Panaeolus subfirmus?

[SheffieldLass]

Might this be Panaeolus subfirmus (Panaeolus speciosus)? On cow dung in dune grassland. The micro details seem to fit, spores in the right range, cheilocystidia are long 39-58um, which rules out most Panaeolus. No dentate veil remnants on the cap. There were Panaeolus papilionaceus in the same grassland too, with nicely visible dentate veil remnants ... they have very similar sized spores and cheilocystidia. To me, the rim edge on these looks wrong to be P papilionaceus and the cap shape, even if the veil had vanished.

I've only found one photo on the internet (Roger Phillips website), and he describes the cap as conical. These could hardly be described as conical, more a Dung Roundhead sort of shape.




Spores noticeably flattened in side view, size (13.8) 15.5-17.3 (18.5) x (8.7) 9.9 - 12 (12.7)um, Qav 1.5

Rather long cheilocystidia.

Caulocystidia were plentiful, very like the cheilocystidia.

Ideas, confirmation?

Thanks
Melanie

[Chris Yeates]

hi Melanie

the original description of Panaeolus subfirmus via Saccardo's Sylloge is at:

Libri Fungorum - Page Image

I note that the spores are described as "ovalibus, fuligineis . . . 12-14. . .7-9 [microns]"

this differs somewhat from the description in British Fungus Flora 5 of spores ". . . lentiform, angular-limoniform, 14-20 / 10-12 / 8-10 [microns]"

the first thing one notices about those spores in your collection is their angular profile - reminiscent of some "Coprinus" and Psilocybe species; Orton's description of speciosus talks of " . . . the overall pinkish ochraceous or pinkish buff tinge to the centre of the zoned cap . . ." as being characteristic - that sort of tinge can just about be made out in the top left photograph, though it doesn't look particularly zonate - is this due to slightly over-exposed images? One of the things I like about my Nikon D70 (not so true of my D40) is that it has a tendency to slightly under-expose as standard - it's a lot easier to deal with in post-processing than erring the other way

I would say that you seem to have Panaeolus speciosus P.D. Orton there, but I would be interested to see the rationale whereby that is deemed the same taxon as Panaeolus subfirmus P. Karsten - I can only assume that someone has had a good look at Karsten's (and indeed Orton's) type material . . .

best

Chris

PS - will be in touch via PM this weekend

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hi Melanie

the original description of Panaeolus subfirmus via Saccardo's Sylloge is at:

Libri Fungorum - Page Image

I note that the spores are described as "ovalibus, fuligineis . . . 12-14. . .7-9 [microns]"

this differs somewhat from the description in British Fungus Flora 5 of spores ". . . lentiform, angular-limoniform, 14-20 / 10-12 / 8-10 [microns]"

the first thing one notices about those spores in your collection is their angular profile - reminiscent of some "Coprinus" and Psilocybe species; Orton's description of speciosus talks of " . . . the overall pinkish ochraceous or pinkish buff tinge to the centre of the zoned cap . . ." as being characteristic - that sort of tinge can just about be made out in the top left photograph, though it doesn't look particularly zonate - is this due to slightly over-exposed images? One of the things I like about my Nikon D70 (not so true of my D40) is that it has a tendency to slightly under-expose as standard - it's a lot easier to deal with in post-processing than erring the other way


best

Chris

Thanks Chris

They definitely have a pinkish central area, and they are zoned though not quite as distinctly zoned as Panaeolus cinctulus. I do stop down the exposure on almost all my fungi photos (and then forget to put it up to normal when I take a panoramic photograph ... ). Sometimes the whiter ones need to go down to the lowest setting though, and these were probably stopped only halfway down, my standard setting ...

Not Yorkshire fungi, these, but Northumberland ones.

cheers
Melanie