It looks more like a Sowerbyella species

Yes, you are right, macro features looks like more a Sowerbyella, but the nearest Sowerbyella is S. imperialis, who has finely ornamented spores and biguttulated.

I have find S. laevispora, with smooth spores, but bigger: 17-30,5 x 10-13,5 and with 2 big guttules.

Any other nearest genus? 

Thank you

Hello,

We have probably collected the same thing in Sweden. At least spores and paraphyses seem identical. I identified it tentatively to Arpinia inops. The only thing was that the spores are said to be "biguttulate (or more often) uniguttulate" by Hohmeyer (1988). I wondered whether the guttules can fuse in dried material.

I coul not check the original description of A. inops.

Cheers,

Ibai.

Hi Ibai

Good option, spores and paraphysis are identical.

I have the paper with the original description of Berthet 1974 and said: "Ce champignon a été découvert par notre collègue N. ARPIN le 18 septembre 1967t lors d'une herborisation que nous avons faite ensemble dans la région des Gets (Haute-Savoiet France) à partir du Laboratoire « La Jaysinia » à Samoëns" and in the description he said "Spores ovoïdes. lisses. pourvues d'une grosse guttule centrale, ou plus rarement de deux plus petites disposées suivant le grand axe (fig. C) mesurant 13"15 x 9" 10 µm. Exemple de dimensions sporales notées sur des spores mûres projetées par les asques: 12.5 x 10.5; 13 x 10; 13.5 x 9.5; 14 x 9.5; 14 x 9.5 ; 14 x 10; 14.5 x 9 ; 15 x 9.5 µm"

Perhaps dried material has fused small-medium guttules in only one great central guttule.

I am sending you the paper.

Cheers.

Not an Helvella of course. In Arpinia I know well enough only A. luteola, where the guttules are similar to a Tarzetta - Helvella and we should exclude that these kind of guttules may be the same, even in different fresh-dried condition.

But as this collection really looks like Arpinia inops, maybe Arpinia luteola, that is different also in the excipular strucutre, should be transferred in another genus...

 

Thank you Mario, so we must find in another genus, or perhaps a new Arpinia.

I know almost nothing about Arpinia, but I want to say two things:

1. Yes, LBs  show a strong tendency to fuse in dead material. In A. luteola, however, there appear to be two rather large LBs already in the living state, very similar as in Otidea, judging from photos by J.P. Vidonne on my homepage (Cubby).

2. Did you compare A. rahmii? I have in Cubby images of a collection from the Erzgebirge mountains S of Chemnitz (HB 9595), with spores (*12-13 x 8-9 µm) only slightly smaller than yours. They show the very same droplet pattern: medium-sized, several in each half. Also the VBs are present, which are typical of Otidea too.

 A. rahmii is in Schmid Ascomycetes 2, Nr. 56.
 
Zotto

Thank you Zotto

Some spores in your pictures have the same patter than our collection, perhaps immature spores have several LBs and mature spores have two. I have some better macro pictures than collectors have sent me, perhaps later I could sent it, and perhaps this year they could find the species again more mature.

Here are new macro pictures of the same collection.

With these new pictures, no doubt, this is an Arpinia species.

Thank you Nico

I have ask the collector if they conserve this dried material.

No more material, I will check my dried apos to see guttules pattern.

Hi Zotto

How did you asigned your collection HB9595 to Arpinia rahmii? Clearly it is an Arpinia, but how did you come to the conclusion of A. rahmii? Do you have more papers who talk about another different guttules pattern, like your collection, Ibai or mine?

Anyway, your spores measurement, are made in mature spores or spores inside the asci? Perhaps inmature spores are smaller and multiguttules and mature spores are bigger an biguttules. From your pictures I obtain, more or less, this measures:

(12.3) 12.4 - 13.4 (14.1) x (8.9) 9.0 - 10.1 µm
Q = (1.2) 1.22 - 1.48 (1.5) ; N = 10
Me = 13.1 x 9.6 µm ; Qe = 1.4

Hi Ibai

Do you have measures of your spores? Your spores were matture?

Thanks a lot.

Hi Miguel-Angel

This is the note I have for this collection:
Chemnitz, Pobershau, Picea forest, det. P. Welt. B. Mühler/P. Welt: Asci 170-225 x 14-15 µm (but vital 16 µm!). Sp. *12-13 x 8-9 µm, several medium-sized and small LBs.

The microphotos were made by myself but I did not measure the spores. The above data were gained by Bernd and Peter, except for my statement of 16 µm wide asci.

Thanks for re-measuring! Yes, I also see that the spores are around 10 µm wide inside the asci. I do not expect remarkable size changes of such thick-walled spores after ejection. Anyhow it could well be that they shrink in the dead state. Schmid gives 11-13 x 7-8.5 (dead state). Maybe Peter identified it with Schmid Ascomyceten, or with the original literature, I don't know, but I can ask him.

The original paper in Hoppea we possibly have, i can look.

Zotto

Hi Zotto

Thanks a lot for all data. I haven't Hoppea paper, I will be very grateful. Peter Welt belongs to this forum, isn't it? 

I understand that thick-walled spores change his size after ejection less than thin-walled spores.

Best wishes.

It is an assumption with the spore size. In fact, also thin-walled Orbilia spores usually do not noticeably change their size when comparing spores in living asci with ejected ones (apart from the fully turgescent state where they are compressed). The point is whether the spore wall is elastic or not, and in Orbilia it is obviously only slightly elastic.

I send you the A. rahmii description by mail

Zotto

Ok, thanks about the explanation and documentation.

Best wishes.

Hello

This afternoon I have examined again the dried material and surprise, a lot of spores have 2 big guttules and someone has only 1 bigger guttule. Perhaps tomorrow I could sent some pictures.

Thank you.

Hi friends

Here is the picture of dried spores with 1-2 big guttules. Some spores conserve the multiguttules pattern, but majority has 2 guttules.
 
And this are the new measures of dried spores, only 0,3-0,4 µm smaller than live ones:
(12.7) 13.4 - 14.9 (15.2) x (7.6) 8.6 - 9.3 (9.6) µm
Q = (1.4) 1.5 - 1.7 (1.8) ; N = 97
Me = 14.1 x 8.9 µm ; Qe = 1.6

To compare, living spores measures:
(13.0) 13.4 - 14.8 (15.7) x (8.2) 8.8 - 9.8 (10.0) µm
Q = (1.3) 1.5 - 1.6 (1.7) ; N = 46
Me = 14.2 x 9.2 µm ; Qe = 1.5

It is curious to observe how spores have a multiggutulate pattern when live and biguttulate in dried material.

Although Hohmeyer has a spore size of 11-13 x 8-9 µm, I don't find another possibility more than Arpinia rahmii.

Thank you.

Incredible! Good job, thanks! I will check the Swedish collection to see if it has now 1-2-guttulate spores after drying.

Cheers,

Ibai.

Beautiful! Very interesting species...

Thank you Mario.

Cheers.

Thanks a lot also from myself! I am not really sure whether the spores are dead here. They were dry for some time, and it is so that they lose completely their free water in the dry state. If anybody does not believe, it is easy to demonstrate: mount a dry sample in oil instead of water (immersion oil or the like), then you wll see that the spores are either collapsed or filled with DBBs (gaseous phase). During the drying process the oil drops are pressed together and fuse. When revived in water the spore is probably still able to germinate, but although the LBs have fused. When the sample is kept for several years in the herbarium, then the spores will die at some time. Now the LBs will not be perfectly globose anymore as is here the case. The transparency of the plasma looks to me as if the spores are still alive. maybe the turgor is reduced and therefore the width decreased. Dead spores are perhaps even more narrow and would even better fit the description of A. rahmii. You can easily test this: mount in KOH, or in water by shotly boiling the slide.

Zotto

Sorry for the delay

In sort:

* Collected date: 08/10/2014
* First study, in vivo: 14/10/2014 (6 days later)
Spore size in H2O: (13.0) 13.4 - 14.8 (15.7) x (8.2) 8.8 - 9.8 (10.0) µm;
Q = (1.3) 1.5 - 1.6 (1.7); N = 46; Me = 14.2 x 9.2 µm ; Qe = 1.5
* Second study, dried: 24/02/2015 (4 1/2 months later)
Spores size in H2O: (12.7) 13.4 - 14.9 (15.2) x (7.6) 8.6 - 9.3 (9.6) µm
Q = (1.4) 1.5 - 1.7 (1.8); N = 97; Me = 14.1 x 8.9 µm ; Qe = 1.6
* Third study, dried: 05/03/2015 (5 months later)
Spore size in KOH:  (13.0) 13.6 - 15.1 (15.5) x (8.1) 8.4 - 9.4 (9.7) µm
Q = (1.4) 1.5 - 1.7 (1.8); N = 76; Me = 14.3 x 8.9 µm ; Qe = 1.6
Spores in KOH preserved, as expected, 2 LB. Mounted in inmersion oil instead of water, all spores have a DBB.

Conclusion: no significant difference in spore size in vivo with H2O, dried (dead?) with H2O and dead with KOH.

Hypothesis 1: In my first studio the spores are dead, I don't think so, because spore size of your collection (Zotto) is similar. We don't know spores size in vivo from Ibai collection to compare.

Hypothesis 2: Spore size of Arpinia rahmii is not affected with the status vivo or dead.

Mystery or science?

Attaches spores mounted in oil and KOH.