When: 2009-01-25

Collection location: Van Damme State Park, Mendocino Co., California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Noah Siegel (Noah)

No specimen available

Growing on wood

Proposed Names

-30% (5)
Recognized by sight
-22% (5)
Recognized by sight: pink gills/spores and dimpled cap take it to the leptonia key in Arora’s MDM; decurrent gills bring it to genus eccilia; yellow color, pink gills and dimpled, striate cap fits the Italian description of the American mushroom cited below. But without the specimen in hand, this is merely a wild guess.
Used references:
79% (6)
Recognized by sight
Used references: http://www.mykoweb.com/...
Castellano, M. A., Cázares, E., Fondrick, B. & Dreisbach, T. (2003). Handbook to additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan (Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-572). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR. 144 p.
Redhead, S.A., Ammirati, J.F. & Norvell, L. (1995). Omphalina sensu lato in North America 3: Chromosera gen. nov. Sydowia Beih. 10: 155-167.
Smith, Alexander H. (1949). Mushrooms in their Natural Habitats. Sawyer’s Inc: Portland, OR. 626 p.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
what it isn’t
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2009-05-28 23:51:23 MDT (-0600)

There is a lot of value in knowong the incorrect names given to mushrooms. It would be very helpful for listing the lookalikes of any given species. It seems that right now people can delete names they proposed. Perhaps this activity should be logged and recorded somehow?

By: Shane Marsh (Mushane)
2009-05-28 23:34:55 MDT (-0600)

I dont mind not being able to remove em either, thats a great idea actually.

not so much about people making mistakes, but its great to know the mushrooms that might be confused for the correct identification, and read out how all this discussion plays out on why it is or isnt.

its much more entertaining than scanning through mushroomexpert for hours :P

Let them stick like glue…
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-05-28 23:16:11 MDT (-0600)

There is value in tracing the evolution of an id, particularly when
people have participated in voting on it. Therefore, I do agree that
deleting a suggestion, even when clearly wrong, would amount to a net
loss of information. Additionally, this will make some of us more
careful when shooting off the hip when proposing an id because it’s on
record and will stick with our name on it.. :-)

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2009-05-28 22:59:43 MDT (-0600)

It seems to me that users are still able to delete speculative ID’s on observations, as long as no one else has selected “i’d call it that”.

Give it another try.

I didn’t even see all the comments on this page before I added mine the other day, or else I wouldn’t have added it. On my screen the comments were below the bottom of the page and I would have needed to scroll down. It came up in google images and look obviously wrong so I said something without seeing all the previous discussion.

of COURSE anyone can comment on any sighting at any time…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-05-28 17:36:31 MDT (-0600)

it was a joke, sons (see stupid emoticon)…

and as Jason Hollinger pointed out to me (and to which philosophy I am in agreement), our mistakes made here are also useful for others to learn from, which is why you can no longer delete your speculative ID errors. It can be interesting to see the ID process in action, warts and all…
and everyone, from the best to the worst, makes mistakes.

It is Chromosera cyanophila.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-05-28 17:15:25 MDT (-0600)

Don’t know what daemons possessed me to even consider the
possibility of Chrysomphalina aurantiaca (Peck) Redhead. Tried to
delete it, but can’t. The gills of Chromosera cyanophila tend to
pale out, but still some of the original cast remains, which is
clearly visible in this photo.

We should comment whenever we have something useful to say. I
rather people correct an id, sooner or later, than let it stay
wrong forever.

another opinion
By: Shane Marsh (Mushane)
2009-05-28 15:20:11 MDT (-0600)

is never illegal :P

now if we had only saved and scoped some…;)
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-05-28 12:30:23 MDT (-0600)

we coulda put this debate to rest, once and for all!

I still think that Chromosera cyanophylla is the correct name, see prior discussion for why. besides, isn’t it illegal to come back and commment again after the first round? or so I heard, on the best authority… ;)

By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2009-05-28 10:47:27 MDT (-0600)

This one sure looks more like Chrysomphalina aurantiaca to me. I don’t see any lilac in the gills at all, even on the younger one.

Microscopy not needed for Chromosera cyanophylla
By: Mycoamaranthus
2009-01-27 02:48:27 MST (-0700)

Microscopy not needed for this one, easily identified in field by: (1) translucent-striate cap, (2) predominantly yellow color, (3) slimy-viscid cap and stalk, (4) decurrent gills, (5) growth on decaying conifers. Western version yellower than the eastern one. Description in MD based on Oregon and California, where it is fairly common. Older name Mycena lilacifolia.

OK Noah, should we all meet at Van Damme on Friday for a deja vu photo safari?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-26 21:19:42 MST (-0700)

Lotsa MO/ACCF participants will be up there that day…just looking for something wildly fungal to do…why not track down some of these curiousities and find some more of our own? contact me offlist, and we’ll set up a time and place…

Too Yellow
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2009-01-26 16:14:06 MST (-0700)

At least material I have seen in Pa. was not even close to being this yellow. Nice diagnostic picture but microscopy needed. Being a field guy, I hate that!

Not much purple usually.
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2009-01-26 15:20:49 MST (-0700)

This is another case where the “main character” will make the id, but the main character is often not there. In fact I think more often than not, the purple is not there, usually faded to a just a hint of lilac in light yellow gills. Most times though, people are so taken with the bright purple when they see it, that is what gets the photo, and cases where it is faded get ignored. We should make an effort to get more photos of the more usual states seen in the field.

looks an awful lot like this one…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-26 10:18:11 MST (-0700)


woody hab, viscid striate cap all fit; it’s prob. smaller than it looks, too!

lack of typical lavendar color in gills was confusing, and original leptonia designation (there are yellow ones on the East Coast) sent me up the wrong ID path. ah, the power of suggestion!

no microscopy on Van Damme collections…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-26 08:10:06 MST (-0700)

…since there is no collecting at Van Damme(not even the Universities get a free pass on this one).

Now if only Noah would’ve had the foresight to bring along his scope into the field, with a portable generator…

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2009-01-26 00:58:42 MST (-0700)

Chromosera cyanophylla seems to match the gill color of this collection better than Chrysomphalina aurantiaca, which should have orange gills and more orange in the basidiome overall, no?

Still not a very good match for C. cyanophylla, as young cap appears to be yellow from the start… This collection needed microscopy!

Very nice photo!

Not Leptonia, more like Chrysomphalina aurantiaca or Chromosera cyanophylla
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2009-01-26 00:22:48 MST (-0700)

Leptonia is out of the question due to the pileal covering being fundamentally different. Strikes me as one of the countless ways in which Chrysomphalina aurantiaca or Chromosera cyanophylla can look.

Viscid stipe
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2009-01-25 22:32:33 MST (-0700)

Although it did rained some today.

beautiful! is that a viscid stype, or was it raining?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-01-25 22:24:52 MST (-0700)