Black entoloma

[SheffieldLass]

I found some more of these today, this time in upland oak woodland but all were actually associated with Taxus Baccata there. The Taxus are old trees, judging by their size, and I found it under 7 out of nine that I looked under, but nowhere else in the wood, which is 95% oak, and has no other conifers.

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

I found some more of these today, this time in upland oak woodland but all were actually associated with Taxus Baccata there. The Taxus are old trees, judging by their size, and I found it under 7 out of nine that I looked under, but nowhere else in the wood, which is 95% oak, and has no other conifers.

Hello Melanie,

I'm not too convinced with the determination as Entoloma pseudoturbidum. In the original diagnosis and also in NOORDELOOS 1995 the species is reported from deciduous forests only. Entoloma turbidum is not as dark, and E. vinaceum is collybioid and has a distinctly striate cap when moist.
So I wouldn't wonder if this turns out as an undescribed species or at least variety. No matter that it is that common (at the moment and only this year?).

It would perhaps be good if you could collect a rich sampling of one collection which looks representable and wealthy and also prepare an exhaustive description. One never knows if one needs a type collection one day ....

I have not recieved an answer from Machiel up to now, may be he is abroad.

best regards,
Andreas

[mollisia]

Hello Melanie,

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

Hi Andreas

Thanks for your input there. I think that learning to recognise quite a bit of the microscopic detail can only really be achieved from another experienced person (like yourself) looking at the same pictures, and pointing out the details. The transparency and layering works a bit like those trick 3D drawings that aren't what they seem to be.

Cheers

Melanie

It is the fastest and surest way to learn, if you have a teacher that can tell you a lot of things. But that has also the disadvantage, that you have to fully rely on this person and as we know, the mycology is a science where always changes take place and where are often a lot of different opinion on the same subject circle. My mentors saying was "Keep always being critical" - what not means that you shouldn't trust anything, but that you should all you hear or learn try to verify for yourself and if there turn out unclear point, then discuss them and not just believe what the others tell you ...

Learning the microscopical details can also be done by examining certain features with fungi you are sure about their identity. If you e.g. are not sure how encrusting pigment look like, then you can microscop Xerocomus/Boletus chrysenteron or even better Phaeomarasmius erinaceus. These species are to identify without problems and they show this feature very well. For most of the microscopical characters you will surely find one or more species which you can take a reference to lokk how that should look like.

best regards,
Andreas

[SheffieldLass]

Well, I came across another Entoloma on 4th April ... completely different woodland, this one in North Yorkshire, and deciduous woodland (no obvious rose family or Ulmus there, though I need to go back to check). No conifers. This Entoloma did not look like the others I found last year at about this time, more brownish, more like E conferendum. Though it was a bit past its prime. It keyed out to E pseudoturbidum ... which is what Andreas thought the others might be, at first. Spore size and shape right, clamps, right type of gill trama, intracellular pigment, no obvious cheilocystidia. Now this one macroscopicaly does look like pictures of E pseudoturbidum. And the habitat is right. Though time of year is wrong ...

I'm now going to compare this with the micro details of those from last year. Somehow it just didn't look/feel/age the same. Intracellular pigment was much more wishy-washy too, and not breaking up into globules. The first lot were very robust, this less so. Smell was the same though, strongly rancid farinaceous, though that is a fairly typical Entoloma smell, at least of the ones that I seem to find.

Melanie

P.S. I came across this thread whilst googling E pseudoturbidum ... it hadn't even occured to me that it might be the same as last year's, so a big suprise to find I hit my thread ....

[SheffieldLass]

I've compared the micro details of this one with last year's and they are identical (in my eyes). I'm sure they are the same species, though this one was at the paler end of the colour range, being dark brown rather than blackish. I did have some last year of the same brown color.

Interestingly E pseudoturbidum isn't on the British list. I've been meaning to send last year's off to Kew, I've got some good quality dried ones.

I've just been onto Nordeloos' Entoloma website and the taxonomy page is under reconstruction ... it looks is if he is in the middle of reconstructing Entoloma taxonomy ..... I hope it makes them easier . Looks as if Clitopilus and Rhodocybe are to be merged. Also "Entoloma can best be retained as one, large genus with a huge variation in fruitbody morphology including the gasteroid Richoniella, and Rhodogaster. Furthermore, the classical subdivisions such as Entoloma, Nolanea, Leptonia,and Inocephalus are polyphyletic. New subdivisions need to be defined within the genus Entoloma, which is now the focus of our research and will be published in 2010."

Melanie

[David Winnard]

Hi Melanie,

have found the exact same thing in mixed woodland in Manchester, so glad to know there is someone else out there being puzzled by these things!

Best Wishes

Dave

[SheffieldLass]

I'm just giving a link to Marciel Nordeloos' recent paper on his website, which may or may not be of interest ...

http://www.entoloma.nl/pdf/Co-David_...lomataceae.pdf

and a brief summary of it:
entoloma phylogeny<meta name="keywords" content="entoloma, entolomataceae, phylogeny, spore-evolution, Rhodocybe, Clitopilus, Richoniella, Rhodogaster" />

Does that mean his two big books are going to be obsolete and replaced by two more big books ?

Melanie

[mollisia]

Hello Mel,

don't worry, the books will not get obsolete and for those determining species nothing will change. The species still are the same species, even when the systematic changes. It has still the same characters, though it may be shifted from one section to another. May be the systematical key to the subgenera and sections will be prepared new, but the species key is artificial anyway (from systematical point of view).

Rhodocybe is included in Clitopilus now, which has good reasons. I have been margianlly involved in this work, so had some insight before and must admit that Co-David and Noordeloos convinced me absolutely.

best regards,
Andreas