File talk:Clitocybe rivulosa 20081116w.JPG

rivulosa - hygrophanous? really? and shouldn't the lamellae be more crowded? and not as broad? and what about the shape of the stem?--Natr (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

Yes, Clitocybe rivulosa is hygrophanous. Can you say why you think it might not be? It belongs to group sometimes called Candicantes of which the cap surface in good specimens has this hoary/pruinose look, which the photo shows really well. If the mushroom dries out, it will go pure white though. In one modern mushroom book "Funga Nordica", to get to this group you have to say "yes" to the question:

"Cap with a thin whitish or greyish pruina covering a darker, mostly hygrophanous background in fresh and young specimens"

I would think that anyone who knows Clitocybe well would identify this photo as showing one of this group.

I should say that in older works C. rivulosa and C. dealbata are classified as different species, but some modern experts regard them as synonyms, as is the case in "Funga Nordica". I am not trying to distinguish them here (if they are synonyms, the name C. rivulosa takes precedence).

In the same book the gills are said to be "medium spaced to crowded" and the stem is "cylindrical or compressed". I think the answer to all your questions is that C. rivulosa can be like that, and in fact this is a good typical example.

Strobilomyces (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)