Coprinus micaceus or truncorum

[watsthat]

How easy is it to separate Coprinus micaceus and truncorum. Can anybody speculate or comment on these.

Many thanks

Pete

[Chris Yeates]

hi Pete

spores and other micro-characters help of course . . .

Coprinellus micaceus should have cystidia on the stem - giving it 'a downy appearance' (Funga Nordica)
Coprinellus truncorum doesn't have them

can't really tell from the photograph

Andreas I'm sure has more experience of truncorum than I have (as I recall I've only seen it a couple of times, compared to hundreds of micaceus)

cheers

Chris

[watsthat]

Thanks Chris, I had a feeling I`d got the genus wrong. So... not easy in the field to separate them but C. micaceus is much commoner.

Pete

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by watsthat

Thanks Chris, I had a feeling I`d got the genus wrong. . . .
Pete

you haven't got it 'wrong', everyone knows what you're talking about

genera are to a considerable degree a matter of opinion, and what appears to be the most informed opinion at the time tends to prevail

the chief reason that Coprinus was split up is because when people started to look at the DNA, the type species - Coprinus comatus, the shaggy ink-cap, was clearly very different from the other members of the genus (and let's be honest, it does look very different macroscopically) - hence the major revision of the genus

based on these molecular studies Coprinus comatus and C. sterquilinus remained in that genus and were placed in the family Agaricaceae, along with Agaricus, Coprinus, Lepiota, Leucoagaricus and Leucocoprinus

the new genera: Coprinopsis, Coprinellus and Parasola were placed in a different family - the Psathyrellaceae; so they were clearly quite different

the name-changes which amateur mycologists often grumble about, are not just based on the whims of the scientific community

cheers

Chris