These were growing under Live Oak very near some Candy Caps (Lactarius rubidus). From the top they looked similar but underneath the gills are more crowded and decurrent. The stem is a little lighter in color, tapering and not as brittle.
The spores were relatively small, approx. 4.1-5.1 X 3.8-4.3 microns, globose to subglobose, warted but no noticeable reticulations, and not amyloid. They did seem to be perhaps weakly dextrinoid (the micro photo was taken with the spores in Melzers).
No strong odor or taste.
Could not find any match after going through the new Bessette Lactarius book.


Proposed Names

-35% (3)
Recognized by sight
54% (4)
Recognized by sight: or Clitocybe inversa or whatever we are calling it nowdays…
54% (3)
Used references: Applying this name based on Denise Gregory’s thesis and the deprecation of Lepista to Clitocybe based on the acceptance of C. nebularis as the type for Clitocybe.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
no latex, either…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2010-02-16 08:59:22 PST (-0800)

and the stem won’t snap(not as brittle indeed)!
this looks to be another case of trying to make the reality fit into ones suppositions, rather than the other way around. we are all subject to this wishful thinking ID process, sometimes…
It does look kinda lactarius-like from the top, tho.

these are indeed everywhere right now. I thought that they had a pleasant fruity fragrance.
Just to be ornerey, I vote Lepista rather than Clitocybe, too!

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-02-16 04:47:14 PST (-0800)

It’s probably true that the type species of Lepista should be Agaricus lepista (whatever that is(!).
Fortunately, we don’t have to accept Harmaja’s argument, because it’s only true if/when it has been decided that this particular species shall belong to the same genus as Clitocybe nebularis. If a genus named Lepista can be sorted out, it’s automatically NOT a synonym to Clitocybe…

Typical X. flaccida (Clitocybe inversa)
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2010-02-15 07:07:03 PST (-0800)

Yes indeed. These are fruiting everywhere right now. Will pass on the juicy nomenclatural debates around Clitocybe that have been going on since quite some time. In such cases I like to stick with IndexFungorum – Lepista flaccida, until someone comes up with a smarter scheme.

Technically correct, but…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2010-02-15 05:50:25 PST (-0800)

…it depends on the type for Lepista and the relationship between that species and C. flaccida. According to Harmaja, 2003Lepista is a younger taxonomic synonym of Clitocybe; the automatic type species of the former is Agaricus lepista Fr. : Fr. (= either L. densifolia (J. Favre) Singer & Clémonçon or L. subconnexa (Murrill) Harmaja).” Now it is probably the case that Clitocybe remains polyphyletic, but if you accept Harmaja’s argument, then you cannot use Lepista for any of them.

Have to add..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2010-02-15 00:36:04 PST (-0800)

Deciding that Lepista/Clitocybe nebularis should be named Clitocybe, doesn’t necessarily mean that every Lepista becomes a Clitocybe. In fact, Clitocybe nebularis (with smooth spores) never did fit well in the former concept of Lepista.
Most of us in Europe use books with rather clear limits, at least between Lepista(verrucose spores) and Clitocybe(smooth spores).

Choosing Clitocybe nebularis as the type species gives many options to delimitations of genera, including creating new ones – unfortunately still without consensus..

Not lactarius
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2010-02-12 17:30:37 PST (-0800)

The spores are too small and they are not amyloid. The spores look like Laccaria. Can’t be Lactarius and it’s not Laccaria.

Created: 2010-02-12 17:08:31 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2018-03-20 15:34:01 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 345 times, last viewed: 2019-03-06 12:10:02 PST (-0800)
Show Log