Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Galerina clavata

Expand Messages
  • Dimitar Bojantchev
    Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically grows in mossy areas amongst grass. It s striking with its capitate cystidia that reminds one of
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically grows in
      mossy areas amongst grass. It's striking with its capitate cystidia
      that reminds one of Conocybe.
       
       
      Douglas Smith has some research & comments on the name G. clavata
      vs. G. heterocystis
       
       
      One notable thing is the great variety of spore size that appears in
      the literature. My collections show the spores on the smaller side --
      avg. 9-10.5µ. They match exactly this observation:
       
       
      I wonder whether North American material has actually ever been
      sequenced and compared against the European, or from elsewhere,
      material.
       
         D.
       
       
    • Douglas Smith
      I ve been meaning to write up more about this one, since I am claiming that G. hetercystis hasn t been seen in California, and it doesn t seem to have been
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I've been meaning to write up more about this one, since I am
        claiming that G. hetercystis hasn't been seen in California,
        and it doesn't seem to have been seen in northern Europe, and
        as a species perhaps it could be seen in mid-west north America,
        but there don't seem to be any reports of this since the Smith
        and Singer monograph.

        So, starting with what we obs. here: A yellow-tan mycenoid
        light brown spored mushroom, 0.5-2cm in diameter, 3-10 cm
        tall. Cap striate 1/2-3/4 to center, smooth non-viscid.
        Stipe equal, thickening to base, fibrous surface on lower
        half, colorless when young to con-colorous with cap, not
        darkening from the base. Fibrous veil when very young, soon
        disappearing leaving no visible trace on stipe. On moss on
        the ground in damp areas.

        This is all fine, and pretty much matches the G. heterocystis
        description. So, on to micro details:

        Spores 9.5-10.5 um, ellipsoid, lightly warted with no plage,
        non-dextrinoid. Cheilocystidia tibiiform, and consistent, no
        pleurocystidia. Caulocystidia similar to cheilocystidia,
        tibiiform. basidia 4-spored. No clamp connections obs.

        This is where it gets to be trouble. The Smith and Singer
        monograph, while agrees with the no clamp connections, for
        G. heterocystis they do not have tibiiform cystidia, and
        the spores described are smooth to marbled, not lightly
        warted.

        If you then go to Kuhner (1935), Haan & Walleyn (2002) and
        a number of Gulden, et al. (1986 - 2000), and look at the
        descriptions and drawings of G. clavata, there are the lightly
        warted spores, and the tibiiform cystidia, that match exactly
        what is seen here.

        So, from this, we have something that does not match the
        north American description of G. heterocystis, but does match
        the various European descriptions of G. clavata. That seems
        to be the better name, since it better matches the description.

        Then there is the spore size. For G. clavata the spore size
        gets listed as from 11-13 to 11-17 um long. What we have
        here is fairly consistent with ave. spore sizes between 9.5um
        and 10.7um.

        I talked with Judy Rodgers about this over the past weekend,
        and she agrees that in Oregon there is something that doesn't
        really match G. heterocystis, and she hasn't seen anything
        from there that does match well. She said she does see something
        without clamp connection, tibiiform cystidia, and lightly
        warted spores, that seems to fairly well describe what I've
        been calling G. clavata around here. She said though, that
        what she finds is much larger than what we find, usually
        with stipes 10 to 15cm long or more.

        I did find 3-4 good caps of G. clavata over the weekend, and
        I had already made a good collection of this from Mendocino
        already this year, so I gave her these. She was going to try
        and look at these, and compare with what she sees in Oregon,
        and we'll see if that increases the range of this species.

        I don't think anything has been sequenced from north America,
        and mostly what has been obs from north America before now
        has been labeled G. heterocystis mostly, so we really just
        need the sequence of the type collection for G. heterocystis
        for comparison, not sure if that was done. The sequences of
        the G. clavata from Europe has been done, so at least the
        sequence of what we see here could be compared to that.

        Anyway, this is probably more than you want to know about a
        little brown job, but it is probably the most common Galerina
        out there, and a fairly common guy in moss from at least
        Santa Cruz to Mendocino. With the lightly yellow tan color,
        striate hygrophanous cap, and the almost colorless stipe
        it can almost be id'ed by eye around here.

        Douglas


        On Monday 02 February 2009 7:40 pm, Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:
        > Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically grows in
        > mossy areas amongst grass. It's striking with its capitate cystidia
        > that reminds one of Conocybe.
        >
        > http://mushroomhobby.com/Gallery/Galerina/Galerina%20clavata/index.htm
        >
        > Douglas Smith has some research & comments on the name G. clavata
        > vs. G. heterocystis
        >
        > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/5641
        >
        > One notable thing is the great variety of spore size that appears in
        > the literature. My collections show the spores on the smaller side --
        > avg. 9-10.5µ. They match exactly this observation:
        >
        > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/17497?search_seq=323620
        >
        > I wonder whether North American material has actually ever been
        > sequenced and compared against the European, or from elsewhere,
        > material.
        >
        > D.
        >
        >

        --
        -----------------------------------------------------------
        Douglas A. Smith douglas@...
        Office: Bld ROB, Rm 204 (650)926-2369
        -----------------------------------------------------------
      • Dimitar Bojantchev
        Doug, thank you for the information and analysis. The good part is that we re on the same page as far as the Galerina species we re refering to and our micro
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Doug, thank you for the information and analysis.
           
          The good part is that we're on the same page as far as the Galerina
          species we're refering to and our micro characters are pretty
          consistent. Later on we can apply whatever name is deemed more
          appropriate.
           
          I think that the name G. clavata is an Ok name for now, until someone
          does a definitive work, including sequencing of our material.
           
          The latest trend in Galerina is that the small variations in
          micro-morphology do not quite define a new species when the molecular
          data is put together.
           
             D.
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:16 AM
          Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Galerina clavata


          I've been meaning to write up more about this one, since I am
          claiming that G. hetercystis hasn't been seen in California,
          and it doesn't seem to have been seen in northern Europe, and
          as a species perhaps it could be seen in mid-west north America,
          but there don't seem to be any reports of this since the Smith
          and Singer monograph.

          So, starting with what we obs. here: A yellow-tan mycenoid
          light brown spored mushroom, 0.5-2cm in diameter, 3-10 cm
          tall. Cap striate 1/2-3/4 to center, smooth non-viscid.
          Stipe equal, thickening to base, fibrous surface on lower
          half, colorless when young to con-colorous with cap, not
          darkening from the base. Fibrous veil when very young, soon
          disappearing leaving no visible trace on stipe. On moss on
          the ground in damp areas.

          This is all fine, and pretty much matches the G. heterocystis
          description. So, on to micro details:

          Spores 9.5-10.5 um, ellipsoid, lightly warted with no plage,
          non-dextrinoid. Cheilocystidia tibiiform, and consistent, no
          pleurocystidia. Caulocystidia similar to cheilocystidia,
          tibiiform. basidia 4-spored. No clamp connections obs.

          This is where it gets to be trouble. The Smith and Singer
          monograph, while agrees with the no clamp connections, for
          G. heterocystis they do not have tibiiform cystidia, and
          the spores described are smooth to marbled, not lightly
          warted.

          If you then go to Kuhner (1935), Haan & Walleyn (2002) and
          a number of Gulden, et al. (1986 - 2000), and look at the
          descriptions and drawings of G. clavata, there are the lightly
          warted spores, and the tibiiform cystidia, that match exactly
          what is seen here.

          So, from this, we have something that does not match the
          north American description of G. heterocystis, but does match
          the various European descriptions of G. clavata. That seems
          to be the better name, since it better matches the description.

          Then there is the spore size. For G. clavata the spore size
          gets listed as from 11-13 to 11-17 um long. What we have
          here is fairly consistent with ave. spore sizes between 9.5um
          and 10.7um.

          I talked with Judy Rodgers about this over the past weekend,
          and she agrees that in Oregon there is something that doesn't
          really match G. heterocystis, and she hasn't seen anything
          from there that does match well. She said she does see something
          without clamp connection, tibiiform cystidia, and lightly
          warted spores, that seems to fairly well describe what I've
          been calling G. clavata around here. She said though, that
          what she finds is much larger than what we find, usually
          with stipes 10 to 15cm long or more.

          I did find 3-4 good caps of G. clavata over the weekend, and
          I had already made a good collection of this from Mendocino
          already this year, so I gave her these. She was going to try
          and look at these, and compare with what she sees in Oregon,
          and we'll see if that increases the range of this species.

          I don't think anything has been sequenced from north America,
          and mostly what has been obs from north America before now
          has been labeled G. heterocystis mostly, so we really just
          need the sequence of the type collection for G. heterocystis
          for comparison, not sure if that was done. The sequences of
          the G. clavata from Europe has been done, so at least the
          sequence of what we see here could be compared to that.

          Anyway, this is probably more than you want to know about a
          little brown job, but it is probably the most common Galerina
          out there, and a fairly common guy in moss from at least
          Santa Cruz to Mendocino. With the lightly yellow tan color,
          striate hygrophanous cap, and the almost colorless stipe
          it can almost be id'ed by eye around here.

          Douglas

          On Monday 02 February 2009 7:40 pm, Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:
          > Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically grows in
          > mossy areas amongst grass. It's striking with its capitate cystidia
          > that reminds one of Conocybe.
          >
          > http://mushroomhobb y.com/Gallery/ Galerina/ Galerina% 20clavata/ index.htm
          >
          > Douglas Smith has some research & comments on the name G. clavata
          > vs. G. heterocystis
          >
          > http://www.mushroom observer. org/name/ show_name/ 5641
          >
          > One notable thing is the great variety of spore size that appears in
          > the literature. My collections show the spores on the smaller side --
          > avg. 9-10.5µ. They match exactly this observation:
          >
          > http://www.mushroom observer. org/17497? search_seq= 323620
          >
          > I wonder whether North American material has actually ever been
          > sequenced and compared against the European, or from elsewhere,
          > material.
          >
          > D.
          >
          >

          --
          ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
          Douglas A. Smith douglas@slac. stanford. edu
          Office: Bld ROB, Rm 204 (650)926-2369
          ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

        • leucocoprinus
          Up in Seattle we put the name clavata on these guys but almost any Galerina ID is tentative! It is extremely common up here and is actually somewhat easily
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Up in Seattle we put the name clavata on these guys but almost any Galerina ID is
            tentative! It is extremely common up here and is actually somewhat easily recognizable
            macroscopically.

            It would be very interesting to sequence the type of heterocystis! I know that Brandon
            Matheny has been sequencing old type collections as old as Murrill using forensic DNA kits
            so this would definitely be feasible! I think he has mostly stuck to Inocybes though! Any
            takers?

            -Joshua

            --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@...> wrote:
            >
            > Doug, thank you for the information and analysis.
            >
            > The good part is that we're on the same page as far as the Galerina
            > species we're refering to and our micro characters are pretty
            > consistent. Later on we can apply whatever name is deemed more
            > appropriate.
            >
            > I think that the name G. clavata is an Ok name for now, until someone
            > does a definitive work, including sequencing of our material.
            >
            > The latest trend in Galerina is that the small variations in
            > micro-morphology do not quite define a new species when the molecular
            > data is put together.
            >
            > D.
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Douglas Smith
            > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:16 AM
            > Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Galerina clavata
            >
            >
            >
            > I've been meaning to write up more about this one, since I am
            > claiming that G. hetercystis hasn't been seen in California,
            > and it doesn't seem to have been seen in northern Europe, and
            > as a species perhaps it could be seen in mid-west north America,
            > but there don't seem to be any reports of this since the Smith
            > and Singer monograph.
            >
            > So, starting with what we obs. here: A yellow-tan mycenoid
            > light brown spored mushroom, 0.5-2cm in diameter, 3-10 cm
            > tall. Cap striate 1/2-3/4 to center, smooth non-viscid.
            > Stipe equal, thickening to base, fibrous surface on lower
            > half, colorless when young to con-colorous with cap, not
            > darkening from the base. Fibrous veil when very young, soon
            > disappearing leaving no visible trace on stipe. On moss on
            > the ground in damp areas.
            >
            > This is all fine, and pretty much matches the G. heterocystis
            > description. So, on to micro details:
            >
            > Spores 9.5-10.5 um, ellipsoid, lightly warted with no plage,
            > non-dextrinoid. Cheilocystidia tibiiform, and consistent, no
            > pleurocystidia. Caulocystidia similar to cheilocystidia,
            > tibiiform. basidia 4-spored. No clamp connections obs.
            >
            > This is where it gets to be trouble. The Smith and Singer
            > monograph, while agrees with the no clamp connections, for
            > G. heterocystis they do not have tibiiform cystidia, and
            > the spores described are smooth to marbled, not lightly
            > warted.
            >
            > If you then go to Kuhner (1935), Haan & Walleyn (2002) and
            > a number of Gulden, et al. (1986 - 2000), and look at the
            > descriptions and drawings of G. clavata, there are the lightly
            > warted spores, and the tibiiform cystidia, that match exactly
            > what is seen here.
            >
            > So, from this, we have something that does not match the
            > north American description of G. heterocystis, but does match
            > the various European descriptions of G. clavata. That seems
            > to be the better name, since it better matches the description.
            >
            > Then there is the spore size. For G. clavata the spore size
            > gets listed as from 11-13 to 11-17 um long. What we have
            > here is fairly consistent with ave. spore sizes between 9.5um
            > and 10.7um.
            >
            > I talked with Judy Rodgers about this over the past weekend,
            > and she agrees that in Oregon there is something that doesn't
            > really match G. heterocystis, and she hasn't seen anything
            > from there that does match well. She said she does see something
            > without clamp connection, tibiiform cystidia, and lightly
            > warted spores, that seems to fairly well describe what I've
            > been calling G. clavata around here. She said though, that
            > what she finds is much larger than what we find, usually
            > with stipes 10 to 15cm long or more.
            >
            > I did find 3-4 good caps of G. clavata over the weekend, and
            > I had already made a good collection of this from Mendocino
            > already this year, so I gave her these. She was going to try
            > and look at these, and compare with what she sees in Oregon,
            > and we'll see if that increases the range of this species.
            >
            > I don't think anything has been sequenced from north America,
            > and mostly what has been obs from north America before now
            > has been labeled G. heterocystis mostly, so we really just
            > need the sequence of the type collection for G. heterocystis
            > for comparison, not sure if that was done. The sequences of
            > the G. clavata from Europe has been done, so at least the
            > sequence of what we see here could be compared to that.
            >
            > Anyway, this is probably more than you want to know about a
            > little brown job, but it is probably the most common Galerina
            > out there, and a fairly common guy in moss from at least
            > Santa Cruz to Mendocino. With the lightly yellow tan color,
            > striate hygrophanous cap, and the almost colorless stipe
            > it can almost be id'ed by eye around here.
            >
            > Douglas
            >
            > On Monday 02 February 2009 7:40 pm, Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:
            > > Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically grows in
            > > mossy areas amongst grass. It's striking with its capitate cystidia
            > > that reminds one of Conocybe.
            > >
            > > http://mushroomhobby.com/Gallery/Galerina/Galerina%20clavata/index.htm
            > >
            > > Douglas Smith has some research & comments on the name G. clavata
            > > vs. G. heterocystis
            > >
            > > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/5641
            > >
            > > One notable thing is the great variety of spore size that appears in
            > > the literature. My collections show the spores on the smaller side --
            > > avg. 9-10.5µ. They match exactly this observation:
            > >
            > > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/17497?search_seq=323620
            > >
            > > I wonder whether North American material has actually ever been
            > > sequenced and compared against the European, or from elsewhere,
            > > material.
            > >
            > > D.
            > >
            > >
            >
            > --
            > ----------------------------------------------------------
            > Douglas A. Smith douglas@...
            > Office: Bld ROB, Rm 204 (650)926-2369
            > ----------------------------------------------------------
            >
          • Dimitar Bojantchev
            Sequencing the old Type Collections would be a dream come true and a real chance to set straight the current mess. I was very excited when I heard Brandon
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Sequencing the old Type Collections would be a dream come true
              and a real chance to set straight the current mess. I was very
              excited when I heard Brandon Matheny say that he accomplished
              it. Why is it that mycologists are so unwilling to try harder --
              are these kits more expensive? Harder to use? Of course, who
              knows the kind of a mess that would be uncovered -- mixed type
              collections, misplaced, misnamed, etc. But at least it's a step
              in the right direction, unless Mycology is afraid that it may
              turn things upside down...

              This is one area that seems like a tremendous investigative
              fun to get into.

              D.


              --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "leucocoprinus" <birkebak@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Up in Seattle we put the name clavata on these guys but almost any
              Galerina ID is
              > tentative! It is extremely common up here and is actually somewhat
              easily recognizable
              > macroscopically.
              >
              > It would be very interesting to sequence the type of heterocystis!
              I know that Brandon
              > Matheny has been sequencing old type collections as old as Murrill
              using forensic DNA kits
              > so this would definitely be feasible! I think he has mostly stuck
              to Inocybes though! Any
              > takers?
              >
              > -Joshua
              >
              > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev"
              <dimitar@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Doug, thank you for the information and analysis.
              > >
              > > The good part is that we're on the same page as far as the
              Galerina
              > > species we're refering to and our micro characters are pretty
              > > consistent. Later on we can apply whatever name is deemed more
              > > appropriate.
              > >
              > > I think that the name G. clavata is an Ok name for now, until
              someone
              > > does a definitive work, including sequencing of our material.
              > >
              > > The latest trend in Galerina is that the small variations in
              > > micro-morphology do not quite define a new species when the
              molecular
              > > data is put together.
              > >
              > > D.
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: Douglas Smith
              > > To: MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com
              > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:16 AM
              > > Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Galerina clavata
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I've been meaning to write up more about this one, since I am
              > > claiming that G. hetercystis hasn't been seen in California,
              > > and it doesn't seem to have been seen in northern Europe, and
              > > as a species perhaps it could be seen in mid-west north America,
              > > but there don't seem to be any reports of this since the Smith
              > > and Singer monograph.
              > >
              > > So, starting with what we obs. here: A yellow-tan mycenoid
              > > light brown spored mushroom, 0.5-2cm in diameter, 3-10 cm
              > > tall. Cap striate 1/2-3/4 to center, smooth non-viscid.
              > > Stipe equal, thickening to base, fibrous surface on lower
              > > half, colorless when young to con-colorous with cap, not
              > > darkening from the base. Fibrous veil when very young, soon
              > > disappearing leaving no visible trace on stipe. On moss on
              > > the ground in damp areas.
              > >
              > > This is all fine, and pretty much matches the G. heterocystis
              > > description. So, on to micro details:
              > >
              > > Spores 9.5-10.5 um, ellipsoid, lightly warted with no plage,
              > > non-dextrinoid. Cheilocystidia tibiiform, and consistent, no
              > > pleurocystidia. Caulocystidia similar to cheilocystidia,
              > > tibiiform. basidia 4-spored. No clamp connections obs.
              > >
              > > This is where it gets to be trouble. The Smith and Singer
              > > monograph, while agrees with the no clamp connections, for
              > > G. heterocystis they do not have tibiiform cystidia, and
              > > the spores described are smooth to marbled, not lightly
              > > warted.
              > >
              > > If you then go to Kuhner (1935), Haan & Walleyn (2002) and
              > > a number of Gulden, et al. (1986 - 2000), and look at the
              > > descriptions and drawings of G. clavata, there are the lightly
              > > warted spores, and the tibiiform cystidia, that match exactly
              > > what is seen here.
              > >
              > > So, from this, we have something that does not match the
              > > north American description of G. heterocystis, but does match
              > > the various European descriptions of G. clavata. That seems
              > > to be the better name, since it better matches the description.
              > >
              > > Then there is the spore size. For G. clavata the spore size
              > > gets listed as from 11-13 to 11-17 um long. What we have
              > > here is fairly consistent with ave. spore sizes between 9.5um
              > > and 10.7um.
              > >
              > > I talked with Judy Rodgers about this over the past weekend,
              > > and she agrees that in Oregon there is something that doesn't
              > > really match G. heterocystis, and she hasn't seen anything
              > > from there that does match well. She said she does see something
              > > without clamp connection, tibiiform cystidia, and lightly
              > > warted spores, that seems to fairly well describe what I've
              > > been calling G. clavata around here. She said though, that
              > > what she finds is much larger than what we find, usually
              > > with stipes 10 to 15cm long or more.
              > >
              > > I did find 3-4 good caps of G. clavata over the weekend, and
              > > I had already made a good collection of this from Mendocino
              > > already this year, so I gave her these. She was going to try
              > > and look at these, and compare with what she sees in Oregon,
              > > and we'll see if that increases the range of this species.
              > >
              > > I don't think anything has been sequenced from north America,
              > > and mostly what has been obs from north America before now
              > > has been labeled G. heterocystis mostly, so we really just
              > > need the sequence of the type collection for G. heterocystis
              > > for comparison, not sure if that was done. The sequences of
              > > the G. clavata from Europe has been done, so at least the
              > > sequence of what we see here could be compared to that.
              > >
              > > Anyway, this is probably more than you want to know about a
              > > little brown job, but it is probably the most common Galerina
              > > out there, and a fairly common guy in moss from at least
              > > Santa Cruz to Mendocino. With the lightly yellow tan color,
              > > striate hygrophanous cap, and the almost colorless stipe
              > > it can almost be id'ed by eye around here.
              > >
              > > Douglas
              > >
              > > On Monday 02 February 2009 7:40 pm, Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:
              > > > Here is one common, pale colored Galerina that typically
              grows in
              > > > mossy areas amongst grass. It's striking with its capitate
              cystidia
              > > > that reminds one of Conocybe.
              > > >
              > > > http://mushroomhobby.com/Gallery/Galerina/Galerina%
              20clavata/index.htm
              > > >
              > > > Douglas Smith has some research & comments on the name G.
              clavata
              > > > vs. G. heterocystis
              > > >
              > > > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/5641
              > > >
              > > > One notable thing is the great variety of spore size that
              appears in
              > > > the literature. My collections show the spores on the smaller
              side --
              > > > avg. 9-10.5µ. They match exactly this observation:
              > > >
              > > > http://www.mushroomobserver.org/17497?search_seq=323620
              > > >
              > > > I wonder whether North American material has actually ever
              been
              > > > sequenced and compared against the European, or from
              elsewhere,
              > > > material.
              > > >
              > > > D.
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > > --
              > > ----------------------------------------------------------
              > > Douglas A. Smith douglas@
              > > Office: Bld ROB, Rm 204 (650)926-2369
              > > ----------------------------------------------------------
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.