Possibly Mollisia species

FungiJohn · #1 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 07:00 PM

Found at Upper Derwent Valley in Derbyshire on a foray with Nettle Runner Les (Longshaw was under thick snow!).

My first thoughts were of Mollisia sp. But would appreciate comments.

John & Les

flaxton · #2 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Found at Upper Derwent Valley in Derbyshire on a foray with Nettle Runner Les (Longshaw was under thick snow!).

My first thoughts were of Mollisia sp. But would appreciate comments.

John & Les

John
Try Lachnum fuscescens. It looks something similar

Mal

mollisia · #3 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 07:23 PM

Hallo,

this is a Mollisia for sure, sorry Mal. Lachnum (or better Brunnipila) fuscescens is much more hairy and additionally confined to leaves and cupules of Fagus (may be also Quercus leaves).

I would opt for Mollisia lividofusca, because it has that colour (not much reliable without experience and only in a few species) and because of the occurence on pine cones. There are not many species on coniferous wood, and even less on cones. Besides two different Mollisia spec. which I had only one time each, all my appr. 30 collections on cones (Pinus or Larix, not Picea!) have been M. lividofusca.

If you like to determine it with the microscope you have to make a section through one of the apothecia. This section - laying on the side - you should place in a drop of KOH and then observe the subhymenial layer. Usually the Mollisia species all have a hyaline hymenium, subhymenium and medulla, only the outer excipulum is dark greybrown (in KOH). Mollisia lividofusca is the (probably) only species, where also the subhymenium is brown! But you have to make a careful section, that you don't bring element from the excipulum in direction of the hymenium.

best regards,
Andreas

FungiJohn · #4 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo,

this is a Mollisia for sure, sorry Mal. Lachnum (or better Brunnipila) fuscescens is much more hairy and additionally confined to leaves and cupules of Fagus (may be also Quercus leaves).

I would opt for Mollisia lividofusca, because it has that colour (not much reliable without experience and only in a few species) and because of the occurence on pine cones. There are not many species on coniferous wood, and even less on cones. Besides two different Mollisia spec. which I had only one time each, all my appr. 30 collections on cones (Pinus or Larix, not Picea!) have been M. lividofusca.

If you like to determine it with the microscope you have to make a section through one of the apothecia. This section - laying on the side - you should place in a drop of KOH and then observe the subhymenial layer. Usually the Mollisia species all have a hyaline hymenium, subhymenium and medulla, only the outer excipulum is dark greybrown (in KOH). Mollisia lividofusca is the (probably) only species, where also the subhymenium is brown! But you have to make a careful section, that you don't bring element from the excipulum in direction of the hymenium.

best regards,
Andreas

Many thanks for this Andreas. I have read your last paragraph several times and hope I can determine fully.

It was a typical find of only one cone, but it still has plenty of fruit bodies to allow analysis.

Thanks too Mal, I did spend some time trying to key this one out and finally relied on past finds ... which were probably wrong

John

mollisia · #5 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:17 PM

Hallo,

may be the following two pictures illustrate what I mean with "coloured subhymenium". I apologize for the bad quality especially of the first one, which is a digitalized slide which has become a quite annoying yellowish coloration by this digitalization.

Here is a cut through a fruitbody and you can see a brown zone of hyphae just below the hymenium. More downwards it is hyalin again and then the dark brown excipulum begins. Normally the hyaline space between the brown subhymenium and the dark brown excipulum is much bigger, but the section wasn't too good, I have to admit

Next pictures shows the same in a higher magnification and therefore only the hymenium (hyaline) and the subhymenium is to be seen. Below the brwon hyphae of the subhymenium a hyalin layer of the same textura intricata would be seen if the foto would have been bigger.

best regards,
Andreas

FungiJohn · #6 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:22 PM

Excellent illustration Andreas. Very clear now. Much appreciated

John

Chris Yeates · #7 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mollisia

I would opt for Mollisia lividofusca, because it has that colour (not much reliable without experience and only in a few species) and because of the occurence on pine cones.

hi Andreas

I am confused . . . in the UK lividofusca is treated as a Tapesia (I have just looked at your images and there does seem to be evidence of a subiculum or is that just me?) and recorded on a wide range of substrates - including Circaea lutetiana and sheep dung (!) - these are specimens identified by Douglas Graddon who was no fool when it came to discomycetes

my first thought was Mollisia ligni which has a few records in this country on pine cones - I would be interested to see these apothecia when dried . . .

PS do you agree that the M. ligni in Fungi of Switzerland vol 1 is nothing like it?

regards

Chris

mollisia · #8 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

my first thought was Mollisia ligni which has a few records in this country on pine cones - I would be interested to see these apothecia when dried . . .

PS do you agree that the M. ligni in Fungi of Switzerland vol 1 is nothing like it?

Hi Chris,

Mollisia ligni is a xerotolerant species which I know only from hardwood up to now. But findings on pine cone wouldn't surprise me too much - if the cones were still attached to the (fallen) pine. M. ligni lying on the ground is an exception!

Mollisia ligni is very easy to identify, because it is one of the very few species of Mollisia with a iode negative porus reaction. So adding Lugol to a water mount don't gives blue tips on the asci as for nearly all Mollisia on wood but no reaction. Also it has protruding marginal cells, which can be up to 50 µm long and consist of up to four cells in chain.

I have revised all the exsiccata pictured in "Fungi of Switzerland" and of course you are right: The Mollisia ligni there is in no way the true Mollisia ligni.
It has turned out to be a species which is named in my provisional key with a provisional name Mollisia "pyrenopezizoides". It has small spores with some oil droplets inside. But the most important character of it is the yellow KOH reaction. It is a quite common species and I dare not to describe it as new, because I'm quite convinced that some day one will stumble over an herbarium species which represents this one. And I don't like to produce synonyms too much ....

best regards,
Andreas

FungiJohn · #9 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:55 PM

Some very interesting information Chris and Andreas. Is it worth sending to Kew Perhaps?

John

mollisia · #10 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hi Andreas

I am confused . . . in the UK lividofusca is treated as a Tapesia (I have just looked at your images and there does seem to be evidence of a subiculum or is that just me?) and recorded on a wide range of substrates - including Circaea lutetiana and sheep dung (!) - these are specimens identified by Douglas Graddon who was no fool when it came to discomycetes

Hallo Chris,

I don't accept the genus Tapesia and neither does Brian Spooner by the way. The occurence of a subiculum is a only quantitative feature. In most species which have no visible subiculum you nevertheless find more or less abundant brown hyphae at the apothecium base. And just this lividofusca is quite variable in making a subiculum or not. So it's not possible to say up to which degree of hyphae developpment you name it a subuculum and when you don't. The type soecies of Tapesia is T. fusca and I'm convinced that this species is congeneric with Mollisia cinerea.
Tapesia is the older name compared to Mollisia, but a proposal of conservation of Mollisia over Tapesia has been agreed by the Nomenclatural Commitee and so we are free to use the name Mollisia for all Tapesias.
Of course no one is obliged to accept the synonymy and can keep on using the genus Tapesia.

Mollisia lividofusca has several synonyms which might be also still selfstanding speices in the UK: Mollisia riccia, Mollisia fallax, Mollisia melaleucoides.

Also all specimens of Mollisia strobilicola that I have seen up to now have turned out to be M. lividofusca. But as I have not seen the type of strobilicola I cannot judge whether they are synoymous or not. May be only the interpretation of strobilicola is lividofusca but not the type specimen itself. Such things occur ....

I strongly doubt the occurence of M. lividofusca on herbs or grasses and much more I doubt it on dung. The only Mollisia species I have seen from dung up to now was a species from North America which has turned out to be a Pseudoombrophila.
M. lividofusca was also reported by NOGRASEK & MATZER from Carex in alpine vegetation, but reexamination revealed it to be something different.
I would very much like to see those specimens, also some other things of GRADDON which I have not a feeling what it might be. But first I have to end with the herbar of VELENOVSKY and I also have still some part of KARSTENs herbar ...

best regards,
Andreas