Mushrooms in a painting

Nathan Wilson velosa at cinenet.net
Tue Feb 13 04:49:21 EST 2001


On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Edwin Hutton wrote:

> Nathan Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > It actually looks to me like there might be more than one species
> > involved.  The one where you can see the underside the best looks like it
> > was probably white spored.  For that one I lean towards Gymnopus but the
> > gills are unusually shallow.
> 
> I haven't heard of Gymnopus. Do you mean Gymnopilus? (which in any case
> has rusty spores).

My understanding is that most of the species you are familiar with as
Collybia have been transfered to the genus Gymnopus.  Collybia is now
reservered for the small group of tiny species that grow from a sclerotium
or the blackened remains of another fungus.  See:

http://www.nybg.org/bsci/res/col/colintro.html

for Roy Halling's website on Collybia s.l.  This includes keys for the
various groups.

In essence I was agreeing with Elio's original conjecture that the white
spored species is a Collybia near dryophila (now known as Gymnopus
dryophilus). 

> >  If you look at the larger one with the
> > broken stem it looks like it had a dark spore print.  That one suggests a
> > Hypholoma to me.
> 
> The large upsidedown one seems to have black spores and could possibly
> be a woodland Agaricus (e.g. Sylvaticus) with the ring not noticed
> by the artist. There are traces of black spore print on one of the
> upright mushrooms.

Certainly possible.  However, one more point in favor of Hypholoma is the
apparently clustered habit.  This is a feature far more common among
Hypholoma than Agaricus species.  Also the partial veil of Hypholoma
typically disappears completely once the cap has expanded.

> Someone really ought to go and look at the original painting.
> Any offers?

Short of that, another helpful thing to do is capture the image on your
computer and increase the brightness.

Enjoy!
-Nathan







More information about the Mycology mailing list