name | Limacella roseola | ||||||||
author | Murrill 1943. Mycologia 35: 426. | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
english name | "Rosy Dry-stemmed Slimy Cap" | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 287781 | ||||||||
GenBank nos. |
Due to delays in data processing at GenBank, some accession numbers may lead to unreleased (pending) pages.
These pages will eventually be made live, so try again later.
| ||||||||
holotypes | FLAS?? | ||||||||
type studies |
Smith. 1945 ["1944"]. Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 30: 125-147. Gminder. 1994. Z. Mykol. 60(2): 377-398. | ||||||||
intro |
The following text may make multiple use of each data field. The field may contain magenta text presenting data from a type study and/or revision of other original material cited in the protolog of the present taxon. Macroscopic descriptions in magenta are a combination of data from the protolog and additional observations made on the exiccata during revision of the cited original material. The same field may also contain black text, which is data from a revision of the present taxon (including non-type material and/or material not cited in the protolog). Paragraphs of black text will be labeled if further subdivision of this text is appropriate. Olive text indicates a specimen that has not been thoroughly examined (for example, for microscopic details) and marks other places in the text where data is missing or uncertain. Description derived from (Smith 1945 ) and with added data from the type study of Gminder (1994) as indicated. | ||||||||
pileus |
Smith (1945 ): ca. 50 mm wide, rose pink with slightly darker umbo, convex to expanded, umbonate, smooth, glabrous; context not described; margin not described; gluten layer not described. [Note: pileus not even called “viscid”] | ||||||||
lamellae | Smith (1945 ): approximate to stipe, crowded, rose-tinted, fairly broad, with even edges; lamellulae not described. | ||||||||
stipe | Smith (1945 ): ca. 70 mm long, pale roseous, slender, narrowing upward, subglabrous; bulb not described; context not described; partial veil median, evanescent; gluten layer not described. | ||||||||
odor/taste | not recorded. | ||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||
pileipellis | absent?? | ||||||||
pileus context | Smith (1945 ): loosely structured below gluten layer, becoming denser toward lamellae; vascular hyphae 4–6 µm wide, numerous, contorted, branched, staining brown in Melzer’s reagent; clamps present. | ||||||||
lamella trama | Smith (1945 ): bilateral; central stratum present; vascular hyphae 6.3–12.6 µm wide, numerous, staining deep rusty brown in Melzer’s reagent. | ||||||||
subhymenium | not described. | ||||||||
basidia |
Smith (1945 ): 16.8 – 25 × 4.2 – 6.3 µm, 4-sterigmate; clamps not described. Gminder (1994): ca. 21 × 5.5 µm, 4-sterigmate; clamps not described. | ||||||||
gluten layer | Smith (1945 ): On pileus: filamentous undifferentiated hyphae supporting gluten pile 2–6 µm wide, slightly gelatinous(?) in KOH, more or less decumbent and not erect or forming turf; terminal cells often somewhat enlarged near apex. On stipe: not described. | ||||||||
stipe context | Gminder (1994): filamentous undifferentiated hyphae 6 – 18 µm wide; acrophysalides not described; vascular hyphae not described; clamps present. | ||||||||
partial veil | absent?? | ||||||||
lamella edge tissue | fertile?? | ||||||||
basidiospores |
Smith (1945) [-/-/-] 3.5 – 4.8 × 3 – 4 µm, (est. Q’ = 1.19), ??, dextrinoid [observation not reproducible by Gminder, approx. 50 years later], when very young appearing punctate in Melzer’s reagent; apiculus not described; contents not described; color in deposit not recorded. Gminder (1994): [30/1/1] (3.5–) 3.8–5.0 × 3.5–4.8 µm, (L = 4.2 µm; W = 4.0 µm; Q = 1.0–1.14 (–1.19); Q = 1.05), inamyloid, globose to subglobose, infrequently broadly ellipsoid; apiculus proportionately small (per figure); contents not described; color in deposit not recorded. [Note: The difference in Q values from the two studies listed above may indicate different methods of spore measurement.—ed.] | ||||||||
ecology | from protolog: On humus in hollow tree. | ||||||||
material examined | U.S.A.: VIRGINIA—?? Co. - locale??, date?? collector?? no.?? (holotype, FLAS??). | ||||||||
discussion | None of the spore data can be considered definitive. H.V. Smith (1945) emphasizes the dextrinoid reaction of the spores, which she seems to consider unusual. [See notes on the dextrinoid reaction of some spores in the Costa Rican collection determined as L. glischra.] H.V. Smith also notes dextrinoid vascular hyphae were very plentiful in the pileus context and lamella trama. A similar reaction is also infrequently seen in vascular hyphae of Amanita.—R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Limacella roseola |
bottom links | [ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Limacella roseola |
bottom links | [ Keys & Checklists ] |
Each spore data set is intended to comprise a set of measurements from a single specimen made by a single observer; and explanations prepared for this site talk about specimen-observer pairs associated with each data set. Combining more data into a single data set is non-optimal because it obscures observer differences (which may be valuable for instructional purposes, for example) and may obscure instances in which a single collection inadvertently contains a mixture of taxa.