When: 2009-07-28

Collection location: Corte Madera, Marin Co., California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)

Specimen available

Species Lists


Proposed Names

50% (4)
Recognized by sight
71% (3)
Recognized by sight: Tufted, with white tomentum at stem base, darker and duller pink colours than carneus (all of the smaller Calocybe species moved to the genus Rugosomyces..)
28% (1)
Used references: Preferred name for Calocybe carnea according to Species Fungorum.
84% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-07-30 04:02:21 CDT (-0500)

I beleive we are talking about a possible species cluster or forms around Calocybe(Rugosomyces) carnea..?
No problem in this case, when we have the names at species level.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-29 23:41:24 CDT (-0500)

So what are we talking about?


Never mind the name game
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-07-29 15:47:15 CDT (-0500)

the important thing is a common understanding about what species or species groups we are talking about.

Naming game
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-29 15:39:05 CDT (-0500)

“I don’t have the whole story, but Calocybe vs Rugosomyces is based on DNA, and Calocybe gambosa was chosen as the type species of that genus, so the smaller Calocybe species had to move.”

Maybe it has not been officially reclassified. Sort of like how we know that Psathyrella should be at least 5 different genera (most certainly more), incorporating species in the genera Coprinopsis, Coprinellus, and Parasola.Or how Psilocybe is evidently polyphyletic, containing two distinct clades, of which the non-bluing group should retain the genus name, and the bluing clade should be replaced into Weraroa… Despite this knowledge and evidence, the mushroom names have not been officially reclassified to reflect these genetic findings, and thus the apparently appropriate names are not yet accepted.
I understand the reasoning behind it, I guess, but it sure does seem ass backwards and logically dissonant with the phylogenetic approach.

Interesting to me
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2009-07-29 07:58:11 CDT (-0500)

because I thought I had found persicolor once, and these pictures made me realize that I probably didn’t. What I found then had the ordinary pink colour (matted cap surface though) and just velvety stem base, not the bluish cap colour and shaggy tomentum like these…
I had no detailed description of persicolor earlier (usually regarded as a form of carnea, but also of ionides), but in the new Funga Nordica, carnea and persicolor are separate species.


It would be interesting to know if the description fits here; spores of the same irregular shape as in carnea, but slightly shorter: 4-5 microns, 3-7(8) in carnea (means they are also overlapping); pileipellis consisting partly of chains with spherical elements in persicolor, not in carnea.

I don’t have the whole story, but Calocybe vs Rugosomyces is based on DNA, and Calocybe gambosa was chosen as the type species of that genus, so the smaller Calocybe species had to move.

generic and species level consideration
By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-07-28 20:44:32 CDT (-0500)

Yes, I noticed the same discrepancy with IF. IF places all of the species listed previously as Rugosomyces, currently in Calocybe.
A google search for details on the classification was unproductive.

The debate over whether C. carnea and C. persicolor represent a single taxon, or two distinct species is unresolved, it seems.
I should note that this collection had a mix of specimens displaying different traits, which I hardly batted an eye to at the time, since I have seen all of these variations in different collections before and chalked it up to phenotypic variation or environmental influence.
The ones pictured were mostly clustered, but there were also single mushrooms among the patch, at least two were growing a few feet away, isolated from any other fruiting bodies.
The fibrillose stipe base is apparent to some extent in all of the tiny, pink Calocybe I have found, along with all of the C. carnea photos I find online. This would suggest that the presence or absence of this characteristic does not clearly distinguish the potentially distinct species.
As for the colour… Again, the colour of the individual mushrooms in this collection varied from a brick coloured, to pink, purple, violet, and a light pink/tan.

If these are C. persicolor rather than C. carnea, then I would have to assume that the majority of the collections that have been labeled C. carnea are in fact C. persicolor.

If you look through a lot of these “Calocybe carnea” photos you will notice that the majority of them are clustered and have a fibrillose stem base (though sometimes it is partially obscured by grass pieces, out of focus, or matted down from handling- you can still tell that they are fibrillose).



Rugosomyces vs. Calocybe?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2009-07-28 15:28:27 CDT (-0500)

Species Fungorum still lists Calocybe as the ‘current’ name for Rugosomyces. Any idea what the issues and questions are here?

I also note that you are proposing a new taxon as well since Calocybe carnea == Rugosomyces carneus whereas Rugosmyces perscolor == Calocybe persicolor.

nice collection, Curecat!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2009-07-28 13:21:59 CDT (-0500)

and a new mushroom species for me…