Some nice finds today

[adampembs]

All in beech wood. Some spruce + one oak.

[Chris Yeates]

and they are . . . ?

[adampembs]

Labeled obvious ones, Working on the others.. assuming one is a Tricholoma (sticky cap, dry stem)

[Steve]

Good luck with the “Xerocomus” Adam. Alex Henrici has been updating us with the latest chaos in Boletus taxonomy in the last few issues of Field Mycology as you may know. Here’s a quote (FM 15.3)

“What shall we do about Boletus?

The following brief historical summary of successive British accounts of the boletes is both a

reminder of how wrong we used to be and a preface to the inconvenient truth that we are still

wrong today. Many further new genera are evidently needed, and hence much further

reassignment of species to these genera, before any sort of stability can be reached”.

Since then he has added another half dozen genera for the old-fashioned Boletes to be split into.

To me, trying to record Boletes like the one you show is like writing with your finger in shifting sand (for me I would probably record it as “Boletus chrysenteron senso latto” “Red-Cracking Bolete”, as I think we might be wasting our time chasing shadows trying to assign the new names such as B. cisalpinus etc etc. It’s either that or increase your dose of Diazepam.

Here is what Alex Henrici says about (a part of!) B. chrysenteron:

“To the confusion of all, one common species, previously a part of Boletus chrysenteron, was moved in recent years to X. rubellus in Courtecuisse & Duhem (1995), then became B. declivitatum in Watling & Hills (2005) and in the checklist, X. communis in Hills (2008) and Funga Nordica, and is now Xerocomellus engelii for Sutara (named in honour of Heinz Engel who had earlier given it yet another name B. quercinus, but only provisionally)”. 😥

As generalist field mycologists we maybe need to stand back from the molecular splitters (who of course are scientifically doing the right thing) and start to lump finds together into something that we and lay people can understand, in order to retain some of our sanity. I have a column in our records which describes finds as “Jelly”, “Mushroom”, “Bolete”, “Crust”, “Tiny Disco” etc. At least non-mycologists can get some kind of picture about what kind of fungi we are finding at Longshaw.

Another quote from Alex Henrici about the new Bolete genera in FM 16.2 (April 2015):

“I reiterate my previous comment that there is no obligation to adopt any of them”.

Thanks Alex!

[Leif]

Tricholoma sp (number 4) looks like Russula foetens, or similar. Often seen poking up through mossy soil, partly buried.

[Chris Yeates]

Steve wrote:

Good luck with the “Xerocomus” Adam. Alex Henrici has been updating us with the latest chaos in Boletus taxonomy in the last few issues of Field Mycology as you may know. . . . .

As generalist field mycologists we maybe need to stand back from the molecular splitters (who of course are scientifically doing the right thing) and start to lump finds together into something that we and lay people can understand, in order to retain some of our sanity. I have a column in our records which describes finds as “Jelly”, “Mushroom”, “Bolete”, “Crust”, “Tiny Disco” etc. . . . .

It’s not always the “molecular” people who are the “splitters”. Here is a page from https://www.funnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/MycNotes21-Foray2013Presentation.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.funnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/MycNotes21-Foray2013Presentation.pdf:

[attachment=0]Xerocomus.jpg[/attachment]
From a molecular point of view all those collections, with all their variation of colour and texture (surely 5 different species according to the taxonomy that separates using those features), are the same thing! As Werner Heisenberg (he of the “uncertainty principle”) once said:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

Chris

[adampembs]

Leif wrote:

Tricholoma sp (number 4) looks like Russula foetens, or similar. Often seen poking up through mossy soil, partly buried.

I think you are right!

Spores with mostly isolated sharp amyloid warts. It was only recently I said Russulas are quite easy to spot as a genus 😳

[Leif]

It is rather atypical. The brittle stem is perhaps the best clue.

[adampembs]

Russula foetens looks good. Initial oily and weird followed by hot taste.

Oily smell

KOH negative on stipe.

Peels 1/3 to centre.

The bolete is looking like Xerocomellus chrysenteron or X.bubalinus. The only colour change I noticed was reddening after a few hours (the photo shows it after 2 days)

Spores 10.7 – 14.9 x 4.4 – 6.0 (avg 13.1 x 5.4)

@Steve

[adampembs]

The last (yellow) Russula looks good for fellea. Hot taste, smells of pelargoniums, and was in beech wood.

Also has true dermatocystidia.

(giving up on the little red Russula – hot, peels almost to centre, spores too small for betularum 7.3 – 8 x 6.4 -7)

[Steve]

Hi Adam,

I think that it’s brilliant to see you post your finds and then let us share in your identifications – sometimes it’s a lonely business peering down a scope all by yourself, whilst someone else does the cooking and cleaning 😆 . It also takes a bit of courage – but I think this forum is pretty positive and supportive.

Seriously, I think the kind of “peer review” that websites like UK Fungi and Asco France afford – and I think the ABFG have one too – are a good way for us to get some validity for our species lists. Big lists produced by lone operators without available supporting evidence (easy to collect these days from our digital microscope cameras with scales) will tend be treated as waste paper in the future by those who know better – and rightly so.

A problem shared is a problem halved.

Now I’m going to make a start on this, a single mangy LBM, one of the fairly small list of 40 or so finds we made at Longshaw on Thursday. I guessed it might be Conocybe, which would be interesting coming from an old woodland path edge. I’ve chased away the spiders, done the microscopy and dried the specimen – it may be something special – who knows!!

Cheers,

Steve

[adampembs]

Good luck with that one, Steve 😮

I understand Conocybe stem cystidia are important characters to check, so hopefully there are still some left on that specimen

You know you have spent too much time doing this when you have a dream about an exciting rust fungus. 😯

[Steve]

Yes Adam,

I have now learned that stem caulocystidia are VERY important in Conocybe 😮

I made a start on this challenging LBM, but luckily it is more dessicated than decayed, despite the spider’s web.

We found it in grass in a mixed woodland by a path.

After rehydrating overnight and attempting to get a spore print, I just got a very meagre deposit which was OK when I used a fine hypodermic syringe to put a minute amount of water on the spores, and capture them in a tiny pool in the centre of the cover slip.

Cap and stem are all a sombre dull grey-brown. Cap 2.2 cm diameter rather featureless. Stem finely longitudinally grooved, 3.5 cm x 1.5 mm with a darkened, non-bulbous base. Slightly white at the apex, otherwise not really fibrillose.

Forgot to take a vertical section so I need to check the herbarium specimen for gill attachment, flesh colour and thickness, stem hollow or not.

Spores were in good condition. Yellow-brown under high-power, 12-15.5 x 6-7.5 um, with a germ-pore approx 2 um. I suspected at first that they were Galerina.

Basidia were approx 25 x 10 um, all those I could see were either 1- or 2-spored.

After a long search I found a few typical Conocybe skittle-shaped cystidia, about 7 wide at the base and 3 wide at the heads.

The cap cuticle was of pear-shaped cells mostly about 20 um across.

Knowing that this was a Conocybe narrowed down the field, so I checked through Fungi of Switzerland Vol 4 first of all. There’s just one drab-looking species with similar sized spores, cystidia and cap cuticle cells: Conocybe pseudopilosella, now C. pulchella, with 161 FRDBI records distributed right across the UK, including my area (around Sheffield), where we have 2 records, the most recent from 2006. The other from 1996 was in grass in a mixed woodland, like ours. Unfortunately it has 4-spored basidia as well as 2-spored, so I need to look for these.

Annoyingly the most important microscopic feature are the polymorphic stem caulocystidia – which I usually find quite difficult to deal with.

Using the Funga Nordica key you come very quickly to the stem caulocystidia, so I was stumped.

Using Moser’s key and searching for spores and cystidia of appropriate dimensions led me to typical reddish-brown Conocybe species.

So I have to look at the stem caulocystidia to get any further, check the basidia again and see if I can get some more macro features. Or paint the bay window,

Steve

[Steve]

Following on from above…

From microscopy of the herbarium specimen I found what might be polymorphic caulocystidia at the stem apex, but no convincing lecythiform (skittle-shaped) cystidia. Spores turned red-brown in 10% KOH. No additional macro-features were got from the rehydrated specimen.

Using Funga Nordica:

Sect. Pilosellae: Caulocystidia non-lecythiform; stem base without a volva-like zone

1. Basidia in maority 2-spored

2. Spores ellipsoidal side view, germ pore not papilla-like

4. Sp on av > 12 um

6. Cap pale or dark

7. and 8. – none of the 4 species fits spores and/or macro features.

Closest match using is still Conocybe pseudopilosella, as described in FOS, now it seems, C. pulchella – but the taxonomy looks confused in the FRDBI list.

However, it seems to have only 2-spored basidia. Also the description in Funga Nordica of C. pulchella is not particularly close, although it includes the spore colour change in KOH.

Conclusion. Conocybe sp. (2-spored)

Steve 😡

[adampembs]

I think it’s one of those genera where it’s tricky even when you have 2 or 3 specimens in really good condition. Something as difficult as Conocybe is probably best passed by unless its in better condition. I took a look at the key to genera in Funga Nordica 2012, as I try to avoid assuming something is from a particular genus unless its really obvious. From the first principles in Funga Nordica, assuming the spores are pale to vivid or dull brown, you get to key G. Then we get to #64 where it ask if cap is fibrillose, felty, granulose or scaly at least in outer part, and from the photo, I can’t get past that point.

I’m not certain those are caulocystidia. They look like undifferentiated hyphae that are just sticking out. They don’t look like any of the caulocystidia on p740 of FN. Section Mixtae, to which C.pulcella belongs should have at least some capitate caulocystidia.

I wish I could be of more help, but have done very little with Conocybe. I wouldn’t even be confident enough to say Conocybe sp. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can shed some light on it.

[Author]

Posts