When: 2011-11-12

Collection location: Parque de Monsanto, Lisboa, Portugal [Click for map]

Who: zaca

No specimen available

Average dimensions of spores:
Me = 8.3 × 6 µm ; Qe = 1.4 (N=40).
Cystidia with: 65-80 × 16-22 µm.


Proposed Names

28% (4)
Based on microscopic features
47% (5)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
This is just to report that
By: zaca
2011-11-16 16:30:55 PST (-0800)

after several attempts I was not able to find any clamp connection in the pileipellis. The more I saw were regular septation of hiphae.

Hi Fredo.
By: zaca
2011-11-14 12:56:53 PST (-0800)

I will try to observe the clamp connections. Thanks.

Hi Zaca
By: Alfredo Justo (Fredo)
2011-11-14 12:32:44 PST (-0800)

I chose P. salicinus over P. cervinus because of the grey pileus with slightly squamulose center. The colors are definitely too grey for P. cervinus.

The absence of a strong bluing reaction does not rule out P. salicinus, the reaction can be variable.

The spore size also fits better P. salicinus than P. cervinus.

One additional character that would help is the presence of clamp-connections: present in P. salicinus absent in P. cervinus. They are most readily seen at the base of the cheilocystidia and on the pileipellis hyphae.

Hello Fredo and Alan.
By: zaca
2011-11-14 12:07:35 PST (-0800)

When posting this observation I doubted between the two species. I chose P. cervinus instead of P. salicinus mainly by the following reasons:
1 – No blue staining on stem was observed,
2 – P. salicinus is usually smaller than these specimens (caps varying between 5 and 7.5 cm),
3 – Cystidia of P. salicinus are shorter than observed.
Nevertheless, the spores are (only) a bit to big for P. cervinus. Is there any feature that permits to separate these two species?
Thanks, for your opinions.