An Unknown for ID Help Please.

Lancashire Lad · #1 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 06:32 PM

Found today in soil/moss under Beech.

Couldn't determine if there was any underground attachment to twigs etc.
No specific smell. The gills were quite flexible & didn't break when raked. (so definitely not a brittlegill).
Note blackened edges to gills. (May be a useful identifier?).

Largest cap sizes about 50mm across, stipe heights similar.

Note that the colour in the first photo is correct. The other two have taken on a purple cast due to low light levels where found under trees.

Any help with ID much appreciated.

Regards,
Mike.

mollisia · #2 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 06:38 PM

Hello,

this is Tricholoma sciodes, one of the acrid Tricholomas which shouldn't be mixed up with the edible T. terreum and T. scalpturatum etc.
A certain violetish hue is typical, just a very faint little bit. Somewhat unusual is the conical cap, which usually is more typical for Tricholoma virgatum, the other acrid species in this group. But the blackish gill edges, theoverall appearance of the bigger one and the ecology leads towards T. sciodes.

best regards,
Andreas

Lancashire Lad · #3 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 06:44 PM

Thanks Andreas,

That's great - I wasn't at all optimistic about getting a full species ID for this one.

Much obliged.

Regards,
Mike.

Chris Yeates · #4 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 06:52 PM

hah!

Andreas was fast on the draw

I had spotted this coming on the Gallery . . . Tricholoma sciodes for me - absolutely

cheers

Chris

Lancashire Lad · #5 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 06:54 PM

Thanks Chris - always good to have a second opinion - even better when it agrees with the first one.

Regards,
Mike.

Chris Yeates · #6 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mollisia

. . . .Somewhat unusual is the conical cap, which usually is more typical for Tricholoma virgatum, the other acrid species in this group. But the blackish gill edges, theoverall appearance of the bigger one and the ecology leads towards T. sciodes.

best regards,
Andreas

maybe it's a British thing Andreas?

- these are from Yorkshire (across the Pennines from Mike) found last year:

Chris

mollisia · #7 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 07:08 PM

Hi Chris,

o.k., what about Tricholoma sciodes var. brittanicus Yeates & Gminder

best regards,
Andreas

Lancashire Lad · #8 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 07:24 PM

Andreas/Chris,

Am I correct that Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes and Tricholoma sciodes are one and the same?

These synonyms make it difficult to decide which is the currently accepted name.

BMS only appears to show Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes - (Common name - Ashen Knight).

Regards,
Mike.

Chris Yeates · #9 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Andreas/Chris,

Am I correct that Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes and Tricholoma sciodes are one and the same?

These synonyms make it difficult to decide which is the currently accepted name.

BMS only appears to show Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes - (Common name - Ashen Knight).

Regards,
Mike.

yes they are the same thing Mike - actually the synonyms make it easier;
I sure Andreas will correct me if I'm wrong but an author couldn't claim that there was a Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes and a totally different taxon called Tricholoma sciodes - one or other would have to go under the rules

Index Fungorum keeps it at species level, which to me seems reasonable - but it's all opinion!

Chris

mollisia · #10 (**permalink**) 18-08-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

yes they are the same thing Mike - actually the synonyms make it easier;
I sure Andreas will correct me if I'm wrong but an author couldn't claim that there was a Tricholoma virgatum var. sciodes and a totally different taxon called Tricholoma sciodes - one or other would have to go under the rules

Hello,

sorry to correct you, Chris, but you forgot that the rules of priority or homonymy are only appliable on the same rank.
So there is no problem in naming a var. sciodes to T. virgatum different from the species T. sciodes.

In fact that nomenclatorical problem quite often occurs, when someone wants to raise a variety to species level and then has to rename the species, because the varieties name already existed as a species name.

Example:
Tapesia centaureae var. atrata Velenovsky 1934
I can put this into the genus Mollisia as Mollisia centaurea var. atrata (Velenosky) Gminder.
But I cannot raise it in Mollisia to species rank without changing the epithet, because there is already a Mollisia atrata (Persoon) Karsten, which has priority because it is older and on the same rank (level of species).
So if I'm the opinion, that this Tapesia centaureae var. atra is a good species of Mollisia and not only a variety, then I have to give it a new name. I don't even need a latin diagnoses or a definiton of a type and all that, I only have to refer to the original description. Usually one indicates also the species which occupies the name already. Unfortunately the relation to the original name gets lost, it gets a completely new name.

Such a nomenclatorical publication would read like that:

Mollisia yeatesii Gminder nom. nov. (= nomen novum - "new name")
Basionym: Tapesia centaurea var. atrata Velenovsky 1934, non Mollisia atrata (Persoon 1801) Karsten 1886
To indicate "spec. nov." would be incorrect, because it is an already known taxon, which only gets a new name - but it is not a totally new species. (But nevertheless the name would be valid acc. to the Code if I remember right)

best regards,
Andreas