Poplar Mushroom

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

The answer must be either as you say there are different opinions about subgeneus, and here in Britain Telemonia are considered very exclusive, or the database is still a work in progress! (Interestingly on the Bioimages website which usually follows the Basidiochecklist, there are 20 species listed, so that is a few more ...) I guess it all adds to the fun ...

Melanie

Hi Melanie,

no, no, it's in this case not a matter of different opinion, but only a problem of the computer program! The whole world agrees nowadays in Telamonia being a subgenus of Cortinarius. But the search function of the database of the checklist not only searches for the now accepted names in use, but also for the synonyms that are in the database. And they certainly don't lay too much stress on all the synonyms each species can have, otherwise you would have to each species of fungi another dozend of synonyms, be it nomeclatoral ones or taxonomical ones. That's why you get only those few Telamonias. But there are more of them outside than you imagine

best regards,
Andreas

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hi Melanie,

But there are more of them outside than you imagine

best regards,
Andreas

And I bet a few get hastily squashed by the feet of some amateur mycologists ....

Melanie

[NickCantle]

Guilty!

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

Well I've checked 10 of them over the three few weeks, and from under different hawthorn trees on the site, all were definitely growing from the berries. The first two I checked had slightly differing spore sizes which I wasn't sure if it was a significant difference (though the cheilocystidia were very similar) so I thought I'd check a few more. And I've not seen them anywhere else on the site, only under hawthorn, and only under the hawthorns on south facing, steep, well drained banks, which must be producing the right conditions just now. I'll post the pictures and the microscopic details later on today, it is very late now ....

Melanie

Hi Andreas

As promised:

One showing the hawthorn berry it is growing from
It's neighbour.
Cheilocystidia from the specimen (top one ) above
spores from the top one.
One from a few days before, insitu.
Cheilocystidia of the one above.

The hawthorn berry attached to the bottom specimen unfortunately didn't show up clearly on the photo I took of it uprooted, and after I'd decapitated it for a spore print realised I hadn't got a good photo of it, so took a 'headless' one at home, which now I realise is next to useless as evidence ...

I'll try to get some more clear photos of the ones out there, I think there still should be some ... I do have some dried specimens with them attached though.

Spore sizes are (6.3) 7.1-8.6 (10.2) x (4.0) 4.5-5.3 (5.9)um
ratio (1.3) 1.5-1.7 (2.1)
Cheilocystidia are 3-13um dia, 32-66um long.

Which all seems to fit Tubaria furfuracea, certainly not Tubaria dispersa.

(And the differing spore sizes were because the first one I didn't get a proper spore print, so were measured from the gill trama squash, which I've discovered are often not very representative as I seem to either get too many immature spores, or they are diving head first, or only see and measure the biggest ... )

Your thoughts would be very welcome ...

Melanie

[KeenTeen17]

thanks for those images Melanie.

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo,






But that the Tubaria furfuracea/hiemalis shall grow out of the berries and not from pieces of wood, is really sensational. Are you sure with that?

best regards,
Andreas

Went back again today and managed to check 5 before the snow started to get too thick that I couldn't see the fungi ...

Two were definitely growing from hawthorn berries, two were definitely growing from hawthorn leaf litter, which did include hawthorn seed husks (the ground is full of them), the last wasn't clear, but the ground had a lot of hawthorn litter in it ...

By the way, what characteristics separate T hiemalis from T furfuracea, for those people who make a distinction between the two? My keys/info don't make any mention.

Melanie

[mollisia]

Hi Melanie,

thank you for all these informations. So I have to expand my thoughts about the substrate spectrum of T. furfuracea/hiemalis.

It is at least difficult, if not impossible to separate hiemalis from furfuracea. I know what I call hiemalis as more robust, with lesser veil and soon getting naked, always in the winter. Whereas furfuracea is thinner, has more veil which often is attached to the maringal zone of the cap and grows in the summer. There seem to be no microscopical differences, even not in the cystidia.

But there are two other taxa, which might be something different and on which one should keep an eye. May be they are worth to be separated:
T. romagnesiana with narrower hyphae in the gill trama (only 10 (15) µm wide, in hiemalis/furfuracea they are up to 25 µm)
T. praestans with bigger fruitbodies, much lighter stipe colour and a non-striate cap.

I have not much experience with those Tubarias and have not taken care of those last two up to now. Tentatively I think one could in most cases differenciate between furfuracea and hiemalis, but there are collections which are not clear. I personally would make them varieties to each other, that means Tubaria furfuracea var. hiemalis. A combination not done up to now, so far I can see, so that's a chance to get ones name behind an epithet, hurry up!

best regards,
Andreas

[KeenTeen17]

is this also T. furfuracea?

[mollisia]

Hallo KT,

at least sensu lato.
If one seperates furfuracea from hiemalis, I would opt for hiemalis for your foto. Too less veil seems it for furfuracea ss.str.

best regards,
Andreas