Observation 64449: Inocybe napipes J.E. Lange

Herbarium specimen: UBC F19512 GenBank: HQ604254

Species Lists



Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
As close as you can get..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-03-18 02:50:54 CST (-0600)

Probably true, but then the clear difference in DNA is an indication that you are dealing with a species that hasn’t been described before (at least not well enough to be able to interprete today).
Btw, I found that the sequence from one of your “assimilata” (HQ604560) is identical with the two “napipes” (-556, -559).

I hope that all readers here understand what an incredibly important work you are doing with your collections: with DNA-sequences together with photos and micro descriptions!
Everyone can (and do) make mistakes, but you are the only ones whose collections can be checked and evaluated, due to your excellent documentation. Others who produce DNA sequences without showing documentation of the collections (or present phylogenetic “evidence” without even adding their sequences to GenBank) should be ashamed.
So, I sincerely hope you don’t mind when I have comments to your observations.

Although I don’t agree with the name napipes on this taxon, I have chosen not to vote for or against any name here, keeping in mind that taxonomy and nomenclature regarding most Inocybe species is a mess..

“Inocybe napipes” – as close as you can get
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-03-17 16:55:04 CST (-0600)

On your tree, this particular collection is HQ604559. It is as close to the European specimens of Inocybe napipes as you can get. Never mind, we agree that its DNA is quite different.

All the HQ604nnn BC collections are ours, now deposited in the UBC (Vancouver) herbarium. The “I.napipes HQ604254” that came within the I. striata cluster might have been misidentified, but we do not know how it happened that “I. striata HQ604255 BC” was originally labeled as “I. lanuginosa var. lanuginosa.” Gross mis-ID, or mixed up labels?

We donated ca. 600 Inocybe specimens to the UBC herbarium and the majority of them was sequenced. We have just finished the sixth full year of the Observatory Hill long-term survey and have a large number of collections of quite diverse groups of macrofungi, including Corticiaceae. – Oluna & Adolf

Just for the record
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-03-17 14:29:42 CST (-0600)

I have no idea what this is, but it’s not Inocybe napipes as we know it in Scandinavia. Maybe a not yet described species..?

Created: 2011-03-17 03:32:56 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2011-09-01 12:37:31 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 237 times, last viewed: 2018-06-15 15:09:54 CDT (-0500)
Show Log