Ok, I don’t like this id, but it is as close as I get. I found these by themselves, and it is not quite like anything else I have found there. It threw off a lot of bright white spores, so I’m sure it is Tricholoma. The cap was very viscid and smooth, no scaling going on, so I’m pretty sure it is not something like imbricatum or vaccinum. It is not fracticum, although viscid, and right now I can’t remember if dryophilus is viscid, but it doesn’t quite look like that. So it is a brown to brownish capped Tricholoma, but not one I know… so I am tossing it into the pessundatum gp., like Arora did. When I can get a copy of the Tricholoma section of Agaricales of CA (why are those so pricy?), I’ll see if there is one there that matches this better.

1/29/2007 – ok, I was able to spend some time going over the Agaricales of CA this past weekend, and spent some time in the Tricholoma section. After going back and forth I found T. manzanitae, which pretty much exactly matched this sample. Also, this was found in among live oak, but right where a largish patch of manzanita was starting about 15-20 feet away.

And finally, I’m confused enough, I’m just going to drop these back to ‘sp.’. T. manazitae should be white at first, then salmon-orange in color, and dull brown in age. This does seem to look like the salmon-orange stage. But it should also have radial scaling on the cap, which this doesn’t. So, this one close to T. dryophilum, and T. manzanitae, and I didn’t spend enough time with the thing to figure it out. So, I’m going with ‘sp.’ until I find more, probably next year.

Species Lists


Proposed Names

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Photo of T. manzanitae
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2007-02-01 01:36:18 CST (-0500)

All three species are recorded from California and all three are good species. Only the photos seem to have been confused.

Here is the only photo I could find for T. manzanitae:
It is part of the original description for the holotype collection. From this page you can read the entire article from 1983. Mycotaxon 18 (2): 299-302.

Good species, bad photo labeling
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-01-30 23:39:37 CST (-0500)

As far as I’ve heard T. dryophilum, T. ustale and T. manzanitae are all good species. What Darvin was referring to is a labeling error in Agaricales. The pictures that are labeled T ustale and T. manzanitae in Agaricales are pictures of T. dryophilum that Mike Wood took and submitted as such. Something happened during the publishing process that ended up with them getting mislabeled.

T. manzanitae doesn’t exist?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2007-01-30 18:33:10 CST (-0500)

Wait, I don’t quite understand what you are saying — are you saying that T. manzanitae and T. ustale don’t actually exist, but are just species variations of T. dryophilum? If that is true, I am all for it, no need to make life more complicated, but if so, how do we know that this is true? The T. dryophilum that I am used to seeing is in the observation # 1988, and those were completely covered in duff, where this one here was not. So, the streaks come in even when the mushroom is still covered in duff.

But in anycase, I’m willing to keep the message going that T. manzanitae doesn’t actually exist, but is a form of T. dryophilum, but I’d like know how we know that.

Tricholoma dryophilum
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2007-01-29 20:59:47 CST (-0500)

This group of Tricholomas are very difficult to work with because several people made errors and published them. MykoWeb straightened them out with photos but not the text. Tricholoma dryophilum is the common species and when kept under the duff it will stay light and NOT have the streaks that are so common in older exposed caps. The cold weather could also be adding to this.
You will notice that BOTH of the photos in Kris Shanks’ work on CA Tricholomas are on this page, one is at the bottom. BOTH have the name changed to Tricholoma dryophilum. One was T. ustale and the other was T. manzanitae in the Agaricales of California.

Yellow scales?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-01-29 16:59:48 CST (-0500)

I have seen this species before and I think you might be on the right track. The ones I remember most clearly were young and the yellow scales near the top of the stipe were really clear. I can’t tell for sure from the photo if there is a hint of yellow there or not. Do you remember if it had that feature?

Clitocybe brunneocephala?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-01-01 00:09:05 CST (-0500)

Just occurred to me that these might be robust versions of this species. It’s essentially a brown blewit. It would surprise me if DNA doesn’t eventually put this an Lepista nuda in the same genus, but to the best of my knowledge C. brunneocephala has not been moved to Lepista.

Yeah, not sure here…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2006-12-31 12:38:50 CST (-0500)

I don’t think they are dryophilum, I find a lot of those from another area, and I have photos of those with the lighter color at first, and the darker colors at the end. But even when light colored, the dryophilum has these streaks of darkened color covering the mushroom, really pronounced in the stipe. This one was just smooth color pretty much everywhere. It was about 10cm in the cap, so fairly good size, and the surface was very smooth and viscid, with this light red-brown. So, I don’t know…

Interesting color
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2006-12-30 23:14:15 CST (-0500)

The two common, brown, native, live oak Tricholomas are T. ustale and T. dryophilum. The best way I’ve found to tell them apart is to put your tongue on the cap cuticle. T. ustale is quite bitter and T. dryophilum is mild. T. dryophilum is also paler when it is young. The color here is reasonable for very young T. dryophilum, but the size and stature looks a bit too robust/mature to be that pale.