13-01-2026 09:10
Danny Newman
Dasyscyphella chrysotexta on indet. decorticate ha
13-01-2026 08:49
Danny Newman
Coccomyces sp. on fallen Rhododendron leavesPretty
13-01-2026 08:43
Danny Newman
Tricladium varicosporioides on indet. decorticate
12-01-2026 22:02
Ethan CrensonHello all, I am hoping someone will have some ins
13-01-2026 07:57
Danny Newman
cf. Bombardia on indet. decorticate woodAppalachia
13-01-2026 07:51
Danny Newman
Atrocalyx sp. on indet. herbaceous stemAppalachian
13-01-2026 07:28
Danny Newman
Chlorociboria glauca on indet. decorticate logThe
13-01-2026 07:14
Danny Newman
Neodasyscypha cerina on indet decorticate logThe S
11-01-2026 20:35
Hello.A very tiny pyrenomycete sprouting sparsely
12-01-2026 05:24
Danny Newman
Cyathicula coronata on Urtica dioicaCataloochee Di

... collected at 20.6.2015 in the National Park of Dovrefjell - wayside on the ground unter Betula and Pinus. The year 2015 had a very long winter, and so it would be possible that "snow fungi" are present, as the most common fungus we found at this journey was Gyromitra esculenta (atypically late).
I have some problems with characters and so am not sure about possible results.
Fist: The spores (they measure about 18-19,5/8,5-9,5 µm) seem to be minutely ornamented to me, finely punctate. It is difficult to bring this "onto the foto" - and there seems to be little staining with CB. Anyway, a trace of ornament ist present as I think.
Second: I am not really sure about the structure of the excipulum. Behind (under) a layer of quite large cells there is a layer that I can only difficultly interpret if it is a "middle textura intricata" or not.
So - as there are a lot of brownish Pezizas I have no security about possible determinations. I imagine P. pseudovesiculosa (but the apothecia were not too large), P. ninguis (I do not find the paraphyses to be monliniform) - or perhaps P. granulosa if I consider the spores to be smooth.
Can somebody provide me with a hint.
Best regards, Lothar
P.S. The first microfoto was taken after the find, the rest today
Hi Zotto,
thank you for your response. Yes, P. arvernensis is in the key (of Hohmeyer 1986 that I used) next to P. pseudovesiculosa - and the affinity to Fagus is considered important. But - why not without Fagus. On the other hand, I find the specimen a bit dark for arvenensis (that I usually know at sites where Fagus logs were freshly cut).
Best regards, Lothar
to simplify the possibilities a bit, P. pseudovesiculosa and pseudosylvestris are now considered synonyms of P. arvernensis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313793699_Morphological_and_phylogenetic_clarification_of_Peziza_arvernensis_P_pseudovesiculosa_P_pseudosylvestris_and_P_domiciliana
Viktorie
as you probably have the article I would be glad to receive it. In the abstract stands "monophyletic", not synonymous.
Hello Viktorie,
this is in fact simplifying :-)
So I am much more lucky with the determination P. arvernensis.
I just requested the paper on Research Gate and look forward to read it hopefully soon. As far as I get it, I will send you, Zotto, a copy (if not Viktorie already does this).
Thanks again to you also, Zotto!
Best regards, Lothar











