Caution: Do NOT use iSpot to identify fungi to eat!
Some fungi are very poisonous so a mistaken ID could have serious consequences.
No interactions present.
The ID was determined by a Sheila Spence of Gwent Fungus Group who identified it in the field with me.
I know Sheila so if she saw and identified it I will agree with your identification. It just proves how difficult it is to identify from just a single photo especially when it is brighter than the ones I usually find.
It is very easy to mistake very small Hygrocybe specimens for Rickenella. H. insipida (which this might be), for example, can be only 3mm across. C. cantharellus can also be this size and then resembles Rickenella fibula very closely, though it dos have a rather different cap surface.
I agree with Flaxton's first identification.
(first posted 29.9.2011, typo corrected 30.9.2011)
But given that Sheila is a well respected expert who saw it in the field, I am happy with her ID.
It was an example of Rickenella fibula of a colour not seen in Rickenella fibula;
it had a cap with a somewhat viscid surface just like Rickenella fibula doesn't have;
it had a stem, just visible in the photograph, that was too stout for Rickenella fibula;
but if you want to believe that Rickenella fibula can do a remarkably good Hygrocybe insipida impression, then fine.
I have not put up Hygrocybe insipida as a determination as we cannot see the stem characters, but I am in very little doubt. Having been involved in grassland fungal surveys for some 15 years (co-author of a published paper in a respected journal, now about to collaborate with a Kew research team) I have seen a great deal of both species.
Lat/Lng: 51.6, -3.3
OS grid ref: ST1699