what, Christian?

sorry, too much drama for me, young man.

if I have the time to find and reexamine this specimen, I will surely post the spore photos (for a while there I did not have a camera that worked for micro) and give it to Alan for DNA. But until that time, this is what we have.

It is fairly easy to see ornamentation vs smooth. I mean really, would I lie about it? Why?

There is the best of all possible worlds on some of these obsies, like for the Ceskas and a few stellar others. That falls down to a low of just a name, no photo, no specimen. And then there is the rest of us, doing the best that we can, with limited time and sometimes not the best materials, trying to make sense of our mycological world with the help of our many colleagues around the world.

Rocky, if you read all of this here, you undoubtedly saw that these spores were already shown to be inamyloid and ornamented and measured.

Could you please post photos of melzer’s mounted spores? Thanks.

Cleistocybe (there is a C. gomphidioides, not that I think this is that species)

But they shouldn’t have roughened spores. Can you re-scope it?

no

a decurrent-true gilled, gomphioid fb with ornamented spores (this is hardly a data free obsie, altho it is not a complete mycoflora obsie with photo, sample, micro and DNA; BTW, will your new book also have micrographs within its pages? or do we just “take your word for it?” when you refer to spore characters?) and a smooth cap eliminates quite a few things: Hygrophorus, Gomphus and no doubt several others.

You are absolutely correct in that Gloeocantharellus has not yet been confirmed for the western states. Does that mean that it doesn’t exist here? Not necessarily. So, again, your As If was unwarranted. There is in fact evidence that this could be Gloeocantharellus. It is hardly proven though. Drop your AS IF, I’ll drop my I’d call it that!

Otherwise, it’s just a petty ratings war, not a search for the truth.

A lot of things have roughened spores (Although no photo is posted here, so I guess I’d also have to consider that a “Data Free” statement per DV rules).
A lot of things have a macro stature like this.

Aaaaaaaand… Gloeocantharellus is not known from anywhere nearby. I think that sums it up.

if I can find this in my not so organized personal herbarium, I will get it to you, Alan.

DNA work would help a lot with this one.

and the macromorph fits Gloeocantharellus, too.

why the AS IF! Mistah Christian?

At the very least, a could be vote is warranted.

first hinted at by Darv.

It does share the Gloeocantharellus gestalt tho, as well as those very short but true gills and ornamented spores. It would have to be a white Gloeocantharellus tho, even tho there was a bit of brownish-purple staining to the gill margins: G. “albidus”??!

Just returned from an internet search. There actually IS a G. pallidus, but it is NOT this mushroom. Here’s a link to the Gloeocantharellus paper, which describes the ten species in this genus which have been described worldwide:

http://tede.ibict.br/...

looks like a dried up Hygrophorus, saw a bunch of them last week that looked like this.

but its cap is smooth and its gills are true gills, not gill ridges.

you can only do so much with a photo of an aging fruit body, but its identity was still intriguing. I’ll try and scope it today.