Fenwickfield's picture

Hygrocybe conica

Observed: 5th October 2012 By: FenwickfieldFenwickfield’s reputation in Fungi and LichensFenwickfield’s reputation in Fungi and LichensFenwickfield’s reputation in Fungi and LichensFenwickfield’s reputation in Fungi and LichensFenwickfield’s reputation in Fungi and Lichens
Hygrocybe conica
Hygrocybe conica (2)
Hygrocybe conica (3)
Description:
Identifications

Caution: Do NOT use iSpot to identify fungi to eat!

Some fungi are very poisonous so a mistaken ID could have serious consequences.

Species interactions

No interactions present.

Comments

Fenwickfield's picture

Doubt

I did have doubts and it suggested this in The Genus Hygrocybe book I have by David Boertmann it quotes that only conicoides and olivaceonigra are a separate taxa.It goes further to say that the whole conica complex is in need of molecular studies and a thorough revision so this is why I stuck to my original id.I appreciate your interest as we seem to not have enough experts looking at fungi.
Thanks
Sheila

Fenwickfield

AlanS's picture

Molecular studies

Molecular studies are now taking place (there has been much work at Kew) and I understand that these studies are supporting the splitting up of the "conica" concept.

On one rich site (Muishiel) I have been running a student exercise that is now in its 17th year, and throughout this time, given material in good condition, I have felt that H. conica, H. pseudoconica and H. tristis look and seemingly behave like separate taxa. H. cinereifolia also impresses me, though we have not yet found it at Muishiel.

David Boertmann's book is superb and easily the best book to use, but his preference has been to take a conservative stance. On the other hand, the treatment by Courtecuisse & Duhem closely matches my own gut feeling about these species. We discussed the conica group once when David Boertmann was over here running a workshop and he was by no means inflexible in his views, but felt H. conica was best regarded as a single, variable species. He was quite happy to agree to disagree.

Neither do I unhesitatingly accept everything the DNA folk tell us - there are some who seem to have no concept of infraspecic taxa and rush to give new names to every variant they can distinguish on DNA (termed "taxonomic inflation").

My take here is that Sheila has posted very good photographs of the "tristis" entity and it is worth labelling them as such. I certainly have no problem with them being labelled "conica", currently still a fully valid opinion.

Alan

Fenwickfield's picture

Thanks

I appreciate your response on this as I find the subject fascinating and it is nice to get some feedback from an observation and to be able to learn from it to
Best wishes

Sheila

Fenwickfield