|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.79||2|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
The problem with these spores is that they are so pale and thin-walled that they are hardly visible at all in plain water, much better in cotton blue. Then the ornaments are not so hard to see (Have to ask Santa for a USB-ocular..).
Ok, if this is what R. caelata is supposed to look like, than this is not even close to what I saw. Not sure what source to use for the Entoloma… or that I wanted to know that much about Entoloma… I’ve been staying away from that genus.
That spore there does look more like the other Rhodocybe I saw on that trip. Although I found that the Rhodocybe spores were much less ornamented than I expected. If you were not paying too close attention you might not call them ornamented.
Meanwhile, I checked your obs, and the spores there are not Rhodocybe-spores (should be elliptic and more or less warty).
Your obs has typical heterodiametric Entoloma spores (very good micro-shot). I think you may find it in the section Undati if you follow Noordeloos’ classification.
These don’t really look my id of Rhodocybe caelata from upstate New York. Do you have photos of the spores and of the cystidia? It would be good to see those to compare. I saw cystidia on mine, but they were small and lageniform, not long like you describe here. It would be good to see more about this one, you use in comparison.
Created: 2009-08-03 12:10:55 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2009-08-03 12:10:55 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 373 times, last viewed: 2018-10-12 14:09:09 PDT (-0700)