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

Re: Conocybe apala vs. Conocybe lactea

Expand Messages
  • ireneandersson77
    Hi Dimi, whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C. lactea. The
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dimi,
      whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures
      of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C. lactea.
      The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers
      Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize):
      http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5839.asp

      It makes me think there are more than one species that has been
      interpreted as "lactea".

      I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but I
      suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.

      I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from
      Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have tried
      to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult. I'm
      not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related to
      A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be a
      description of a Bolbitius.

      http://194.203.77.76/librifungorum/Image.asp?
      Nav=yes&FirstPage=106208&LastPage=106596&NextPage=106361


      About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this be
      of interest?

      http://images.google.se/imgres?
      imgurl=http://www.funghiitaliani.it/uploads/post-2286-
      1167566210.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.funghiitaliani.it/index.php%
      3Fshowtopic%
      3D27687&h=487&w=750&sz=177&hl=sv&start=31&um=1&tbnid=NU9W1RgjnUjn8M:&t
      bnh=92&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3DConocybe%2Blactea%26start%3D20%
      26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26rls%3DDASE,DASE:2006-41,DASE:sv%26sa%
      3DN

      /Irene A


      --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev"
      <dimitar@...> wrote:
      >
      > E. Arnold makes a pretty strong argument in FAN that C. apala is the
      > more appropriate name for what we call C. lactea.
      >
      > This came as a results of a discussion in another forum where some
      > French mycologists alerted me to the entire mess surrounding the
      > various name games and confusion around Bolbitius/Conocybe
      > tener/lactea/albipes, you name it, sensu 5-6 mycologists in the near
      > and distant past... Confusion all around. But, in reality, as FAN
      > points out, there is such thing as Bolbitius lacteus, which is
      > different than Conocybe lactea, aka Conocybe apala. What I saw here
      > locally is the Conocybe species.
      >
      > I'd be interested to inspect local collections deemed to be
      Bolbitius
      > lacteus. It should be a very quick job to distinguish from Conocybe.
      >
      > D.
      > www.mushroomohobby.com
      >
    • Nathan Wilson
      July appears to be the month for discussing this problem! This came up last year on MO (last edit July 20, 2007). See:
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        July appears to be the month for discussing this problem!  This came up last year on MO (last edit July 20, 2007).  See:


        However, there was no mention at that time of C. apala.  However, looking into it a bit in Index Fungorum it looks like C. apala has two varieties C. apala var. albipes (= C. albipes) and (of course) C. apala var. apala.

        So Dimi, while you provided a link to your own images of whatever this is you don't provide a link or summary of Arnolds argument and I'm not sure what "FAN" is.

        -Nathan

        On Jul 1, 2008, at 2:17 AM, ireneandersson77 wrote:

        Hi Dimi,
        whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures 
        of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C. lactea.
        The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers 
        Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize): 
        http://www.rogersmu shrooms.com/ gallery/DisplayB lock~bid~ 5839.asp

        It makes me think there are more than one species that has been 
        interpreted as "lactea".

        I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but I 
        suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.

        I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from 
        Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have tried 
        to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult. I'm 
        not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related to 
        A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be a 
        description of a Bolbitius.

        http://194.203. 77.76/librifungo rum/Image. asp?
        Nav=yes&FirstPage= 106208&LastPage= 106596&NextPage= 106361

        About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this be 
        of interest?

        http://images. google.se/ imgres?
        imgurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ uploads/post- 2286-
        1167566210.jpg& imgrefurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ index.php%
        3Fshowtopic%
        3D27687&h=487& w=750&sz= 177&hl=sv& start=31& um=1&tbnid= NU9W1RgjnUjn8M: &t
        bnh=92&tbnw= 141&prev= /images%3Fq% 3DConocybe% 2Blactea% 26start%3D20%
        26ndsp%3D20% 26um%3D1% 26hl%3Dsv% 26rls%3DDASE, DASE:2006- 41,DASE:sv% 26sa%
        3DN

        /Irene A

        --- In MushroomTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" 
        <dimitar@... > wrote:
        >
        > E. Arnold makes a pretty strong argument in FAN that C. apala is the
        > more appropriate name for what we call C. lactea.
        > 
        > This came as a results of a discussion in another forum where some
        > French mycologists alerted me to the entire mess surrounding the
        > various name games and confusion around Bolbitius/Conocybe
        > tener/lactea/ albipes, you name it, sensu 5-6 mycologists in the near
        > and distant past... Confusion all around. But, in reality, as FAN
        > points out, there is such thing as Bolbitius lacteus, which is
        > different than Conocybe lactea, aka Conocybe apala. What I saw here
        > locally is the Conocybe species.
        > 
        > I'd be interested to inspect local collections deemed to be 
        Bolbitius
        > lacteus. It should be a very quick job to distinguish from Conocybe.
        > 
        > D.
        > www.mushroomohobby. com
        >


      • Dimitar Bojantchev
        Hi Nathan, this is a July mushroom and naturally we talk about it now. FAN stands for Flora Agaricina Neerlandica. The Dutch mycological school is renowned,
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Nathan,
           
          this is a July mushroom and naturally we talk about it now.
           
          FAN stands for Flora Agaricina Neerlandica.  The Dutch mycological
          school is renowned, but in the area of saprophites, unsurpassed. There
          is an extensive treatment of that species. It is available online too:
           
           
          Honestly, I'm less interested about the nomenclatural scriptures
          because we know which species we're talking about -- that common
          Conocybe in the lawns. For the nomenclature I'll await Hausknecht's
          upcoming treatise in Fungi Europaei: Bolbitiaceae: Conocybe and
          Pholiotina...
           
          What I'm more interested is to find the purported Bolbitius lacteus,
          which should be easily separated based on elementary microscopy. Such
          species is described in FAN and supposedly common in the USA. I saw
          some photos on MO, but they need to be inspected microscopically,
          otherwise it leaves way too much space for imagination and even the
          greatest masters are not immune to it.
           
          Here is a link to an article for which M. Wood alerted me -- this one
          deals with the molecular phylogeny of the C. lactea.
           
           
          Best,
           
             D.
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:41 AM
          Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Re: Conocybe apala vs. Conocybe lactea

          July appears to be the month for discussing this problem!  This came up last year on MO (last edit July 20, 2007).  See:



          However, there was no mention at that time of C. apala.  However, looking into it a bit in Index Fungorum it looks like C. apala has two varieties C. apala var. albipes (= C. albipes) and (of course) C. apala var. apala.

          So Dimi, while you provided a link to your own images of whatever this is you don't provide a link or summary of Arnolds argument and I'm not sure what "FAN" is.

          -Nathan

          On Jul 1, 2008, at 2:17 AM, ireneandersson77 wrote:

          Hi Dimi,
          whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures 
          of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C. lactea.
          The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers 
          Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize): 
          http://www.rogersmu shrooms.com/ gallery/DisplayB lock~bid~ 5839.asp

          It makes me think there are more than one species that has been 
          interpreted as "lactea".

          I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but I 
          suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.

          I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from 
          Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have tried 
          to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult. I'm 
          not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related to 
          A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be a 
          description of a Bolbitius.

          http://194.203. 77.76/librifungo rum/Image. asp?
          Nav=yes&FirstPage= 106208&LastPage= 106596&NextPage= 106361

          About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this be 
          of interest?

          http://images. google.se/ imgres?
          imgurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ uploads/post- 2286-
          1167566210.jpg& imgrefurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ index.php%
          3Fshowtopic%
          3D27687&h=487& w=750&sz= 177&hl=sv& start=31& um=1&tbnid= NU9W1RgjnUjn8M: &t
          bnh=92&tbnw= 141&prev= /images%3Fq% 3DConocybe% 2Blactea% 26start%3D20%
          26ndsp%3D20% 26um%3D1% 26hl%3Dsv% 26rls%3DDASE, DASE:2006- 41,DASE:sv% 26sa%
          3DN

          /Irene A

          --- In MushroomTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" 
          <dimitar@... > wrote:
          >
          > E. Arnold makes a pretty strong argument in FAN that C. apala is the
          > more appropriate name for what we call C. lactea.
          > 
          > This came as a results of a discussion in another forum where some
          > French mycologists alerted me to the entire mess surrounding the
          > various name games and confusion around Bolbitius/Conocybe
          > tener/lactea/ albipes, you name it, sensu 5-6 mycologists in the near
          > and distant past... Confusion all around. But, in reality, as FAN
          > points out, there is such thing as Bolbitius lacteus, which is
          > different than Conocybe lactea, aka Conocybe apala. What I saw here
          > locally is the Conocybe species.
          > 
          > I'd be interested to inspect local collections deemed to be 
          Bolbitius
          > lacteus. It should be a very quick job to distinguish from Conocybe.
          > 
          > D.
          > www.mushroomohobby. com
          >


        • Dimitar Bojantchev
          Hi Irene, ... lactea. ... Interesting. I hardly see any difference between these collections. BTW, I would have liked for that site to allow these photos to
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Irene,

            >Hi Dimi,
            >whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures
            >of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C.
            lactea.
            >The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers
            >Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize):
            >http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5839.asp

            Interesting. I hardly see any difference between these
            collections. BTW, I would have liked for that site to allow
            these photos to be a tad larger, don't you think? Such small
            photos are useless. Particularly if one wants to see such
            critical detail as pubescence on the stipe...


            >It makes me think there are more than one species that has been
            >interpreted as "lactea".

            >I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but I
            >suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.

            Could be, but the SIGNIFICANT net knowledge for me was the
            presence of a Bolbitius that is supposed to look very similar!! I
            want to see that species, _currently_ named Bolbitus lacteus.

            >I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from
            >Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have tried
            >to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult. I'm
            >not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related to
            >A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be a
            >description of a Bolbitius.
            >
            >http://194.203.77.76/librifungorum/Image.asp?
            Nav=yes&FirstPage=106208&LastPage=106596&NextPage=106361
            >

            Fries was of the pre-microscope generation and as far as I
            understand he was pretty obstinate about it even later when the
            equipment was widely available.

            BTW, note that "apice interdum flavescens" -- this led me to
            think for a bit if what I picked recently is a Bolbitius and why
            I was thought that I had mixed collections on my Web page under
            Conocybe. But the microscopy is very clear -- this is a
            Conocybe. So, again, I want to see that Bolbitus looking grass
            dweller that is truly Bolbitius lacteus and match against
            Arnold's description in FAN.

            >About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this be
            >of interest?

            I saw these lovely Italian photos below -- unfortunately there is
            no indication that they analyzed this thing as they should
            have. In that case I cannot possibly view it as anything other than
            another pretty picture. But a picture "of what?" it will not be
            known. I can spin an argument in both directions, it makes for a
            lovely social exchange, but hardly any discovery.

            >http://images.google.se/imgres? [...]

            /Irene A

            Did the "svampen" in your area awaken?

            D.





            --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "ireneandersson77" <irene@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Hi Dimi,
            > whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american
            pictures
            > of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C.
            lactea.
            > The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers
            > Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize):
            > http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5839.asp
            >
            > It makes me think there are more than one species that has been
            > interpreted as "lactea".
            >
            > I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but
            I
            > suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.
            >
            > I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from
            > Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have
            tried
            > to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult.
            I'm
            > not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related
            to
            > A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be
            a
            > description of a Bolbitius.
            >
            > http://194.203.77.76/librifungorum/Image.asp?
            > Nav=yes&FirstPage=106208&LastPage=106596&NextPage=106361
            >
            >
            > About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this
            be
            > of interest?
            >
            > http://images.google.se/imgres?
            > imgurl=http://www.funghiitaliani.it/uploads/post-2286-
            > 1167566210.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.funghiitaliani.it/index.php%
            > 3Fshowtopic%
            >
            3D27687&h=487&w=750&sz=177&hl=sv&start=31&um=1&tbnid=NU9W1RgjnUjn8M:&
            t
            > bnh=92&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3DConocybe%2Blactea%26start%3D20%
            > 26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26rls%3DDASE,DASE:2006-41,DASE:sv%
            26sa%
            > 3DN
            >
            > /Irene A
            >
            >
            > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev"
            > <dimitar@> wrote:
            > >
            > > E. Arnold makes a pretty strong argument in FAN that C. apala is
            the
            > > more appropriate name for what we call C. lactea.
            > >
            > > This came as a results of a discussion in another forum where
            some
            > > French mycologists alerted me to the entire mess surrounding the
            > > various name games and confusion around Bolbitius/Conocybe
            > > tener/lactea/albipes, you name it, sensu 5-6 mycologists in the
            near
            > > and distant past... Confusion all around. But, in reality, as FAN
            > > points out, there is such thing as Bolbitius lacteus, which is
            > > different than Conocybe lactea, aka Conocybe apala. What I saw
            here
            > > locally is the Conocybe species.
            > >
            > > I'd be interested to inspect local collections deemed to be
            > Bolbitius
            > > lacteus. It should be a very quick job to distinguish from
            Conocybe.
            > >
            > > D.
            > > www.mushroomohobby.com
            > >
            >
          • ireneandersson77
            Conocybe lactea vs lactea... ... And I thought they were obvious(!) The one to the left has a slender, bell-shaped cap, and the one to the right has a more
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Conocybe lactea vs lactea...
              > >http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5839.asp

              > Interesting. I hardly see any difference between these
              > collections.

              And I thought they were obvious(!) The one to the left has a slender,
              bell-shaped cap, and the one to the right has a more expanding,
              conical shape. I cannot beleive they are the same.


              > BTW, I would have liked for that site to allow
              > these photos to be a tad larger, don't you think? Such small
              > photos are useless.

              Well, the pictures on that site are only previews - you have to pay
              for better resolution :-)


              > ...the SIGNIFICANT net knowledge for me was the
              > presence of a Bolbitius that is supposed to look very similar!! I
              > want to see that species, _currently_ named Bolbitus lacteus.

              The weird thing is that both IndexFungorum and MycoBank still treat
              it as a synonym to Conocybe lactea.
              But in an old article in "Svampe", the danish paper, they have
              pictures (lousy drawings in the pdf-file) and descriptions of it (and
              3 others), page 74-79 (it's from 1981):
              http://www.svampe.dk/svampe/svampepdf/svampe4.pdf

              The important thing here is that Bolbitius lacteus was originally
              described by a danish author (J.E. Lange 1940), and it doesn't look
              like Conocybe lactea at all.
              (I could try to translate the description for you if you feel like
              you need it..?)


              > Did the "svampen" in your area awaken?

              Oh, yes, in the northern part of Sweden they are beating all records
              in being early. Both Boletus edulis and pinophilus, several Leccinum
              species, and chanterelles (still rather small though) are reported. I
              have seen dried out Suillus luteus and some species of Clitocybe
              myself.

              /Irene A
            • Nathan Wilson
              Down here in LA it seems to be a nearly year around mushroom. However, it seems to show up more in the warm weather and is one of the few mushroom around in
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Down here in LA it seems to be a nearly year around mushroom.  However, it seems to show up more in the warm weather and is one of the few mushroom around in July.

                Thanks for the reference to FAN.  I realized on the way to work that was probably what you meant.  I had just never seen that TLA for it :-).  It's one of those series that I've thought about investing in, but just can't bring myself to lay down all that money for something I so rarely have the time to really study.

                Thanks for keeping the conversation lively!

                -Nathan

                On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:


                Hi Nathan,
                 
                this is a July mushroom and naturally we talk about it now.
                 
                FAN stands for Flora Agaricina Neerlandica.  The Dutch mycological
                school is renowned, but in the area of saprophites, unsurpassed. There
                is an extensive treatment of that species. It is available online too:
                 
                 
                Honestly, I'm less interested about the nomenclatural scriptures
                because we know which species we're talking about -- that common
                Conocybe in the lawns. For the nomenclature I'll await Hausknecht's
                upcoming treatise in Fungi Europaei: Bolbitiaceae: Conocybe and
                Pholiotina.. .
                 
                What I'm more interested is to find the purported Bolbitius lacteus,
                which should be easily separated based on elementary microscopy. Such
                species is described in FAN and supposedly common in the USA. I saw
                some photos on MO, but they need to be inspected microscopically,
                otherwise it leaves way too much space for imagination and even the
                greatest masters are not immune to it.
                 
                Here is a link to an article for which M. Wood alerted me -- this one
                deals with the molecular phylogeny of the C. lactea.
                 
                 
                Best,
                 
                   D.
                 
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:41 AM
                Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Re: Conocybe apala vs. Conocybe lactea

                July appears to be the month for discussing this problem!  This came up last year on MO (last edit July 20, 2007).  See:



                However, there was no mention at that time of C. apala.  However, looking into it a bit in Index Fungorum it looks like C. apala has two varieties C. apala var. albipes (= C. albipes) and (of course) C. apala var. apala.

                So Dimi, while you provided a link to your own images of whatever this is you don't provide a link or summary of Arnolds argument and I'm not sure what "FAN" is.

                -Nathan

                On Jul 1, 2008, at 2:17 AM, ireneandersson77 wrote:

                Hi Dimi,
                whatever the name should be, it strikes me that no american pictures 
                of Conocybe lactea remind much of the ones I have known as C. lactea.
                The differences are the same as in the two pictures from Rogers 
                Mushrooms (the ones to the left are the ones I recognize): 
                http://www.rogersmu shrooms.com/ gallery/DisplayB lock~bid~ 5839.asp

                It makes me think there are more than one species that has been 
                interpreted as "lactea".

                I agree that the names and interpretations of them are a mess, but I 
                suspect that Arnolds could have made it even worse.

                I have understood that Arnolds picked up the name "apala" from 
                Fries' "Agaricus apalus" (1818). From his description, I have tried 
                to find out what species he actually meant, but it's difficult. I'm 
                not very good at latin either. He mentions that it seems related to 
                A. vitellinus (Bolbitius vitellinus), so it could just as well be a 
                description of a Bolbitius.

                http://194.203. 77.76/librifungo rum/Image. asp?
                Nav=yes&FirstPage= 106208&LastPage= 106596&NextPage= 106361

                About the comparison between Conocybe and Bolbitius - could this be 
                of interest?

                http://images. google.se/ imgres?
                imgurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ uploads/post- 2286-
                1167566210.jpg& imgrefurl=http://www.funghiit aliani.it/ index.php%
                3Fshowtopic%
                3D27687&h=487& w=750&sz= 177&hl=sv& start=31& um=1&tbnid= NU9W1RgjnUjn8M: &t
                bnh=92&tbnw= 141&prev= /images%3Fq% 3DConocybe% 2Blactea% 26start%3D20%
                26ndsp%3D20% 26um%3D1% 26hl%3Dsv% 26rls%3DDASE, DASE:2006- 41,DASE:sv% 26sa%
                3DN

                /Irene A

                --- In MushroomTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" 
                <dimitar@... > wrote:
                >
                > E. Arnold makes a pretty strong argument in FAN that C. apala is the
                > more appropriate name for what we call C. lactea.
                > 
                > This came as a results of a discussion in another forum where some
                > French mycologists alerted me to the entire mess surrounding the
                > various name games and confusion around Bolbitius/Conocybe
                > tener/lactea/ albipes, you name it, sensu 5-6 mycologists in the near
                > and distant past... Confusion all around. But, in reality, as FAN
                > points out, there is such thing as Bolbitius lacteus, which is
                > different than Conocybe lactea, aka Conocybe apala. What I saw here
                > locally is the Conocybe species.
                > 
                > I'd be interested to inspect local collections deemed to be 
                Bolbitius
                > lacteus. It should be a very quick job to distinguish from Conocybe.
                > 
                > D.
                > www.mushroomohobby. com
                >





              • Dimitar Bojantchev
                Combining responses to Irene and Nathan. LONG!! -- read at your own risk... ... Yes! And compared to the photo in your link below that shows that this is
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Combining responses to Irene and Nathan. LONG!! -- read at your own risk...
                  --------------------------------------------------
                   
                  Irene:
                  -------
                  >The weird thing is that
                  both IndexFungorum and MycoBank still treat
                  >it as a synonym to Conocybe
                  lactea.
                   
                  Yes! And compared to the photo in your link below that shows that this
                  is (probably) incorrect. But remember that other people were involved in
                  misinterpreting Lange's species too -- CROSSING GENERA!!!…
                   
                  >But in an old article in "Svampe", the danish paper, they have
                  >pictures (lousy drawings in the pdf-file) and
                  descriptions of it (and
                  >3 others), page 74-79 (it's from
                  1981):
                  >http://www.svampe.dk/svampe/svampepdf/svampe4.pdf
                   
                  This is a great!!  Got to admire the European folks for digging out
                  obscure sources - like some people hyperventilate over Australian
                  Corts, rare mycological sources excite me.In fact if we forget
                  about the Bolbitius part, the Dermocybe article by Hoiland is the one
                  I have been after for awhile.
                   
                  >The important thing here is that Bolbitius lacteus was originally
                  >described by a danish author (J.E. Lange 1940),
                  and it doesn't look
                  >like Conocybe lactea at all.
                   
                  Yes! And this will test the idea of one person that it looks like
                  Conocybe and is common in NA too. What I see there is quite much
                  different. Here we're getting into the situation when the same epithet
                  for two quite diverse species, but in the same Family creates a huge
                  and complete mess. Particularly when imagination and conjecture is
                  mixed in.
                   
                  One of the people from this forum is sending me something that may be
                  interpreted as Bolbitius, but I want so see a picture too. As you
                  underscore above - everybody talks about Bolbitius lacteus, but nobody
                  known what it looks like, or have proven so reliably. The original
                  Danish source is the first step in untangling this thing.
                   
                  From Nathan::
                   
                  >Thanks for the reference to FAN.  I realized on the way to work that was probably what >you meant.  I had just never seen that TLA for it :-).  It's one of those series that I've
                  >thought about investing in, but just can't bring myself to lay down all that
                  money for >something I so rarely have the time to really study.
                   
                  Flora Agaricina Neerlandica is a great publication not only because
                  we're familiar with "our very own" Else Vellinga who participated in
                  its creation. What it lacks in color pictures, it gains through
                  excellent schematics and a typical Northern sparing approach to
                  conjecture treated as a fact, so typical of some Southern European
                  authors. But despite its dry beauty it does not lack critical detail!
                  FAN is an important brick in our wall of knowledge and I have become
                  more and more dependent on it. I see some parts of it online.
                   
                  >Thanks for keeping the conversation lively!
                   
                  Thank you Nathan. Sometimes it looks like Dimitar's blog and I really
                  hate that, or the possible interpretation of it, but if the choice is
                  silence than I have no choice, but to go on, here or elsewhere.
                  Because those who stay silent will be forgotten no matter in what pose
                  they froze, it's a basic theme in life (although that sometimes you
                  want a 6 mo. baby to be silent for a bit :-). I will try to attract a
                  few interesting folks when I go East in a month. We need more exchange
                  of ideas and knowledge, not less. There are various levels of folks,
                  those who are low will go up, after our friendly pounding on them (I
                  hope I don't appear too rough on MO sometimes)!  Ok, enough philosophy
                  for now!
                   
                  BTW, the system treated your messages as spam and I had to unlock
                  them. This has happened only once before.
                   
                          D.
                   
                  P.S. The C. cotoneus subject is an interesting one and I have "worked"
                  on it together with Prof. Ammirati a bit I have many comments on the
                  previous messages, but the basic concept is that we don't know whether
                  we know, how much we know and what we know, if any... The only thing
                  we can be certain of is that we do not know enough, particularly East
                  NA vs. West NA, oh my. California is yet a different beast widely
                  recognized as significantly different than the Northern PNW. There is
                  the concept of C. clandestinus (Kauffman) mixed in there. But no type
                  collection, or a bad type collection is like "no body, no crime, only
                  that the person is missing". Anyway, after that deep thought, let me
                  get some work done. I'll be back...
                   
                • ireneandersson77
                  ... Then I have to add that the original description and picture is available on the net, in Flora Agaricina Danica (this is a goldmine - if you didn t know
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@...>
                    wrote:

                    > One of the people from this forum is sending me something that may be
                    > interpreted as Bolbitius, but I want so see a picture too. As you
                    > underscore above - everybody talks about Bolbitius lacteus, but nobody
                    > known what it looks like, or have proven so reliably. The original
                    > Danish source is the first step in untangling this thing.

                    Then I have to add that the original description and picture is
                    available on the net, in Flora Agaricina Danica (this is a goldmine -
                    if you didn't know that already?).
                    If not, you'll find the database here:

                    http://130.225.211.158/agaricina/flagar-search.htm

                    Search for Bolbitius lacteus, click on 196B, you'll get the picture,
                    klick on that, and you'll get the description too. Unfortunately, there
                    was no type material saved (it's a very ephemeral mushroom and
                    obviously rare too..).
                    What they did in the article in Svampe - 81, was describing the neotype
                    that was collected in 1980.

                    Wish you luck with Bolbitius-

                    /Irene A
                  • Darvin DeShazer
                    Dimi - Sorry to get your hopes up on the Bolbitius as it turned out to be just another Conocybe. http://mushroomobserver.org/8107 The COLOR scans of Flora
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dimi - Sorry to get your hopes up on the Bolbitius as it turned out
                      to be just another Conocybe.

                      http://mushroomobserver.org/8107

                      The COLOR scans of Flora Agaricina Danica provided by Irene are
                      EXCELLENT. B&W scans have been available for some time, but they
                      lack the details provided by the watercolors. And this database is
                      searchable by plate number as well as species. NICE.


                      Darv
                      SOMA Science Advisor
                      SOMAmushrooms.org
                      MushroomObserver.org - 14,000 photos & going up daily
                      http://darv.vox.com/




                      On Jul 2, 2008, at 3:11 PM, ireneandersson77 wrote:

                      > --- In MushroomTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dimitar Bojantchev"
                      > <dimitar@...>
                      > wrote:
                      >
                      > > One of the people from this forum is sending me something that
                      > may be
                      > > interpreted as Bolbitius, but I want so see a picture too. As you
                      > > underscore above - everybody talks about Bolbitius lacteus, but
                      > nobody
                      > > known what it looks like, or have proven so reliably. The original
                      > > Danish source is the first step in untangling this thing.
                      >
                      > Then I have to add that the original description and picture is
                      > available on the net, in Flora Agaricina Danica (this is a goldmine -
                      > if you didn't know that already?).
                      > If not, you'll find the database here:
                      >
                      > http://130.225.211.158/agaricina/flagar-search.htm
                      >
                      > Search for Bolbitius lacteus, click on 196B, you'll get the picture,
                      > klick on that, and you'll get the description too. Unfortunately,
                      > there
                      > was no type material saved (it's a very ephemeral mushroom and
                      > obviously rare too..).
                      > What they did in the article in Svampe - 81, was describing the
                      > neotype
                      > that was collected in 1980.
                      >
                      > Wish you luck with Bolbitius-
                      >
                      > /Irene A
                    • Dimitar Bojantchev
                      Thank you Darvin, according to a well known French mycologist this species is common in our lawns, so I d be interested to find it although that I doubt the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you Darvin,
                         
                        according to a well known French mycologist this species is common in our lawns,
                        so I'd be interested to find it although that I doubt the complete truth of that statement.
                         
                                D.
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:05 PM
                        Subject: Re: [MushroomTalk] Re: Conocybe apala vs. Conocybe lactea

                        Dimi - Sorry to get your hopes up on the Bolbitius as it turned out
                        to be just another Conocybe.

                        http://mushroomobse rver.org/ 8107

                        The COLOR scans of Flora Agaricina Danica provided by Irene are
                        EXCELLENT. B&W scans have been available for some time, but they
                        lack the details provided by the watercolors. And this database is
                        searchable by plate number as well as species. NICE.

                        Darv
                        SOMA Science Advisor
                        SOMAmushrooms. org
                        MushroomObserver. org - 14,000 photos & going up daily
                        http://darv. vox.com/

                        On Jul 2, 2008, at 3:11 PM, ireneandersson77 wrote:

                        > --- In MushroomTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Dimitar Bojantchev"
                        > <dimitar@... >
                        > wrote:
                        >
                        > > One of the people from this forum is sending me something that
                        > may be
                        > > interpreted as Bolbitius, but I want so see a picture too. As you
                        > > underscore above - everybody talks about Bolbitius lacteus, but
                        > nobody
                        > > known what it looks like, or have proven so reliably. The original
                        > > Danish source is the first step in untangling this thing.
                        >
                        > Then I have to add that the original description and picture is
                        > available on the net, in Flora Agaricina Danica (this is a goldmine -
                        > if you didn't know that already?).
                        > If not, you'll find the database here:
                        >
                        > http://130.225. 211.158/agaricin a/flagar- search.htm
                        >
                        > Search for Bolbitius lacteus, click on 196B, you'll get the picture,
                        > klick on that, and you'll get the description too. Unfortunately,
                        > there
                        > was no type material saved (it's a very ephemeral mushroom and
                        > obviously rare too..).
                        > What they did in the article in Svampe - 81, was describing the
                        > neotype
                        > that was collected in 1980.
                        >
                        > Wish you luck with Bolbitius-
                        >
                        > /Irene A

                      • Dimitar Bojantchev
                        Irene, thank you for the great links. Indeed, what is shown in the Danish sources is a species with widely expanded, parasol-like cap at maturity, which is not
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 3, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Irene,
                           
                          thank you for the great links. Indeed, what is shown in the Danish
                          sources is a species with widely expanded, parasol-like cap at
                          maturity, which is not something that I have seen before in our
                          lawns. This kind of expansion is typical it seems for Bolbitius. The
                          Conocybe are truly cone heads...
                           
                          Here a broad search through MO might be useful for anything in that
                          Genera range that looks that way.
                           
                          Very best,
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:11 PM
                          Subject: [MushroomTalk] Re: Conocybe apala vs. Conocybe lactea

                          --- In MushroomTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Dimitar Bojantchev" <dimitar@... >
                          wrote:

                          > One of the people from this forum is sending me something that may be
                          > interpreted as Bolbitius, but I want so see a picture too. As you
                          > underscore above - everybody talks about Bolbitius lacteus, but nobody
                          > known what it looks like, or have proven so reliably. The original
                          > Danish source is the first step in untangling this thing.

                          Then I have to add that the original description and picture is
                          available on the net, in Flora Agaricina Danica (this is a goldmine -
                          if you didn't know that already?).
                          If not, you'll find the database here:

                          http://130.225. 211.158/agaricin a/flagar- search.htm

                          Search for Bolbitius lacteus, click on 196B, you'll get the picture,
                          klick on that, and you'll get the description too. Unfortunately, there
                          was no type material saved (it's a very ephemeral mushroom and
                          obviously rare too..).
                          What they did in the article in Svampe - 81, was describing the neotype
                          that was collected in 1980.

                          Wish you luck with Bolbitius-

                          /Irene A

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.