Hey guys!
I grew the suppossedly hispanica from the spores i got from the user Poison Drink, who got them from Captain future (and i think he got them from Workman?). I assumed the ID was done correctly by the original collector even though I have slight doubts as unlike the original description the stipe doesn’t bruise blue and the fruits also show some veil (the key in Noordeloos monography about Strophariaceae s.l says it lacks veil).
  
              
I also managed to find an article from 2006 in a spanish magazine where someone talks about this species being found apparently in Euskadi (a región near Pyrinees but not as high), but seeing the description, the spore pics and the macroscopical details (like the cap resembling more like P. semilanceata) i got a bit confused, cause it doesn’t look like the supossedly P. hispanica from most grows posted on Shroomery. But on the other hand it is pretty common that indoor or cultivated mushrooms end looking really different from wild ones, so…
The following pics and description are from the specimens that were sent by the author of the article to Guzman for confirmation and also the same ones from which the genbank sequence KC669289.1 came from (Fernandez-Sasia's voucher). The suppossedly hispanica imo shows more resemblance to P. semilanceata. Afaik P. semilanceata doesn't fruit from dung, but it is not rare that some fruits can be found fruiting through dung cause the mycelium being underneath the poo. Could that have lead to the false asumption that it was a different species (cause the collector thought it was not semilanceata cause of dung)?
  
If you search this hispanica sequence in genbank (KC669289.1), after running blast you see a 100% match with P. semilanceata sequences, so probably this article was written upon a misidentification made by the author of the article and later also (mistakenly?)ratified by Guzmán.
It also gets my attention the spore micrographs which show a highly truncated germ pore that i think i couldn’t see on the spores from my grow, but perhaps it is caused by the low quality of my microscope which causes some aberration?
All that said, i had samples from my grow sequenced and results in genbank apparently matched it with one of the P. fimetaria sequence uploaded to genbank. So perhaps the "hispanica" i grew is just P. fimetaria and either there was a misidentification and the true hispanica keeps lost and waiting to be found again or it is just that both are synonyms? But which species could be synonyms? P. hispanica and P. fimetaria or P. hispanica and P. semilanceata?

P. liniformans is easily distinguished by the gelatinous lamella edge, at least on fresh specimens, idk if dried samples when rehydrated show that elasticity (i have found P. liniformans in NW spain and in north portugal too and in same dung some fruits have elastic lamella edge and other bigger fruits from the same dung not having that separable edge when fresh). I wonder if that elasticity is lost when fruits mature or what, but it should be possible to check under microscope the gelatinous layer with cresyl blue i guess. I should check the samples i keep in my fungarium cause in one dung sample i found fruits that resembled to me more of fimetaria (showing convex cap with acute umbo and what seems like veil with spores) and others more like liniformans (i could send some samples to you Alan if you want to check them or sequence). The ones that were consistent with the liniformans description were sequenced and matched with the liniformans sequence that Alan found on Netherlands few years ago.
Guzmán said that P. hispanica is different from fimetaria cause hispanica lacks veil and has larger cheilocystidia, and different from semilanceata cause of the acute umbonate pileus... but seeing the grows from P. semilanceata that shows that unusual morphology on the cap, it seems like morphology can be a bit wobbly sometimes when it comes to name new species, as it can show some variation due to causes that can be overlooked (i.e. environmental conditions). It happened with Amanita porrinensis which was described as new species in 1980 and found in two subsequent years and never again... only once time more in italy apparently. After sequencing the samples, it was said to be a form of Amanita phalloides.
Edited by Inocybe (10/24/23 02:34 AM)
|