Lepiota id please

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Mike
When the suggestion is not mentioned in Phillips or Courtecuisse or Fungi of Switzerland you are not going to get too many people coming forward to agree or disagree. It is mentioned in Flora Neerlandica but when the first question in the Key is are the spores spurred and then goes on to ask about the microscopic elements of the pileus covering it isn't easy to confirm you find from a photo.
Having said that it does fit the macroscopic features quite well so it could be.

Mal

Hi Mal,
I was just curious that with so many "views" of the thread, no more people had suggested anything. My comments were made after looking up the suggested species in Encyclopedia of Fungi of Britain & Europe by Michael Jordan. The photo, description, etc. in which seemed to fit Adam's photo's & written description very well. (As yet I've been unable to get hold of a copy of Phillips - but I've got it on order).

Please don't take my agreement with Leifus as being rather ahead of myself. I was just trying to bring the thread back to peoples attention so that hopefully, a more reasoned opinion on ID from the experts would be put forward. (At least it's got some further reactions if not a definite ID. ).

There does seem to be some contradiction in Jordan's info though, from what you have written from Flora Neerlandica above. eg. Jordan says spores hyaline, smooth.

Regards
Mike.

[flaxton]

Mike
First I did not think you were "getting ahead of yourself" in fact that is the only way to learn.
All I was trying to say was that when a suggestion is put forward that is not in most of the popular books unless you have seen it yourself (and I haven't) then you are not going to be able to comment. People only tend to put forward other suggestion when they do not agree with what has already been given. Even the "experts" who may have come across it would need far more information, especially on a fairly rare fungus before agreeing or disagreeing with the name put forward.
In my previous post I mentioned the key in FAN asking about the spores this was not specifically for ochraceofulva but just Lepiota generally. Because Lepiota is shown as having four differing spore shapes that is a quick way to narrow down the identification process.
The description of ochraceofulva does actually say the spores are
oblong to cylindrical some slightly ovoid, in frontal view slightly ovoid, dextrinoid congophilous not or slightly metachromatic in Cresyl Blue. So going back there is nothing I can see that says it is not ochraceofulva but not enough information to take it any further.

Mal

[mollisia]

Hallo,

interesting thing this one! Lepiotas are a special interest to me, so if there is an exsiccate and someone wants to spend the money for sending it, I would like to have a look at it.
Without knowing the spore shape and the details of the cuticule most Lepiotas are not to identify. At least one can say that it is _not_ Lepiota ochraceofulva. I had this species several times now and it always staines ochraceus to yellowish-red on rubbing it. As it has been taken into the hands for shootimng the foto, it must have stains when it should be ochraceofulva. Also I know this species as one of the bigger ones, just as clypeolaria or ignivolvata. These two species I thought of firdt when I saw only the cap, but the whole group is excluded by the naked stipe and also the small size of the fruitbodies do not speek in favour of these. On the other hand the fruitbodies are not so slender as it is the habit in most of the smaller Lepiotas as cristata, lilacea etc. etc.
So, taking all this into account, I would risk a guess, but its only a guess and has to be verified by the microscopical details: Lepiota cortinarius.
For this sepcies the small but robust fruitbodies, the colour, the macroscopy of the cuticule and also the cortina would suite well.

best regards,
Andreas

[NickCantle]

Andreas,

If I'm honest, I don't think Adam would have dried or kept the specimen. This was posted on the 4/12/08, so I don't think there would be any other evidence of the collection.

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Andreas,

If I'm honest, I don't think Adam would have dried or kept the specimen. This was posted on the 4/12/08, so I don't think there would be any other evidence of the collection.

Hallo Nick,

hmm, I too had not much hope that it has been conserved. But that examples shows, that it would be good to have a dried fruitbody, because especially Lepiotas are mostly successful to determine from exsiccates when you have a foto with it. And in this case an interesting finding could have been verified.
But the world will keep on turning, even without knowing this one

best,
Andreas

[leifus]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Mike
When the suggestion is not mentioned in Phillips or Courtecuisse or Fungi of Switzerland you are not going to get too many people coming forward to agree or disagree. It is mentioned in Flora Neerlandica but when the first question in the Key is are the spores spurred and then goes on to ask about the microscopic elements of the pileus covering it isn't easy to confirm you find from a photo.
Having said that it does fit the macroscopic features quite well so it could be.

Mal

its in Jordan