Thank you all for your comments. I know P. aurea different in comparism to this collection. Just have a look to these photos:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/...
http://www.natur-in-nrw.de/...

Here you could see how big the basidiocarps could grow:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/...

This is a collection of fruitbodies from P. aurea in the near of the Bavarian Forest National Park which I photographed:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/...

Now you could understand my grave doubts about your determination as P. aurea. I couldn’t believe that. And I must ask again: Did anyone made a spore print? What about the results of the microscopic analysis?

Regards, Andreas

it is the “chunky” stature, clustered habit, color, prominent partial veil, and habitat that lead to P. aurea. However, from further examination of Cystoderma fallax descriptions, it appears that nothing in this photo can definitely rule it out. Therefore I’m backing off to “promising”.

These were young sporocarps taken from a large cluster that grew on a roadside in a mixed forest. It was at a mushroom foray and several mycologists came with the same name, i.e. Phaeolepiota aurea.

The very membranous partial veil, granular lower stipe, golden-yellow colors, and arrowhead shape to the young buttons point me towards P. aurea.

It does look slightly atypical, but most Cystoderma I see in my area are much less robust, much more granular-messy, and with the exception of C. fallax, less strongly veiled.

Thanks for asking us to qualify our votes – a better learning environment.

Why do you think its Phaeolepiota aurea?
Please explain your vote.

I couldn’t see here P. aurea. The basidiocarps seems to be too small and the stems are more bright colored then the pileus. Perhaps a Cystoderma species? Did you made a spore print?
Regards, Andreas