crep art.jpg

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Thanks Doug
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-06 04:33:36 EDT (-0400)

for straight forward answers!

Actually, the use of variety names shouldn’t be a big issue. You can choose to ignore them as merely extremes of one species, or use them if your own experience tells you that they could be separate species, if there are no intermediate forms. But no author seems to claim that, otherwise they would have split calolepis in two species.

I don’t have access to the italian book or Senn-Irlet’s work on Crepidotus, only bits and pieces from the web and the answers here that refer to them.
I’m sure it’s impressive art – so that is what makes it trustworthy?

I can understand if the older work from the mid 90’s didn’t use DNA-sequences, but the late book by Consiglio & Setti..? Without comparing DNA of collections from different hosts, different parts of the world etc, the investigation is hardly complete.

I have also tried to find out what was originally meant by C. mollis var. squamulosus Coutinho, and I found the description, in “Boletim Sociedade Broteriana” vol IX:
“Derminus (Crepidotus) mollis (Schaeff.) Sohroefc. var. squamulosus,
P. Cout. —Pileo ut in typo gelatinoso-carnoso, molle, flaccido
(nec carnoso-firmo ut in C. calolepide), 1-4 cm. lato (nec 0,5-1,5 cm.),
pallido escamulis brunneo-rufescentibus variegato. Nos troncos:
arredores de Lisboa; Ribeira de Caparide.
No meu Catálogo de 1919 esta variedade está confundida sob a
mesma denominação com o Crepidotus calolepis ; desta última espécie
encontrei aqui há pouco óptimos exemplares sôbre as Oliveiras, e
recebi também muito bons exemplares, provenientes do Pinhal da
Marinha (arredores de Cascais), colhidos em Eucaliptos.”
That makes me wonder – what was his interpretation of calolepis?

My first objection – it is erroneous to swich a variety name of mollis to a variety name of calolepis.
Second objection – we can’t assume that any scaly mollis/calolepis that just happens to have a similar spore size as a described variety “squamulosus” automatically is the same.

By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2012-04-05 21:23:08 EDT (-0400)

> They define a set of nine taxonomically significant observables, and make a matrix of these for all species in the work.

Yes, the only part is that it is not clear how they arrived at what is “taxonomically significant”. Otherwise, the book is an excellent piece of art.

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-04-05 15:44:57 EDT (-0400)

Well, there is variability, and then there is variability. In each individual there is a large variability, yes, but they will tend towards an ave. In the book they plot out the ave. length and width for C. mollis, and the two variations of C. calolepis. They put a line in the middle, where var. calolepis is from 6.7 to 7.7 um in length on ave., and var. squamulosus varies from 8.3 to 9.3 um in length on ave. There looks somewhat like a cluster at the low end, and a cluster at the high end, but if you ignore like 2 obs. at each end, you could believe that there is just a smooth variation in sizes from 6.7 to 9.3 in length on ave., and maybe the split at about 8.0um is artificial. I don’t think they have much more evidence for the variations. But that is how they decided to org. the sec. Crepidotus samples.

But if you ignore that argument, then you turn the page, and they do it again for sec. Applanatus, splitting C. applanatus and C. malachius, and then where are you?

frankly Doug…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-04-05 14:02:18 EDT (-0400)

I think that you just proved Irene’s argument here!

seems like the “variety” designation is artificial at best. spore size varies!!!
and when all else is the same…

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-04-05 13:54:36 EDT (-0400)

They do admit at a few places how the section Crepidotus does seem to hard to separate into species. But the “more important” separation seems to be on the “pileus with squamulose surface”, where they say C. mollis does not have this surface, and C. calolepis does. Also it seems to be clear difference in the pigmentation of the thick surface hyphae, C. mollis has unpigmented, or bearly pigmented hyphae.

Then C. calolepis gets split on var. calolepis and var. squamulosus, like I said on spore size. They do bit of a thing about how the spore volume is clearly different, but that is just taking a small difference, and then cubing that and stating now it is a big difference… They do state that other microscopinc features are all the same, cystidia, pileus surface and so on.

I would think using their clasifications here, you have C. calolepis var. squamulosus there.

Doug, another question
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-05 07:02:01 EDT (-0400)

Does the book tell us why have they chosen a variety name of calolepis, and not of mollis? At least the basionym C. mollis var. squamulosus makes sense, even if it originally was a synonym to calolepis…
C. calolepis var. squamulosus doesn’t make sense at all.

Spore size
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-05 04:54:20 EDT (-0400)

on my northern obs is on average 9 × 6.5 µm. The vast majority is of that size, with few exceptions. Some extremes reach 12 × 7 (too few and too extreme to include).

And yes, the area counts as a part of Europe even to italians, but certainly not mediterranean :-)

Adding to the argument…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-04-04 15:20:15 EDT (-0400)

Well just to add to the argument, here are the two that I’ve looked at in California:

One with a 9.8 um ave length, and the other with 8.6 um, with std. dev. of a little less than 1 um.

What was the ave. spore size you got for the guy up in, what was it Lapland? Also I wonder if the Italians would consider Lapland part of Europe?

Sounds fine to me to just call them C. calolepis…

Ah, ooops…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-04-04 15:06:59 EDT (-0400)

I need to read more carefully. On page 72 of the book is a tree that looks like a clear maximum parsemony analysis of the species in the book. Well, this is a maximum parsemony analysis, but it is not of dna squences. Instead of doing an analysis of a matrix of aligned sequences, they make their own matrix. They define a set of nine taxonomically significant observables, and make a matrix of these for all species in the work. Then they make a tree based on this matrix. Hah, I don’t think I’ve seen this done before? I saw the tree, which looks like maximum parsemony and assumed it was made from dna squences. Nope, a tree based on their own matrix… Not sure how well this works, esp. with only 9 obserables? But they make it look like a reasonable tree at least.

Wait a minute -
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-04 13:40:04 EDT (-0400)

based on DNA differences? Where are those sequences??

By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-04 13:37:01 EDT (-0400)

Have a look at obs 49874, I have measured the spores.

By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2012-04-04 12:56:37 EDT (-0400)

This name really comes into use in the “Il Genere Crepidotus in Europa”, G. Consiglio, L. Setti (2008). There they split up C. mollis, C. calolepis var. calolepis, and C. calolepis var. squamulosus based on dna differences, pigmentation in the hyphae, and the range of spores sizes. Where var. squamulosus is consistently larger than var. calolepis. And then they admit that for other authors there isn’t enough of a difference, and they are all the same species. Not sure I like the extra var.‘s but I like the book, and it does well with cleaning up and organizing the genus, so I’ve been using what they say in this case. The disc. here for spore size has 6.8-8 um for var. calolepis and 8.7-10 um for var. squamulosus, for the length.

Usually I also do not like it
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-04-03 13:04:00 EDT (-0400)

when spore size or cystidia size as in Conocybe is the sole difference in delimitating species. But do not tell that our Austrian president of mycology, hehe!
In this case I tend to agree however. For me it seems that the fruitbodies are also constantly smaller and occur more in thermophilous regions. But then again species and variety seem to prefer aspen as fruiting place as does C. mollis.

I just have to say
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-03 12:56:39 EDT (-0400)

that I’m not impressed by taxonomy based on a statistical difference in spore size by 0.5 µm when the description of “var. squamulosus” says 7,8-10,2 × 5,2-6,5 µm.

But, a new variety name doesn’t make a new species, and I prefer not to use such names anyway..

But as always,
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-04-03 06:44:13 EDT (-0400)

if this whole concept can be applied to American findings I am everything else than sure.

By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-04-03 06:43:37 EDT (-0400)

I posted Crepidotus calolepis var. squamulosus too in the past, just look for the observations. It is a name created by Senn-Irlet and can be distinguished from calolepis var. calolepis mainly by I think bigger spores. It is a good variety but I agree the name is not chosen very wisely :)
At me in Eastern Austria var. squamulosus is much more frequent than var. calolepis and even Crepidotus mollis.

Crepidotus calolepis var. squamulosus
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-04-03 05:12:46 EDT (-0400)

what kind of name is that? C. calolepis IS squamulose, so var. squamulosus sounds like a superfluous variety name. If this is var. squamulosus, how is Crepidotus calolepis var. calolepis described?

The names I know, are Crepidotus mollis and Crepidotus calolepis (usually listed as Crepidotus mollis var. calolepis).
Then there is Crepidotus mollis var. squamulosus, by some authors a synonym to the latter, by others exactly what it sounds like – a variety of mollis (and different from calolepis).