When: 2017-06-21

Collection location: Ricketts Glen State Park, Pennsylvania, USA [Click for map]

Who: Dave W (Dave W)

No specimen available

Notes:
Old rotting tree trunk was probably hemlock.

Images

Proposed Names

63% (3)
Used references: Aldrovandi et al, 2015: “The Xeromphalina campanella/kauffmanii complex: species delineation and biogeographical patterns of speciation” – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26297781

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Nomenclatural nightmares
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2017-12-15 10:37:26 CST (-0600)

I don’t think we know enough about mating in the fungi to compare it with animal mating and the concept of a Biological Species. Knowledge from zoos is constantly changing our view of animal mating. And the plant kingdom is full of hybrids and nomenclatural nightmares. This paper may be valid research, but the conclusions are shaky. There is no reason to change all of these names at this point. It serves no purpose when each and every collection is NOT backed by DNA work.

I changed my vote on this obs and emailed Jason about the issue.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-14 22:27:33 CST (-0600)
Whatever the case may be…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-12-14 22:20:35 CST (-0600)

looks like the voting has now been sensibly adjusted… at least on this observation (for which I was uncertain about the substrate).

Exactly my sentiments Dave
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2017-12-14 22:14:12 CST (-0600)

but Pulk says the admin function did it—didn’t know we had one. Meanwhile Debbie says it’s just fun to do it. Not sure what’s going on here. See http://mushroomobserver.org/284025?q=Bkut

I don’t get the “as if” confidence level…?
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-12-14 22:12:55 CST (-0600)

So there’s a species that’s indistinguishable form X. campanella. That’s interesting, informative. Thanks. But the Mycologia abstract states that both campanella and enigmatica are valid NA species. IMO, this means that, until more is known about the relative frequency of campanella vs. enigmatica, neither proposal deserves either ultimate confidence or ultimate dismissal.

X. campanella indistinguishable from X. enigmatica without mating studies or DNA
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-14 14:40:31 CST (-0600)

Xeromphalina campanella can be distinguished from X. enigmatica only by mating studies or DNA sequencing. They’re effectively identical in macroscopic features, microscopic features, chemical features, geographic location, and substrate preference.

Created: 2017-06-22 22:15:30 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2017-12-14 22:17:16 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 83 times, last viewed: 2020-08-15 00:21:16 CDT (-0500)
Show Log