Observation 82309: Mythicomyces corneipes (Fr.) Redhead & A.H. Sm.

Original Herbarium Label: Mythicomyces corneipes (Fr.) Redhead & A.H. Sm.
Growing in the alluvial Red Alder (Alnus rubra) stand with Vine Maple (Acer circinatus); among moss; at the site of Mycena pterigena (MO 80490)
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F27838

Species Lists


Cheilocystidia stained with /lactose acid
Cheilocystidia with KOH – only the wall became bright yellow
Cheilocystidia with KOH – only the wall became bright yellow
Pleurocystidia – similar to cheilocystidia

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
that would be fine
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2017-06-01 02:03:51 CST (+0800)

were MO populated only or primarily by mycologists. it is not. there are people of all walks and stripes of different skill and interest levels. some of their observations appear with completely incorrect IDs, and it is a good thing that those observations are corrected with accurate information. conversely, it can be quite a bad thing for someone with no experience or knowledge to proliferate misidentifications throughout the site with equal weight as any other user. consensus is supposed to balance this a little, but its vote weight algorithm (ie: contributor ranking system) is thoroughly flawed.

some kind of user class designation like ‘Curator’ or ‘Specialist,’ in which some deference and recognition was given to certain users’ experience and knowledge over others, would be one possible solution to the problem you have long described, but this has been talked about for so long in so many different ways and places and times that by now I wonder if any development in this direction will ever take place.

MO Naming is a nice example of Citizen Science
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-06-01 00:29:58 CST (+0800)

Since we joined Mushroom Observer in January 2011, I have been pointing out that the MO Naming is faulty. It is a mixture of a low-brow taxonomy, ID, and applying absurd MO Rules Of Naming) . Keep the MO as it is, but replace the one of the MO Observation Title lines with the “Original Herbarium Label:” that only the original user would be allowed to change! I am putting such a line in the Notes, where our original ID is safe. The Naming is the Achilles’ Heel of MO. I have met many professional mycologists who are lurking on MO, but would not post any observations. Suggest the name changes in the Comments, not by deprecating, voting and Consensus! Don’t be afraid, the MO would not collapse without them!

Great find!
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-10-09 19:12:55 CST (+0800)

Congrats! This is one of the fungi which I will probably never see in my life.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-12-18 17:48:55 CST (+0800)

If you got a purple-black spore print from your collection, it was probably Hypholoma after all. It’s pale brownish in Mythicomyces.

Not easy to ID
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-12-18 12:25:15 CST (+0800)

As you can see from the ID history, we also had a bad time to ID it. Adolf is not a mycologist and he was not ashamed to post it on MO as an unknown fungus. It was finally identified by Irene Andersson. Oluna then realized that she collected it only once, in 1999 or so, in Burns Bog near Vancouver, when she was doing inventory of fungi and plants.

Mythicomyces is a genus described by Scott Redhead (Ottawa, Ont. Canada) and we cannot change it back. Oluna still needs his help once-a-while. In naming our MO Observations we follow Species Fungorum or Index Fungorum. In Entolomataceae, we follow Largent. O+A C

Synonymous with…
By: Michael W (Michael Wallace)
2011-12-18 10:16:44 CST (+0800)

Psilocybe corneipes (Fr.) P. Karst

By: Danny Miller (alpental)
2011-12-18 10:08:01 CST (+0800)

This one had been bugging me since we saw it at Breitenbush, and just today I finally had an Aha! moment and figured out what it was, and came here to see that you beat me to it by more than a month.

I got a purple-black spore print out of it back in Oregon but was led astray in Hypholoma for a while.

Mythicomyces corneipes is right on!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-11-13 17:24:43 CST (+0800)

Many thanks and congratulations, Irene. I have seen this species only once, in September 1999 in Burns Bog near Vancouver, BC. It was quite common there. I have completely forgotten how it looked. Thanks again, Oluna

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2011-11-13 07:30:17 CST (+0800)

I don’t think you understand… I am just going to go ahead and propose the name “Fungi sp.” for you, although I never propose this name for anything else. Macrocystidia was a suggestion by Irene, anyone can suggest any name they want. If you don’t like a name, then vote against it. That is how MO works. It’s not a perfect system, but we are just users of the site. If you don’t like a specific function of the site, you can contact Nathan Wilson, Jason Hollinger, or Martin Livezey and suggest an alternative. They are very open to user input and making the site better.

It is Fungus for sure!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-11-13 07:16:27 CST (+0800)

We posted this observation after Oluna had been unable to identify it. We hoped that some MO people would be able to tell us what it is or what it could be. Even the genus would be fine. However, it is unlikely that it is Macrocystidia. What makes you to think it is one? We would greatly appreciate this name as a suggestion, but not as a “change by the consensus”. If one, as you did, changes the name from “Fungus” to something more definite, he/she preempts other suggestions, some of which, hopefully, might be better. I don’t see any reason why one could not put his/her suggestion into a comment, but changing the name right-a-way, blocks the other people’s opinion and kills any other possible suggestions.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2011-11-13 05:10:08 CST (+0800)

If you do not enter in any name when you create the observation, it becomes “Fungi sp.” by default. But when someone comes along and proposes a new name, the default “Fungi Sp.” is replaced by the newly proposed name. If you want the name “Fungi sp.” to remain an option, then you must actually enter it in when you create the observation, or after the observation is created, propose the name “Fungi sp.” so that the name remains despite new proposals, and is not just a place holder.

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2011-11-13 05:00:21 CST (+0800)

What’s the matter, Adolf?

Anyone can propose “Fungi” and “call it that”. Since it is a fungus, I will certainly not vote against it.
Giving others a chance with a better suggestion, is one of the reasons why I rarely vote higher than “promising”.

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-11-13 04:20:35 CST (+0800)

Don’t change the [unknown] “Fungus” to Macrocystidia sp. based on just one MO subscriber’s guess. Give the others some chance. – Adolf

Created: 2011-11-12 17:38:32 CST (+0800)
Last modified: 2017-06-01 00:07:54 CST (+0800)
Viewed: 654 times, last viewed: 2018-12-06 21:23:30 CST (+0800)
Show Log