Observation 64487: Agrocybe Fayod

When: 2011-03-17

Collection location: Fair Oaks, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Byrain

Specimen available

The specimen is very small and found growing from moss, the spore print is light and hard to make out, but I am pretty sure its rusty brown.


Spores 400x
Spores 400x
cheilocystidia (I believe)
400x mounted on water.

Proposed Names

-57% (1)
Recognized by sight: Small size, rusty colored gills, moss habitat, rusty/brown spore color.
55% (1)
Recognized by sight
57% (1)
Recognized by sight: Bit small for A. pediades?
27% (1)
Based on microscopic features: Spores Sp 7-10(-11.5) x 4.5-6(-6.5) μm?

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
More details…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-05-27 05:31:26 AEST (+1000)

More micro-details, and you cropped the shot! Anyway, I’m not sure what that is there, I see hyphal tips, but not sure if that is a cap surface. If it is the cap surface, then it isn’t an Agrocybe surface. But it could be just a bunch of hyphae from the central part of the pileus, and missed the surface in the section.

I usually try 3-4 radial sections when looking for the cap surface, to see which one turns out to be a good one in the mount. After getting turned around in the drop of reagent, and squashed under the cover slip and all.

Also what reagent are you using there? Were they all water? It is good to make a note of the reagent used in the mount, so people know what they are looking at.

Keep trying stuff… move on to the next sample now…

Cap Surface
By: Byrain
2011-05-25 18:10:56 AEST (+1000)

I took attempted to look at the cap surface with the help of “How To Identify Mushrooms To Genus III: Microscopic Features”, but I am unsure how much I understood the directions and still have to better digest the contents of the book. I uploaded another picture, but I don’t know if I am was looking at the right thing.

And I will have money for a reticle early next month, I intended to get one sooner, but it didn’t work out that way.

Comment edited and added to.

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-05-25 04:24:46 AEST (+1000)

Not bad, first time getting a photo through the scope? Then pretty good… the cheilocystidia shots at 1000x are spot on. Me, I prefer to crop the shots and get rid of all the excess black on the corners, so the shot is only of what I want, but that is me.

The spores are interesting. There are ellipsoid and smooth, like you say, and tan in water, which would be a medium brown in spore print (more or less). But the germ pores are rather small, to indistinct. These are not A. pediades spores, as what was suggested. You can click around here, I think Ron has some good A. pediades spore photos. They are rather wide, with really clear large germ pores.

Using Flora Agaracina Neelandica vol. 6, which has a good Agrocybe section there, these key out kinda well as Agrocybe vervacti (Fr.:Fr.) Sing. With the lack of a good annulus, the some-what inflated ends on the cheilocystidia, and the ellipsoid spores without a clear germ pore.

But to really get this, you need to get the ave. spore size, and see if it is near 8 × 5.5 um. And also the spores here aren’t too far from Pholiota spores too… it would be good to try and get the cap surface in cross-section to see if there is no gelatin layer, and there is a single layer of upward facing cells. Pholiota wouldn’t have that.

Also, I (you?) should check another source to make sure…

You need to get a reticle right away, now that you have the scope, and the ability to take photos, do not stop, do not collect $200, and get the reticle. I got mine with the scope, and it was only $50 more on the scope price. Which wasn’t much given the whole scope price. You might be able to find one with less money even? Try to make sure it is 1 div = 1 um at 1000x, or else you’ll start to make mistakes at some point with some conversion.

Anyway – good stuff, exciting… now on to the other stuff you been collecting…

By: Byrain
2011-05-24 20:06:16 AEST (+1000)

The scope arrived today, so I took some pictures of a gill fragment mounted in water. The spores look smooth and they seem to have a germ pore, so it must be Agrocybe. I don’t have a reticle yet, I’ll get one when I next have some spending money.

Feedback very much welcome.

I’ll give it a try when the opporntunity arises then.
By: Byrain
2011-03-19 21:58:29 AEDT (+1100)

I don’t have a scope (Its on the short list right after a more powerful camera) or reliable access, but I will make an attempt sooner or later. Thanks for the help.

You should try yourself…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-03-19 21:07:27 AEDT (+1100)

Well, you should give them a try yourself, if you were planning on trying a microscope at some point. The spores here should be pigmented, and rather obvious. Just pluck out part of a gill or two, and mount it, drop of reagent (water would work), and squash it. Under the scope the spores should be fairly obvious. Smooth spores with a germ pore would be Agrocybe, and roughened spores with out a germ pore would be Galerina.

This would be a fine beginner kinda of scope work.

By: Byrain
2011-03-19 20:38:37 AEDT (+1100)

The mushroom was fruiting directly from a thick layer of moss, which can be better seen in the pictures from this observation, 64489 – http://mushroomobserver.org/64489 (Also mentioned below) , which was found less then a foot away.

Either way, the specimens will be saved (And have already been labeled) till I can attempt the microscopy myself or someone else volunteers. The latter option I must say will be more likely to produce good microscopy due to the specimens small size, faint print, and my limited experience with a scope.

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2011-03-19 20:19:02 AEDT (+1100)

Agrocybe can be very small, and you habitat isn’t completely moss there. But still if you want to be sure, you will need at least a photo of the spores in a scope. The stipe here is kinda thick, and more yellow tan, than you see with most Galerina. It could go either way…

Agrocybe pediades
By: Byrain
2011-03-19 16:22:59 AEDT (+1100)

The specimen appears smaller then A. pediades would be with the cap diameter being roughly 0.5 cm and I can’t find anything saying A. pediades grows on moss. Could you elaborate on why you think that is promising?

Found growing on the same patch of moss as…
By: Byrain
2011-03-19 13:39:58 AEDT (+1100)

…these Deconica, 64489 – http://mushroomobserver.org/64489

Created: 2011-03-19 13:29:01 AEDT (+1100)
Last modified: 2011-05-24 21:03:36 AEST (+1000)
Viewed: 231 times, last viewed: 2019-02-12 05:49:03 AEDT (+1100)
Show Log