Observation 65141: Cantharellus Adans. ex Fr.


Your suggestion of Hygrotrama is interesting and I assume you mean to say Camarophyllopsis, that genus is characterised by it’s smooth ellipsoid spores and a pileipellis made up of inflated cells in a hymeniform layer and more often than not a distinct napthalene like odor, an example of the hymeniform layer can be seen at this observation of an undescribed Camarophyllopsis species from New Zealand, one of three undescribed species I have found so far that belong in that genus.

This species shown here is definitely not a Camarophyllopsis due to the interesting basidiospores that are white to very pale cream in deposit, ellipsoid to ovoid in face view and ellipsoid in side view with a distinct hilar appendage and a punctate-roughened surface that originates from the exosporium, in face view near the apex there is an interesting more or less round depression that resembles the plage seen in Galerina spores although this is at the opposite end of the spore here, they are inamyloid.
The pileipellis looks to be a trichoderm of rather wide hyphae with abundant clamp connections rather than a hymeniform layer as in Camarophyllopsis, I will have to do some more examinations to determine exactly what type of pileipellis structure this has.
The basidia are four spored and are very long as in the Hygrophoraceae, cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia are absent.

These characteristics also exclude Cantharellus as Horak and Taylor have proposed in the past.

Christian, your suggestion of Hygroaster sounds good as that genus does have ornamented spores but I am unable to find any line drawings or micrographs of that genus for comparison, if anyone can link me to any Hygroaster descriptions it would be much appreciated.

I have placed these comments at this new observation of this interesting fungus in response to the comments made at this previous observation.

Species Lists



Proposed Names

-47% (3)
Recognized by sight
-11% (3)
Recognized by sight
22% (5)
Recognized by sight
6% (4)
Recognized by sight
3% (3)
Recognized by sight
0% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
what ever happened to those micrographs?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-11-08 10:26:10 PST (-0800)
Dazzling mushroom whatever the name!
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2011-06-01 17:45:20 PDT (-0700)
here’s another link to the same paper:
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-06-01 16:37:46 PDT (-0700)
Hygroaster description
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2011-05-31 18:15:29 PDT (-0700)
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-05-31 15:20:26 PDT (-0700)

Hi Debbie,
I find them to be quite similar although the lamellae in my collections are a bit wider, photographs on the internet are not the best for comparison!
I didn’t read the paper because I couldn’t find it using your link, if you can link me directly to the paper I would love to read it.

Hi irene,
I will make micrographs when I get a chance and post them here, the spores are distinctly ornamented and definitely not of the Cantharellus type.

I’m still curious
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-05-31 07:33:01 PDT (-0700)

Michael, would it possible for you to add a picture of the spores?

By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-05-30 21:33:10 PDT (-0700)

actually, Mike’s photo of C. purpurascens, and mine here:


are not similar to this sighting at all, tho both photos do bear a resemblence to the Gomphoid fruit body that I recently collected in the Sierra.

Your mushrooms here are quite delicate…more like what we used to call Cantharellus tubaeformis, now Craterellus, but not with the more massive gomphoid body shape.

did you read the paper? it discusses the genus at length, and show photos of most of the species.

By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-05-30 20:45:42 PDT (-0700)

..that’s interesting Debbie but you may want to rethink your vote here, the type species for Gloeocantharellus, G. purpurascens is quite similar to this collection, in macroscopic form it resembles a Cantharellus species.

not one of the ten named Gloeocantharellus…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-05-30 18:36:17 PDT (-0700)

including two from NZ: G. dingleyae and G. novae-zelandiae.

Macroscopically, Gloeocantharellus resembles a Gomphus rather than a Craterellus/Cantharellus.

Here’s the world key to this genus:


Comments about the observation
By: Patrick Harvey (pg_harvey)
2011-05-10 10:08:38 PDT (-0700)

Forwarded message from Deborah J. Lodge (djlodge@caribe.net)

Your Hygroaster-like fungus is intriguing. The spores of Hygroaster are globose and have large, hollow spines, so not the same type of ornamentation as what you describe. Also, there is no plage in Hygroaster. See this paper in Mycotaxon.

Franco-Molano, Ana Esperanza & Carlos Alberto López-Quintero. A new species of Hygroaster (Hygrophoraceae, Agaricales) from Colombia. Mycotaxon 99: 189–195. 2007.

ABSTRACT: A new taxon of Hygroaster is proposed as H. cleefii. The collections representing this species were found in tropical lowland forests in the Departments of Caquetá and Chocó and on the Gorgona Islands of Colombia. The small size, the dark color of the basidiocarps and the translucent pileus surface are the macroscopic features that characterize this species. Hygroaster cleefii has smaller spores with longer spines than the other darkly pigmented species, H. nodulisporus. The presence of clamp connections differentiates H. cleefii, from the neotropical species of the genus.

KEYWORDS: dipterocarp forest, Hygrocybe, Hygrophorus, Omphaliaster

If you have samples, try sending them to Maj Padamsee in Aukland, NZ and see if she can get it nailed down.

Jean Lodge

I agree with Debbie
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-05-10 04:48:14 PDT (-0700)

I’d like it to be a Cantharellus too. What is it exactly, that rules out that possibility?
I don’t beleive in Hygroaster(Omphaliaster), in which the spores are spiny (star-shaped, hence the name), and they are not supposed to have clamps.

Man, I so wanna make this into a cantharellus…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-04-04 20:37:01 PDT (-0700)

just on that over-all macro gestalt! ;)

at any rate, here’s a bit of info on the genus Hygroaster. Run the mushroom thru the keys and work back to get the details! there is also a link to a photo of one member of the genus from this page. you’ve probably already looked at this, there isn’t much out there…


I have to keep bearing in mind that what you are seeing in your field is a long way from my home and on an island to boot, no easy slam dunks to something that I already know.


I would
By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2011-04-04 18:56:12 PDT (-0700)

I think they look similar, but I am not saying they are the same, I never said anything remotely close to that.
Looking at the macroscopic similarities I would say they appear similar (see proposed name), that’s all I meant. Its OK grasshopper, calm down :)

I wouldn’t
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-04-04 15:45:25 PDT (-0700)

say the mushrooms in your linked observation are very similar to the ones depicted here.

I think they are not in the same genus, and I doubt they are even closely related.

I would like to know…
By: AmatoxinApocalypse (AmatoxinApocalypse)
2011-04-04 11:39:15 PDT (-0700)

I would like to know what these are, I have been thinking about this very similar observation for a long time.


Created: 2011-04-04 00:58:04 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-03-23 09:32:11 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 686 times, last viewed: 2018-06-24 01:56:11 PDT (-0700)
Show Log