|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
srgtm1a
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/05
Posts: 2,625
|
Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID
#5589579 - 05/04/06 10:55 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I was walking my dog through the forest the other day and I walked along these. At first I thought they were possibly just brown dunce caps, but I decided to bring some home and print them. The print for them was black, which makes me think they are possibly a type of panaeolus....not sure what type though. I don't think they are active or anything, but Just wanted to know what they were.
PICS OF THE MUSHROOM IN IT'S ENVIRONMENT
 
  
PICTURE OF PICKED MUSHROOM

GILL SHOTS
 
GILL CROSS SECTION

PICTURE OF PRINT (Black)

THIS IS THE COLOR THE CAP TURNED WHILE PRINTING...USE TO BE SOLID DARK BROWN
Edited by srgtm1a (05/04/06 11:04 AM)
|
shroominDole
Stranger


Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 482
Loc: O.C . S o. C a l .
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: srgtm1a]
#5589596 - 05/04/06 11:02 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A couple great shots there......those are in the same family and same spore color as Panaeolus.....those are Psathyrella (NOT active and unknown edibility)
Can look extreemly similar to Conocybe which usually has a rusty brown spore color (print) as Im sure you know and can be extreemly deadly
-------------------- Worlds Largest 'Liberty Cap' (Cali Libs Confirmed !) ' Comments On Hallucinogenic Agarics And The Hallucinations Of Those Who Study Them ' Alexander H. Smith Mycologia vol.69 1977
|
mskip23
Can It All Be So Simple!


Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1,522
Loc: Philly
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: shroominDole]
#5589605 - 05/04/06 11:06 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I would agree with shroomin dole nice pics and good description
-------------------- url=https://files.shroomery.org/files/05-26/988356075-Picture-278.gif] [/url
|
thosemynikes
Gangster


Registered: 01/18/06
Posts: 132
Loc: CA, monterey bay
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: srgtm1a]
#5589609 - 05/04/06 11:07 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
im not sure what they are but they do resemble conocybe tenera which is poisonous so i suggest to be cautious
|
thosemynikes
Gangster


Registered: 01/18/06
Posts: 132
Loc: CA, monterey bay
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: thosemynikes]
#5589633 - 05/04/06 11:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
agreed, psathyrella.
|
srgtm1a
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/05
Posts: 2,625
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: thosemynikes]
#5589643 - 05/04/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thanx for the responses guys....I didn't plan on eating them...lol...just thought they looked neat for a few pics and to find out what they exactly were. Thanx again. I'll stick to eating my morels Found those the other day too...right outside of chicago.
 
SRGTm1A
Edited by srgtm1a (05/04/06 11:41 AM)
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: srgtm1a]
#5590196 - 05/04/06 01:50 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Your mushrooms above are definitely Psathyrella species.
How do I know. Well they are and here is a google on Psathyrella for you so i do not hacve to dig in my files for images.
Your species is Psathyrella conopilea
From my files:


Not active. Have a shroomy day
mj
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
WHAT SHOULD BE IN IT?
Of all the genuses, Psathyrella might have had the most convoluted wrangling about what species belong in it, although there are several rival candidates among the dark-spored mushrooms. Kauffman, probably the most respected American mycologist of his day, said in 1918 that as an Agaricus subgenus, Psathyrella Fries (1838) refers to a tiny genus having the type species Ps. disseminata Fr. It was characterized by being Coprinus-like, but non-deliquescing, having black spores, a membranous, plicate to sulcate pileus, slender stem, vanishing veil, and gills that do not become variegate-dotted (to distinguish it from Panaeolus and some species of Coprinus). Kauffman says that Peck described 12 species, but that he had personally only seen one other, cretata (Lasch Fr.), which I have not seen mentioned more recently either in the U.S. or Europe, so a different name is apparently used now. This concept of Psathyrella lasted in the popular U.S. literature through Graham (1944), but has now been replaced by a completely different one. Everybody calls the new genus Psathyrella (Fr. Quél.). Singer says (1986) that Quélet decided in Champ. Jura Vosg. (1872-3) that Fries had gotten the type species of Psathyrella Fr. wrong because this species "did not fit the synopsis" that Fries published (although it appears to me to fit the one Kauffman says Fries published). He therefore rejected Fries' type species and replaced it with Psathyrella gracilis (Fr. Quél.). That seems reasonable enough; gracilis fits what Kauffman lists as the synopsis for Psathyrella just fine (as does disseminata). I have not figured out what Kauffman called gracilis yet, but it is common enough that he must have had a name for it.
a logical process I do not pretend to understand, other authors expanded Psathyrella (Fr. Quél.) into a huge genus, incorporating part of Hypholoma (Fr. Quél.) and all of Psathyra (Fr. Quél.). The original Psathyrella type species disseminata, after spending a while in Pseudocoprinus (Kummer), has been reabsorbed into Coprinus in most modern books. This appears to demonstrate again that current mycologists don't really care about macroscopic features, since the principal reason Fries separated Ps. disseminata in the first place was that it does not deliquesce. Why they would completely change the definition of a Friesian genus (and pretend that the Rules of Nomenclature somehow justify it) escapes me. If one can both change the type species and eliminate the original one from a genus, the new genus can have no overlap with the old one, as occurred for Psathyrella. How could people want it to have the same name, and why would they devise Rules that would make this happen?
Modern Psathyrella has spores that vary from blackish through brown, purplish brown, and pinkish gray (so spore color doesn't help much to tell if a species is a Psathyrella), but apparently browns in the yellow-to-orange range are excluded. Other characteristics are a veil that varies from absent to copious and persistent (so veil characteristics don't help either), a cap surface that varies from smooth to grooved all the way to hairy (also of no use), a stem that is "usually" fragile and whitish, and complex combinations of microscopic features. This genus concept obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with what Quélet was talking about in 1872-3 (he recognized both Hypholoma and Psathyra), so calling the genus Quélet's modification of Fries's name without giving a reference is only confusing. It solved some other nomenclatural problems: Hypholoma was hopelessly diverse, containing both the species people want to call Naematoloma now, and ones that are Psathyrella. I have not seen what was wrong with the name Psathyra. Quélet used Drosophila for a united genus in 1886, but it was later declared to be an invalid name, although no one I have read has bothered to say why. I hesitate to think that the fact that it is used for a genus of fruit flies has anything to do with it.
IDENTIFICATION PFRUSTRATION
Smith published a monograph financed by the National Science Foundation on North American Psathyrella in 1972, describing over 400 species, divided into ten subgenera, although a few have only one species each. Most of the large number of new species reported in it do not appear to have been used by anyone else since. The majority of them were found either near Ann Arbor, Michigan (Smith's home), or Lodgepole, Idaho (where he spent summers with his wife, who both was from there and was working on a paleontology degree in the area). Smith comments that a good year for Psathyrella occurs only once about every 10--15 years, and that in a good year not only are there an order of magnitude more individuals than in a bad year, there are also an order of magnitude more species (hmmm. . .). His monograph finishes with a large appendix containing many new species, and the comment that a third good year had occurred after the main part was finished. I have heard a professional mycologist state that, in his opinion, Smith had a tendency to describe aberrant individuals as if they were species. Although the greater than 400 species number is sometimes repeated, the only general book I have seen that describes even as many as 9% of this number is Smith, Smith and Weber (1979), who cover 35. Singer (1986), who likes a lot of species as well as most, only recognizes 74 Psathyrella species worldwide, acknowledging that many more have been named, and mentioning that species concept in Psathyrella is "not settled" (which appears to most often mean "people still refuse to use my concept"). Smith's monograph has made it improbable for any amateur to conclusively name almost any Psathyrella, because Smith's species are based on extremely detailed microscopic features that I certainly don't know how to demonstrate.
Psathyrellas are the quintescence of "little brown mushrooms" to most people, and I don't think any are considered good to eat. David Arora (1986) believes that "They constitute an immense, monotonous, metagrobolizing multitude of dull, whitish, buff, graying, or brownish mushrooms. . . ." (he does have a tendency to get caught up in his own rhetoric, doesn't he?). Although Psathyrellas are quite common, most mushroom books ignore them as completely as possible. Only five are illustrated in Bessette, Bessette, and Fischer, and twelve in Phillips (all rather ugly-looking fellows). I agree that many Psathyrellas are quite ignorable, especially in age, but think that when they are young enough, some have a quite striking appearance.
|
srgtm1a
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/05
Posts: 2,625
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: mjshroomer]
#5590477 - 05/04/06 03:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
cool, thanx mj...thanx for the extra info as well.
|
MustardMan
Peace Frog


Registered: 10/18/05
Posts: 970
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: Possible Panaeolus in IL...help ID [Re: srgtm1a]
#5590587 - 05/04/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Best ID request i've seen.
-------------------- Wild Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata
 Cultivated Cubensis

|
|