimes the bark outlasts the wood. In this case the substrate was very much like humus, and the mushrooms were growing from very close to ground level.

Still, the lack of pine in the area of this collection supports “haematopus”, which is the current label on this obs.

What I’m wondering is, besides habitat, what separates haematopus from sanguinolenta?

Growing on wood
By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2014-06-19 18:11:53 CEST (+0200)

I would say M. haematopus. Growing on ground in pine woods I would call it M. sanguinolenta.

The wood
By: Phil Yeager (gunchky)
2014-06-19 17:39:53 CEST (+0200)

on which these were growing appears to be Birch, and the thin bark of some Birch trees has a tendency to curl up or roll into small “scrolls”.

The wood where these were growing…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-06-19 07:15:13 CEST (+0200)

was well decayed, and the mushrooms were attached near where the wood met the ground. What I generally ID as M. haematopsis grows directly on wood. Also, these caps are quite small, diameter not much over 1 cm. So sanguinolenta should at least be considered.

I didn’t look at this under the scope. But reading the Phillips accounts of haematopus and sanguinolenta, there seems to be little difference.