name | Limacella agricola |
name status | insufficiently known |
author | Murrill |
english name | "Jamaican Limacella" |
intro | The only macroscopic data we have for this species are from Murrill's notes on the fresh material. |
cap | The cap is white, changing to mauve(?) on drying, small, convex, and slimy; margin striate. |
gills | The gills are free and white, with edges entire. Nothing is reported for the short gills. |
stem | The stem is white, even, and cylindric. |
spores | The spores of the type collection measure (4.5-) 6.5 - 6.5 (-7.0) × (4.1-) 4.2 - 5.5 μm and are subglobose to broadly ellipsoid (infrequently globose or ellipsoid). Reaction to Melzer's reagent not known (t.b.d.). Clamps probably present on basidia. |
discussion |
So far as I know this species is known only from the 1909 holotype, which was collected in a hotel lawn in Jamaica and is presently in poor condition. Murrill commented that the species' habit suggested Marasmius oreades. Apparently, his report of the spores' size and shape is based on the spores of hyphomycetes which are plentiful over much of the surface of the type material. The spore measurements reported here are from the mushroom.
H. V. Smith (1945) considered this entity to be a Limacella provisionally. Examination of the type indicates that the cap bears typical Limacella gluten-supporting hyphae of the type with cylindric terminal cells. Considering the color of the fresh cap, the grooved cap margin, the geographic location of the original collecting site, and the size-shape of its spores, this mushroom seems similar to Zhuliangomyces subillinitus. The names may even be synonyms.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Limacella agricola | ||||||||
author | Murrill. 1911. Mycologia 3: 81. | ||||||||
name status | insufficiently known | ||||||||
english name | "Jamaican Limacella" | ||||||||
etymology | "of the field" or "of fields" [apparently here applied to a lawn] | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 163732 | ||||||||
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 | NY | ||||||||
type studies | Tulloss, here. | ||||||||
revisions | Smith, H. V. 1945. ["1944"] Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 30: ??. | ||||||||
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. The following material not directly from the protolog of the present taxon and not cited as the work of another researcher is based upon original research by R. E. Tulloss. The type is in poor condition and largely covered with one or more hyphomycetes with plentiful conidiophores producing ellipsoid conidia. The only macroscopic data we have for this species are from Murrill's notes on the fresh material. | ||||||||
pileus | White, becoming mauve(?) on drying, small, convex, slimy; context not described; margin striate; universal veil glutinous. | ||||||||
lamellae | free, white, with edges entire; lamellulae not described. | ||||||||
stipe | not described. | ||||||||
odor/taste | not recorded. | ||||||||
macrochemical tests |
none recorded. | ||||||||
pileipellis | absent | ||||||||
lamella trama | destroyed by hyphomycete in type. | ||||||||
subhymenium | destroyed by hyphomycete in type. | ||||||||
basidia | At least some 4-sterigmate; clamps not observable due to state of tissues. | ||||||||
gluten layer | On pileus: Covered by layer of foreign frequently branching hyphae. Below "foreign layer," second layer of fasciculate, closely packed filamentous undifferentiated hyphae, possibly collapsed remains of "turf-like" structure, with terminal cells 31 - 56 × 2.0 - 4.0 μm, with tips conic, narrowly conic, narrowly and short clavate, with basal septa 3.0 - 3.2 μm, with subtending cell as uninflated hyphal segment although sometimes constricted at septum; apparent gluten surface dectected as line of detritus above terminal cells; clamps present. | ||||||||
lamella edge tissue | presumably fertile. | ||||||||
basidiospores | [17/1/1] (4.5-) 5.0 - 6.5 (-7.0) × (4.1-) 4.2 - 5.5 μm, (L = 5.8 μm; W = 4.9 μm; Q = (1.04-) 1.07 - 1.29 (1.46); Q = 1.18), hyaline, colorless, thin-walled, inamyloid, bearing minute spines, adaxially flattened, subglobose to broadly ellipsoid, infrequently globose or ellipsoid; apiculus sublateral, cylindric; contents granular to multiguttulate; color in deposit unknown (probably white). | ||||||||
ecology | In lawn. | ||||||||
material examined | JAMAICA: Constant Springs Hotel, 20.xii.1909 W. A. & E. L. Murrill s.n. (NY, holotype). | ||||||||
discussion |
The geographic location of the type locality, the pileus color, the striate margin of the pileus, and the spore size/shape suggest the possibility that the present name might be a synonym to L. subillinita. If sufficient further evidence could be accumulated, then the name of the present species would have priority. | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Limacella agricola |
bottom links | [ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Limacella agricola |
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.