Notes:
collected for RET

Images

Proposed Names

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
The voucher material for this observation has been accessioned in our herbarium.
By: R. E. Tulloss (ret)
2018-07-24 14:34:41 CDT (-0400)

Thank you, Geoff.

I missed this one, but I’ve got it today.

Very best,

Rod

Geoff,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-22 22:04:23 CDT (-0400)

I always thought that the gestalt of canescens was not representative of the mainstream taxa in sect. Lepidella, the basal (?) section of the genus. Maybe the duality/ambiguity of its morphology, i.e., giving the impression of a species in sect. Validae at certain stages of development, is an indication of an advanced “design” within the ancient Lepidella. In a way, it could be a taxon that “bridges the gap” between the two section. Who knows?! Conjecture at its best. Am sure Rod has a better theory/explanation based on real facts (DNA).

By now you are very familiar with this species and should be able to ID it without trouble in the future, but here is the summary of all canescens posts on MO: http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/index_observation?by=date&q=8i4H. By the looks of it, all of them are good IDs. One obsie from this list, however, seems to fall out of the well-established morphological pattern of canescens, obs 283029. The color and texture of the UV on that one gives a strong impression of an Amidella, while the lack of a saccate volva and the presence of a bulb eliminate that section from consideration.

P.S. Thank you so much for identifying my caterpillars — both IDs are a bull’s eye. Very flashy and beautiful larvae and very modest-looking saturniid moths! I am yet to figure out how to use bugguide.net.

The batch of these
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-08-22 20:54:27 CDT (-0400)

I photographed Sunday totally made me think I had sect. Validae for a little while. For the very reasons you mentioned.

this is one of those species that seems to kind of bridge the nice “gap” we like to imagine is there when we try to categorize things in our heads. :)
I had a zoology professor once tell us that our classification system should not be mistaken for nature. Nature doesn’t give a rat’s ass for our classification — it’s just a tool. :) He was rather old fashioned, the modern folks totally forgot that and are imagining they’re totally representing nature! They have THE TRUTH! :)

Got your Caterpillar’s ID’d — beauties they are! Usually far more interesting than the winged adults they become.

Insects & canescens
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-22 16:11:19 CDT (-0400)

I have pix of two caterpillar species coming your way soon. Thanks!
Occasionally canescens gives this impression of something in sect. Validae. For me it has to do with the chunky disorganized volva on cap, a usually unimpressive bulb and some modest coloration of the pileus.

I’m beginning to realize that I’ve seen this species
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-08-22 15:59:17 CDT (-0400)

before, but without all the nice UV material on the cap. I’ve seen them after they’ve been washed and been flummoxed by them.

I actually did
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-08-22 15:56:23 CDT (-0400)

A course in immature insects! :) It was a nightmare, but I should be able to ID your caterpillars.

Cool insect!
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-22 15:54:37 CDT (-0400)

I didn’t see the critter till you pointed it out. Can you ID caterpillars by any chance?

Yellow-legged millipede is genus Sigmoria. :)
By: Geoff Balme (geoff balme)
2017-08-22 15:45:19 CDT (-0400)