Galerina cinctula

[SheffieldLass]

I found this three days ago, in a very small patch of acid grass in a gap in extensive bracken. I do keep trying to id Galerinas, usually without success, though it is tempting to walk past them. My surname (Earle) means I feel compelled to at least try to get to grips with them ... and this one keyed out really easily to G cinctula in Funga Nordica and Roy Watling's key. And I'd been told there was a new Galerina key out by David Savage: http://www.britmycolsoc.org.uk/files...inal_draft.pdf
It keyed out spot on with that too. As it seems to be rarely found, and most records are without voucher material, this one is now nicely drying ...




shows 2 spore basidium (centre left), and cheilocystidia
clamps present
spores

Spores are typically 9.7-11 x 5-5.6um, cheilocystidia between 31-57um long.

I'll be trying out the new Galerina key on some of my Galerina records where I've not been able to reach a convincing id. It is a nice easy one to use.

Melanie

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

thanks for the key, looks good

neil

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by wildlifesnapper

Hi

thanks for the key, looks good

neil

sadly looks can be deceptive, and one shouldn't really judge a key on its looks

'looks promising' might be more appropriate, but I have serious doubts

when it came out I was asked to write a review of BFF 7; unfortunately when looked at closely it is full of errors and inconsistencies and in many places the keys simply don't work . . . as Mr Savage himself says: 'However, I find some species are difficult to separate even after close perusal of BFF 7' - quite . . . .

sadly, the treatment of the genus is probably the low point of what is of course a very valuable and useful series - if the authors were to write it now it would be a very different book; basing a synoptic key on it, therefore, lays one open to compounding these errors;

I remember some years back someone attempted to produce a key to Inocybe by gathering all the books, keys and other information on the genus and then trying to use it to construct a master 'key of keys' - did it work? what do you think? ; you have to know the species, to have actually seen them in the field, examined type material and so on . . . . this is why Ulje on Coprinus (sensu lato); Boertmann on Hygrocybe; Vesterholt on Hebeloma, Nordeloos on Entoloma etc. are so valuable

turning to the criteria used, spore size is indeed a useful character in Galerina, but far more useful is spore ornamentation - this of course makes life difficult, you need good quality lenses, you need oil immersion and so on - but that is no excuse for ignoring it; the 2 - 4 basidia criterion is a major one in the genus, although not always clear cut; presence or absence of a ring I don't think should be a top-level character - apparent absence can be very misleading

colour comes in as a secondary-level character; I was always taught by people who know far more about agarics than I do that colour is generally the least useful character to use when looking at these fungi; also at secondary-level comes shape of marginal cystidia; Mr Savage is correct when he says that colour is a subjective matter and can vary a great deal - I frankly disagree that the shape and nature of marginal cystidia is similarly subjective

at third level we have stem colour (above applies) and presence or absence of facial cystidia - in my opinion the latter should move up the totem pole - that, spore ornamentation, shape of the cystidia, and presence or absence of clamps are what you should start with, with presence of a ring a very close second

these are only personal comments and I merely wish to warn people looking at this tricky genus that a key that appears to make things easier might not lead to a correct I/D (and therefore doesn't make it easier!) - and of course he is quite right that one should, at the end, go to a full description of what you think it is and check it very carefully - I have on numerous occasions keyed something out and then been shocked that the name I had come up with is nothing like the actual fungus

finally it must be borne in mind that there are around 15 Galerina species recorded for Britain which do not feature in this key . . . .

PS this is in no way intended to suggest that Melanie's I/D is questionable

cheers

Chris

[flaxton]

What a party pooper

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by flaxton

What a party pooper

sorry Mal

just calling it as I see it . . . you know as well as any of us that mycology isn't an easy move up from botany or birdwatching - it's a massive jump!

this is why I spend a good portion of my time looking at micro-fungi - ironically you stand a much better chance of arriving at an identification you can feel confident about with them

if someone wants to make identifying Galerina easy I would recommend Roger Phillips' book . . . . only four species to compare pictures with your specimen - admittedly that's only 6% of the British total - but what the heck

cheers

Chris

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I remember some years back someone attempted to produce a key to Inocybe by gathering all the books, keys and other information on the genus and then trying to use it to construct a master 'key of keys' - did it work?

Just what I needed today

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I have on numerous occasions keyed something out and then been shocked that the name I had come up with is nothing like the actual fungus

I do that very regularly ...

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

turning to the criteria used, spore size is indeed a useful character in Galerina, but far more useful is spore ornamentation - this of course makes life difficult, you need good quality lenses, you need oil immersion and so on - but that is no excuse for ignoring it; the 2 - 4 basidia criterion is a major one in the genus, although not always clear cut; presence or absence of a ring I don't think should be a top-level character - apparent absence can be very misleading

colour comes in as a secondary-level character; I was always taught by people who know far more about agarics than I do that colour is generally the least useful character to use when looking at these fungi; also at secondary-level comes shape of marginal cystidia; Mr Savage is correct when he says that colour is a subjective matter and can vary a great deal - I frankly disagree that the shape and nature of marginal cystidia is similarly subjective

at third level we have stem colour (above applies) and presence or absence of facial cystidia - in my opinion the latter should move up the totem pole - that, spore ornamentation, shape of the cystidia, and presence or absence of clamps are what you should start with, with presence of a ring a very close second

I like the way his key doesn't weight the different characters. If they all hit spot on, which if it works right, then bingo. You've got a name to then go and check out. If one character is out, then it draws attention to look a bit more closely. If you misidentify a character in many keys you are thrown right off course, but are not sure at which point you went wrong .. with this type of key you have a starting point on where to look more carefully. If a few are out, nothing really seems to fit, then that certainly calls for much closer look. It is sort of what I end up doing all the time, usually using more than one reference source, (particularly where the characters have been reduced to the minimum to make the key succinct, or to keep things brief in a long tome), trying to make sure all the characters match.

Ideally this is the sort of key that is best provided by someone who really knows the genus, and then trialled by a few fungi ignoramuses ... Sometimes the experts can be almost too close to the subject and take it for granted that something that is obvious to them from years of careful study is also obvious to those with little experience of the genus, when it isn't.

I'll see how it works out (I make a good Galerina ignoramus candidate to trial it )... and you can only tell by trying it.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

PS this is in no way intended to suggest that Melanie's I/D is questionable

cheers

Chris

Phew ....

Melanie