When: 2018-10-27
Collection location: Parque de Monsanto, Lisboa, Portugal [Click for map]
Who: zaca
Images
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 12.19 | 2 | (zaca,myxomop) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 5.29 | 1 | (Pulk) | |||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-1.52 | -50.60% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 5.29 | 1 | (Pulk) | |||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 5.64 | 1 | (myxomop) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 6.55 | 1 | (zaca) | |||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.76 | 25.35% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 10.93 | 2 | (myxomop,Pulk) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 6.55 | 1 | (zaca) | |||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-0.12 | -3.90% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 6.55 | 1 | (zaca) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.73 | 57.83% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
Do you know any Inocybe like this?
The morfology of the spores are similar, but not the same as I. geophylla, the species of Inocybe with more look alike spores.
with spores like this. I agree with Pulk in this instance.
none is similar to the spores of this specimen and these agree with those of most species in Agrocybe.
“Mixed up collections” is impossible since there are not enough mushroom yet at this time. That day, mushroms with gills I collected only two, the other was a Russula.
I’d like to learn how this microscopy indicates Agrocybe, or eliminates Inocybe. Regardless, if it does, then you have mixed up collections. Again, the photos are 100% Inocybe. Agrocybe doesn’t have caps, gills, or stems like this.
Look at the radially fibrillose cap, the uneven yellow-brown gills, and the scaly upper stipe. This is 100% Inocybe…
something about Inocybe and some, like I. rimosa the one pulk cited, does not have pleurocystidia and the cheilocystidia are more alike to pseudoparaphyes than to the cystidia existing in other Inocybe species. Then I looked for websites and found this one:
https://www.funghiitaliani.it/...
Therefore, I have to apologize pulk, since he has right from the beginning.
Today I found at te same place other specimens, that are yet more likely I. rimosa (to be posted soon).