|
Grim11311
Supporter


Registered: 12/20/19
Posts: 281
Last seen: 1 day, 20 hours
|
ID please
#27730231 - 04/11/22 12:52 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Hi guys. Found this growing in my garden. This is a patch I created for failed attempts at growing pan cyan jamaican. The patch was created by planting some grass and then i placed some horse manure, straw, and some store bought compost on top. Placed some agar wedges from pan cyan agar plates in there and about 10 cc of failed LC.
But i dont think these are pan cyan
--------------------
|
Anglerfish
hearing things



Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 18,643
Loc: Norvegr
Last seen: 12 minutes, 51 seconds
|
|
A species in the genus Coprinopsis.
--------------------
★★★★★
|
w03
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/21
Posts: 203
Loc: VA, USA
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
|
|
Would strongly favor Coprinellus flocculosus over any of the Coprinopsis here. The relevant C.sis (sect. Lanatulae, Cinerea, Radiate) have filamentose velum which breaks up into cobwebby strands or tufts rather than the clumpy, thick patches on this specimen (and this is on the contrary very typical of floccose velum). The cap is also more pigmented at the apex and with coarser plications than on the aforementioned C.sis.
Of course another great way to tell would be looking for a pseudovolva at the base, but the current characteristics should suffice.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,271
Last seen: 9 hours, 1 minute
|
Re: ID please [Re: w03]
#27731306 - 04/12/22 11:30 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
RenegadeMycologist
On the case



Registered: 12/05/20
Posts: 3,817
Loc: Serbia
Last seen: 7 days, 23 hours
|
|
Coprinellus sect. Flocculosi
--------------------
l e a r n i n g t h i n g s
|
w03
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/21
Posts: 203
Loc: VA, USA
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
|
|
Are you sure? I'm with Renegade on this one. The coarse plications on the specimen point away from C.sis sect. Picaceae for me, and both the velar texture as well as the coloration and shape of the pileus don't really match C.sis picacea.
Of course it's not my place to just be like "you're wrong" without more consensus on it, I sent you a ping in the chat with the other identifiers where we discussed it if you have a chance to drop by.
|
Duggstar


Registered: 01/20/09
Posts: 6,273
Loc: Ireland
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
RenegadeMycologist said: Coprinellus sect. Flocculosi
I think so too.
|
Doc9151
Mycologist


Registered: 02/23/17
Posts: 13,753
Loc: Gulf Coast USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
|
I can't say that anyone has this one right since microscopy is needed to separate the two from one another. The closest we can get accurately, is to say that it's an ink cap.
--------------------
  Psilocybe cubensis data collection thread. please help with this project if you hunt wild cubensis. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=26513593&page=0&vc=1#26513593
|
w03
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/21
Posts: 203
Loc: VA, USA
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
|
Re: ID please [Re: Doc9151]
#27733009 - 04/13/22 02:48 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This is certainly true between closely related taxa with similar appearances, such between two species in C.sis sect. Lanatulae, or trying to tell apart species of mica caps - but that's not the case here. The broad statement that "you can't tell ink caps apart" is generally made by those who don't care to do so in the first place.
You can distinguish C.lus sect. Flocculosi and C.sis sect. Picaceae, I promise. Feel free to show these pics to any experts that specialize in coprinoid taxa and see what they say.
|
Doc9151
Mycologist


Registered: 02/23/17
Posts: 13,753
Loc: Gulf Coast USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: ID please [Re: w03]
#27733046 - 04/13/22 03:22 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
w03 said: This is certainly true between closely related taxa with similar appearances, such between two species in C.sis sect. Lanatulae, or trying to tell apart species of mica caps - but that's not the case here. The broad statement that "you can't tell ink caps apart" is generally made by those who don't care to do so in the first place.
You can distinguish C.lus sect. Flocculosi and C.sis sect. Picaceae, I promise. Feel free to show these pics to any experts that specialize in coprinoid taxa and see what they say.
You tell that the professional mycologist that wrote the keys and performed the last revision. It is clearly stated in the keys that microscopy is needed to separate the two because they share the same macro characteristics. How many studies have you performed or papers written on the subject? I will stick with those that did their homework.
--------------------
  Psilocybe cubensis data collection thread. please help with this project if you hunt wild cubensis. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=26513593&page=0&vc=1#26513593
|
w03
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/21
Posts: 203
Loc: VA, USA
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
|
Re: ID please [Re: Doc9151]
#27733325 - 04/13/22 06:58 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that you wrote the keys and the last revision - and are you referring to Wächter & Melzer (2020) or another paper? If another then I would very much like to read it, and see what some of the mycologists I'm in contact with have to say about the issue.
Otherwise if you're trying to just call me out on "not having done my homework", I have read through the aforementioned paper. Nowhere does it specifically mention requiring microscopy and especially not for the two sections discussed, only that their key was based on microscopic features. Even if it did, it is worth remembering that mycologists adept at microscopic identification are not necessarily so at macromorphology, and that the claims of "only identifiable by micro" do not reliably hold out in the long term.
So in short, what specifically have -you- done regarding coprinoids, if you're going to pull judgement based on clout?
Edited by w03 (04/13/22 07:20 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,271
Last seen: 9 hours, 1 minute
|
Re: ID please [Re: w03]
#27733537 - 04/13/22 08:53 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I just looked at the photos again more closely, looks more like Coprinellus flocculosus to me now. Some other people think that too, so I think that's what it is.
|
RenegadeMycologist
On the case



Registered: 12/05/20
Posts: 3,817
Loc: Serbia
Last seen: 7 days, 23 hours
|
Re: ID please [Re: Doc9151]
#27733839 - 04/14/22 04:23 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc9151 said: The closest we can get accurately, is to say that it's an ink cap.
Speak for yourself please.
--------------------
l e a r n i n g t h i n g s
|
Anglerfish
hearing things



Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 18,643
Loc: Norvegr
Last seen: 12 minutes, 51 seconds
|
Re: ID please [Re: w03]
#27733868 - 04/14/22 05:13 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
w03 said: Would strongly favor Coprinellus flocculosus over any of the Coprinopsis here. The relevant C.sis (sect. Lanatulae, Cinerea, Radiate) have filamentose velum which breaks up into cobwebby strands or tufts rather than the clumpy, thick patches on this specimen (and this is on the contrary very typical of floccose velum). The cap is also more pigmented at the apex and with coarser plications than on the aforementioned C.sis.
Of course another great way to tell would be looking for a pseudovolva at the base, but the current characteristics should suffice.
Thanks for useful info. 
--------------------
★★★★★
|
Doc9151
Mycologist


Registered: 02/23/17
Posts: 13,753
Loc: Gulf Coast USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
|
Now, see you obviously have a comprehension issue because nowhere did I say or imply that I wrote the keys!! i asked you a question and what your accomplishments are in the field, because you're implying that you know better than redhead et al who has actually done the work. If you have something that disproves their work, please share it. But, I will stick with what the professionals say and they say that microscopy is needed.
--------------------
  Psilocybe cubensis data collection thread. please help with this project if you hunt wild cubensis. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=26513593&page=0&vc=1#26513593
|
w03
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/21
Posts: 203
Loc: VA, USA
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
|
Re: ID please [Re: Doc9151] 1
#27733983 - 04/14/22 07:12 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I may direct the same to you - it was a clarification question, and I specified as much.
Redhead et al. - are you referencing this paper? https://doi.org/10.2307/1224525
If so, it is, first, 20 years out of date. They also do not state specifically that microscopy is needed to distinguish C.lus sect. Flocculosi from C.sis sect. Picaceae. See the previously referenced paper for a more current treatment of the Psathyrellaceae coprinoids. Melzer also has his own key from 2018 which is more detailed than the one in the paper but out of date on the taxonomy.
You reference generally "professionals", with the mistaken implication that I'm not in contact with multiple mycologists on a regular basis. Have you, or is your assertion based on your interpretation of one paper which you assume is set in stone? The broad statement of "macro ID isn't possible" is not something which can be decided by one statement from a single mycologist in a decades old publication.
If you are still in doubt, I can invite you to a group dedicated to the discussion of the Psathyrellaceae, and the professionals you laud can tell you precisely why "macro ID impossible" does not hold up. The study of these taxa has developed a lot in the intervening decades, and dare I say you could stand to learn a lot.
Edited by w03 (04/14/22 07:13 AM)
|
|