rita-de-heer's Journal

All this and last week I've been submitting observations of my collection of Agaricus spp, and writing notes of what I recall of their surroundings.

Nineteen of them, surprised even me. The last one, the most doubtful.

I'm back to my Parasola project, not that I've put that out there yet. I'm collecting data and discovering some surprising things already. I need to get some magnification/photographic equipment. I wasn't thinking a camera.

https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/69895668

Having recently been made aware of the severe and multiple changes to the Psathyrella family of fungi, I was comforted to read that iNaturalist names taxons using secondary (free) sources. Trying to get more information on the Psathyrella proposal I had already hit the toll gates ... the cost of purchasing an article or the cost of purchasing membership in a monthly article rental scheme. Neither do-able in my scenario.

Some people are already talking as if these name-changes are what we all agreed to and this for a proposal not yet peer-reviewed. Then I read the situation in iNaturalist for Fungi and lichens. See quote below. I had to laugh. It doesn't pay to let yourself get complacent, even for the duration of a few paragraphs. One good thing though. We're insisting on peer-reviewed material.

"Fungi and lichens (Fungi)
Sadly, this is another group where there really is no global consensus, and names are changing rapidly, so for fungi we should try to follow the peer-reviewed primary literature. Index Fungorum is a decent source of names, and Species Fungorum has some information on what names should be current, but neither are up-to-date enough to satisfy most mycologists. Please be wary of Index Fungorum ePublications, though, which do not require any form of peer review or supporting evidence for name publication. Same goes for Mushroom Observer, which is a fantastic site but supports a number of unpublished and provisional names."

I've been musing on this for a few days, the reason why families such as Marasmius and the Coprinoids ... I know I'm probably using old terms here it's going to take a bit of time learning the new ones ... have striated caps where striations outline the gills lateral attachments beneath, or conversely where the cap has folded concertina-wise to provide gill folds. [see Coprinopsis]

Species such as Oudemansiella exannulata in common with many others, have smooth caps with no striations of underlying gills. [see Oudemansiella exannulata]

Seemingly simple answer, of course. Neither Marasmius nor the Coprinoids have any thickness of flesh between the cap exterior and the gills or gill folds underneath.