Pluteus under Limes

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by shroomboy

That probably rules out P. marcescibilis which has spores of up to 13 x 7 um, one of the many forms of P. prona may be a possibility, which has longer and wider spores 14 x 8 um. It certainly isn't P. candolleana on this occasion, that we can be clear about.

Unfortunately without a decent monograph to the genus, at your disposal, it is very difficult to pin a lot of these 'Psath's' down.

Andy

Hi Andy, thanks

I need to recalibrate my scope, so it may well fall within the range for P. marcescibilis. I do agree however that it still may be difficult for me to be certain.

John

[mykonik]

Originally Posted by shroomboy

That probably rules out P. marcescibilis which has spores of up to 13 x 7 um, one of the many forms of P. prona may be a possibility, which has longer and wider spores 14 x 8 um. It certainly isn't P. candolleana on this occasion, that we can be clear about.

Unfortunately without a decent monograph to the genus, at your disposal, it is very difficult to pin a lot of these 'Psath's' down.

Andy

Ahem !!

Since when did P. prona have appendiculate veil remnants Andy (said Mykonik, sternly !!)

And spore measurements for P. marcescibilis can be up to 14.5mu long fide. KIts van Waveren !

Tied in with John's comment about possible recalibration of scope I'm still inclined to say that it's P. marsescibilis !

Nick

[shroomboy]

I have pics ofP. prona with slight velar remnants Nick, so you know how these things vary between specimens?

My spore measurements for P. marcescibilis were taken from B&K the max is less than those from KITS. But I have no problem with it 'most likely' being P. marcescibilis since John's scope needs calibrating and I did say 'probably' rules out P. marcescibilis (Said Shroomboy Mykobullied!!)

Andy

[FungiJohn]

Boys, Boys

The average spore size (sample size = 50) after calibration is 13.6 mu x 7.1 mu

P. marcescibilis

John