'Pale False Chanterelle' / Hygrophoropsis macrospora ?

[rich ard]

Can anyone tell me the accepted wisdom for the 'Pale False Chanterelle' ie Hygrophoropsis macrospora (pallida) please.

Is it considered a separate species in the UK or a pale variety of Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca?

These were growing in a horse paddock in grass and juncus. I thought they might be washed out Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca but even the seemingly young fruit bodies had creamy/pale yellow caps with similar stipes and creamy-white gills. There are 2 records for Hygrophoropsis macrospora (submitted as H pallida) Notts on FRDBI.



Thanks

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by rich ard

Can anyone tell me the accepted wisdom for the 'Pale False Chanterelle' ie Hygrophoropsis macrospora (pallida) please.

Is it considered a separate species in the UK or a pale variety of Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca?

These were growing in a horse paddock in grass and juncus. I thought they might be washed out Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca but even the seemingly young fruit bodies had creamy/pale yellow caps with similar stipes and creamy-white gills. There are 2 records for Hygrophoropsis macrospora (submitted as H pallida) Notts on FRDBI.



Thanks

hi

it is considered to be a good species, with differences of spore shape/size to go along with the general 'pale false chanterelle' character

however, this is a developing area . . . in my limited experience I have found groups of Hygrophoropsis which seemed to have definitely arisen from the same mycelium, but which showed a range of colour and 'bleaching'

Funga Nordica adds the helpful (?) comment:

"Note: the pale Hygrophoropsis species are still unsufficiently known and some authors separate more than one species here"

so, not the answer I suspect you were seeking, but a glimpse at yet another area of mycology where affairs are far from straightforward . . .

best

Chris

[rich ard]

The answer cetainly helps Chris as it makes me more confident in my id. I won't be making an obvious mistake in submitting the find. Thank you.

I perhaps should have said the the spores were 'macrospora', in fact most of the 20 or so I measured where at the top end of the range given in Funga Nordica. None where in the H. aurantiaca size range.

Richard

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hi

it is considered to be a good species, with differences of spore shape/size to go along with the general 'pale false chanterelle' character

however, this is a developing area . . . in my limited experience I have found groups of Hygrophoropsis which seemed to have definitely arisen from the same mycelium, but which showed a range of colour and 'bleaching'

Funga Nordica adds the helpful (?) comment:

"Note: the pale Hygrophoropsis species are still unsufficiently known and some authors separate more than one species here"

so, not the answer I suspect you were seeking, but a glimpse at yet another area of mycology where affairs are far from straightforward . . .

best

Chris