When: 2015-10-24

Collection location: Parque de Monsanto, Lisboa, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: zaca

No specimen available

Growing on a mixed forest of pines and oaks.


Microscopy: Spores;
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia (in water);
Microscopy: Cheilocystidia (in floxine);
Microscopy: Pleurocystidia (in floxine);
Microscopy: Pileipellis.

Proposed Names

58% (1)
Recognized by sight
87% (1)
Based on microscopic features

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Byrain
2015-10-26 11:05:19 CST (-0600)

How wide are the germ pores then? If you can tell from your photos please share the dimensions….

I already gave my reasons for not to embark that trip.
By: zaca
2015-10-26 10:49:20 CST (-0600)
Why not just do it yourself?
By: Byrain
2015-10-26 10:44:51 CST (-0600)

Its not my responsibility to properly identify your specimens, especially when all you have left is to cross your Ts… (And DNA…)

If that is the problem, then I can send you a part of the specimen
By: zaca
2015-10-26 10:29:30 CST (-0600)

and you will do all measurements you want.
In your previous comment you wrote “alternative Agrocybe key” and I didn’t know that you refer to Flora Agaricina Neerlandica (Vol 6), of which I have all the volumes.

Flora Agaricina Neerlandica Vol 6
By: Byrain
2015-10-26 10:16:44 CST (-0600)

Has two alternative Agrocybe keys by Nauta, both seem to work well and get the same results, but through different means although they both require precise measurements of the germ pore to use properly. Are there any other good Agrocybe keys?

I have read your previous response, but that doesn’t change anything. Your photos are not clear enough for me to get such precise µm measurements. Not to mention the responsibility to gather data for your own collections ultimately falls upon you and it would take you 5 minutes while it would take considerably longer for someone that had to calculate the data from your photos that do not clearly show how wide the germ pore is. Also, check your e-mail.

I don’t know what key you mention.
By: zaca
2015-10-26 09:50:46 CST (-0600)

Please read my previous comment to have an ideia of the dimension you want. I will not measure the germ pore width, because as I told you the error in the measurement will be comparable to the distance to measure.

By: Byrain
2015-10-26 09:18:04 CST (-0600)

Are the germ pores up to 0.5 µm or 1.0-1.5 µm wide? Using the alternative Agrocybe key the question would be up to 1.0 µm, 1.0-1.5 µm or 1.5-2.0 µm. I unfortunately can not easily get that info from your photos, a little bit of extra work would of really helped…

I don’t agree.
By: zaca
2015-10-26 04:38:08 CST (-0600)

One of the great advantages of attaching photos from the microscopy is that you don’t have to give the dimensions and form for every element. In this case and referring to the spores, their dimension are written in the correspondent photo. As you can see, the germ pore is well visible in almost all of the spore and, taking into account the dimension of the spore, one quickly infer that the germ pore is very small, less than 1/10 of the spore. So, it is not reasonable to ask pleople to give their dimensions, because the error in their measure will be comparable to the dimension to measure. That will be attainable, if one has good quality higher magnifications at our disposal, which is not my case and for the majority of people.

Germ pore
By: Byrain
2015-10-25 20:21:37 CST (-0600)

I don’t disagree with your identification, but if you are going to scope an Agrocybe, please always record the germ pore width. It would help a lot, thanks!

Microscopy added.
By: zaca
2015-10-25 16:51:07 CST (-0600)