When: 2011-06-08
Collection location: Eldorado National Forest, California, USA [Click for map]
Who: Byrain
Notes:
Growing from a rotting log.
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 | 5.76 | 1 | (Byrain) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 9.99 | 2 | (CureCat,Alan Rockefeller) | |||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
-1.54 | -51.23% | |||||||
| 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 | 4.14 | 1 | (jimmiev) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 9.99 | 2 | (CureCat,Alan Rockefeller) | |||||
| 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) |
1.21 | 40.26% | |||||||
| 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 | 19.39 | 4 | (Alan Rockefeller,mycotrope,darv) | |||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 5.76 | 1 | (Byrain) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 4.15 | 1 | (CureCat) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
2.16 | 72.09% | |||||||
| 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 | 9.25 | 2 | (douglas,CureCat) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 21.10 | 4 | (Alan Rockefeller,Byrain,darv) | |||||
| 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) |
1.26 | 42.11% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
… visible in observation 66846.
Yes these have a full veil when young, it just breaks up as the cap expands. But as you can see in these photos, there are clearly veil remnants on the cap margin.
Looking at observation 69090 (http://mushroomobserver.org/69090?q=4nn2) I realized I forgot to mention that there was a small pin with a full membranous veil, I dropped and lost it before I managed to take a picture of it though.
Yes, that is what I commenting on, they said it was illegitimate because they believed that K. vernalis was “frequently” equated with K. mutabilis, and that K. lignicola is obviously different than K. mutabilis, so we should ignore K. vernalis. If I read that correctly. But there is no sources on the “frequently” equations, so I’m not sure about that whole comment.
Yes, I think we should read the Redhead paper, since that is the one that really gives us K. lignicola, at least as Kuehneromyces. Not sure where to find it?
And then to add to the confusion, in “British Fungus Flora 7 Cortinariaceae”, Watling and Gregory, 1993, on page 20, there is the listing for Galerina myriadophylla. It says there that this was previously misidentified as Kuehneromyces vernalis in Farve 1960, I am assuming within the British isles. But in the comments he states: “This is by some considered to be the same as the N. American Pholiota lignicola (Peck) Jacobss”. So, he seems to say that K. lignicola should be the same as Galerina myriadophylla, but is different from K. vernalis. Why this is true, or what are the differences, he doesn’t state. I would guess because it doesn’t occur often enough in his area.
It would be nice to read Redhead, Sydowia 37: 247 (1984) which named K. lignicola, but I do not have access to it.
Bottom paragraph on page 138
“This species was earlier known as Kuehneromyces vernalis (Peck)Singer & Smith, which name, however is illegitimate because….”
http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59575/0036/001/0138.htm
Your link claims, “The cultural characters of P. lignicola are very different from those of P. mutabilis and it is obvious that the two species are not closely related.” How does that indicate that K. lignicola is the current name for K. vernalis? I’m confused…
I’m still not sure about that comment, it seems a little vague. What are the sources for the “frequently place in Kuehneromyces close to mutabilis”? I’m not sure I’ve seen any sources claiming that K. vernalis and K. mutabilis should be a synonym. Which seems to be the claim on that comment.
Still think more literature needs to looked at…
Kuehneromyces lignicola seems to be the current name for Kuehneromyces vernalis
See the work of Jacobsson, S. 1989. Studies on Pholiota in culture. Mycotaxon 36: 95-145.
http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59575/0036/001/0138.htm
Don’t forget they were Galerina once also (along with Agaricus…). But the obs. from the Sierras are all K. vernalis, so that is the better name to use for that region at least…
Too many names for this thing. Kuehneromyces vernalis, Kuehneromyces lignicola, Pholiota vernalis, Pholiota lignicola…throw them in a hat, pull one out and you have an arguably correct epithet for this observation.
Redhead, Scott A. 1984. Mycological Observations, 4-12: on Kuehneromyces, Stropharia, Marasmius, Mycena, Geopetalum, Omphalopsis, Phaeomarasmius, Naucoria and Prunulus. Sydowia 37: 246-270.
The name Kuehneromyces vernalis is not the correct name for the commoner species on coniferous wood. The change of starting dates for valid publication of fungal names back to 1753 made Agaricus vernalis Bolton (1788) valid and Agaricus vernalis Peck (1872) a later illegitimate homonym which became Naucoria vernalis Saccardo (1887), with priority dating only from 1887 (Art. 72, note 1, I. C. B. N.). Realizing that A. vernalis Peck was a later homonym, Murrill (1917 a) unnecessarily proposed the new name Naucoria praecox Murr. The earliest available name is Agaricus lignicola Peck (1872) which current authors consider to be conspecific with A. vernalis PECK (SINGER & SMITH 1946 b, SMITH & HESLER 1968).
Therefore, the name Kuehneromyces lignicola (PECK) REDHEAD comb. nov. (basionym: Agricus lignicola PECK, N. Y. State Cab., Ann. Rep. 23: 91. 1872) is proposed to replace the name K. vernalis.