cooperj's Journal

A number of NZ Naturewatch users apply the 'All rights reserved' license to their photographs. I have decided that from now on I will not provide identifications for such records. Restricting the use of the image in this way makes the record unusable from my perspective, as a scientist, and so I will bypass them. The image is the key piece of information allowing a record to be independently verified at any time in the future and independently of Naturewatch - a fundamental requirement in any area of research. 'All Rights Reserved' means the image cannot be part of the permanent package of evidence accompanying the record in any use external to Naturewatch. I can understand the desire to derive potential income from images but I don't believe NW is the place to promote that or to get free identifications (which add value that doesn't accrue to the identifier). If you genuinely want to share your records and images then adopt a Creative Commons Licence. I recommend CC-BY-NC, which means that your images can be used for non-commercial purposes and you will always be credited for the image, whatever the use. You can negotiate terms if somebody does want to use the image for commercial purposes. Although it is worth saying that even a CC-BY-NC license means the image will not be considered for use on Wikipedia because even that license is considered too restrictive.

For some users the adoption of 'All rights reserved' was probably an oversight when they setup their account ( it is not, and never has been the default setting for new users and would have been changed by the user). If you want to use a CC license by default then go to your Profile (menu top right of desktop web page), then 'Edit Account Settings and Profile' , scroll down to Licensing-Default Photo License, and tick one of the sensible options. I use CC-BY but I would recommend CC-BY-NC if you think your photos have commercial value. Then, most importantly, tick the box at the bottom that says 'Update existing photos with new license choices' . If you want to maintain 'All Rights Reserved' as the default setting because, for example you are a professional bird photographer, but also submit the occasional fungus, then you can change the license individually on each image for each record.

You may consider it not worth changing your License just to get fungal identifications from me, especially when many of my identifications are at genus level or above. There are reasons to consider and they concern your role as a Citizen Scientist in using Naturewatch. I actively try to look at all the NZ fungal records submitted to NW (at least for non-bracket fungi). I want to be able to regularly collate the subset of records I can trust and use (and not necessarily accepting community IDs). I'd like to maintain a minimum quality for the data and to keep an eye out for new records of species, which we (every NZ citizen) are required, by law, to report to the government agencies. I want  a consistent quality so the data becomes fit-for-purpose for research work.

For example over the last year I have used NW Citizen Science fungal data in the following ways ...

• Naturewatch images were used in a successful prototype demonstration of the use of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for automated image recognition. This is a separate NZ based project to the one you may have seen from the iNat guys, and I am focused on biosecurity 'early warning' systems (e.g. detecting rust spores in the wind coming from Australia!)
• Citizen Science data from Naturewatch was initially included in a research paper investigating the role of ectomycorrhizal fungi and their relationship with host trees when introduced species enter a new area. Data from CS network in the UK and NZ were included. Results derived from a combined 2.2 million observations show species-partnering and hyphal foraging strategies are relaxed (or at least change) upon introduction of a tree into a new area.
• The NW community continues to highlight rarely encountered fungal species, facilitating taxonomic/biogeographical research and sequence characterisation (by me). Some of your records and your CC images have been/will be used to describe new species and next year Amanita sp 2 (the Noddy Flycap) will be published with NW records (your records - if the images are CC)
• Data (curated data) from NW has been critical in assessing the threat status of fungi in NZ. This year it supported the inclusion of two NZ species on the IUCN red-list and contributed to DOC’s New Zealand Threat Classificaton Status (NZTCS). The new fungal list will be published next year
• Important records this year include:
  • http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/3573458 Hodophilus sp. nov. bizarrely related to club fungi
  • http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations?place_id=6803&subview=grid&taxon_id=374682 Dermoloma murinum not seen for 53 years and with unknown affiliation with northern hemisphere grassland species
  • http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations?place_id=6803&subview=grid&taxon_id=206646 Tricholosporum sp. – undescribed species in a rare genus with Tropical Asia affinities
  • http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/4727831 A tiny undescribed puffball parasitic on liverworts that appears to be more closely related to the ancestor of all puffballs than anything else extant (and sequenced/accessible).
  • http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/5934031 Undescibed and only the second species in the genus Polyozellus otherwise known only from North America, and a potential Nationally Critical threatened species (along with its relative Boletopsis nothofagi now on the IUCN red list).

So, if you want to contribute to this kind of work, then make sure you don't use 'All Rights Reserved' on your fungal images.

Note on good fungal records

Sometime I will also write about what constitutes a good fungal record. The majority of NW fungal records fail that standard and as consequence can only be 'guessed at' with relatively low probability of being correct. Photos are needed showing ALL the relevant features close-up and with a good colour balance, lighting and focus. We need to see the cap, stem, gills, the way the gills are attached to the stem, the stem base, any ring, and the way it is attached to the substrate. Removing a fruitbody to photograph these details will not affect the population. It will have already released millions of spores and the fruitbody is just the 'apple on the tree'. The 'body' of the fungus is the hyphae running through the soil and unaffected by picking. We need a habitat photo (not something cut off with a knife, taken home and put on a piece of paper then photographed). We need to know the scale. The substrate (soil, wood on a living tree, dead wood etc). The texture - tough, fragile, crumbly ec. We need to know the associated species, guessed if it is  a potential ectomycorrhizal species. We need to know any odour, the taste (a small bit on the tongue will not kill you), any changes to the flesh color on exposure to air. Ideally we need to now the color of the spores, from a spore print. But if you really want accurate identifications then you will also need a microscope with an attached camera and some key chemicals like Potassium hydroxide solution and Melzer's reagent. Identifying fungi accurately is not easy, which is why it is an interesting challenge! Sure you can take casual phone-camera snaps of fungi and put them on Naturewatch and sometimes they will be distinctive species we can identify and it will be a useful record. Often it won't fall into that category unless you make an effort, and then that effort will be rewarded by an often interesting and useful identification at species level.

http://www.funnz.org.nz/node/129

http://www.funnz.org.nz/node/130

http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/article/view/phytotaxa.288.1.7

Another one of my Mycological Notes - dodgy, not peer-reviewed, rough outlines ...
http://www.funnz.org.nz/node/128

I added a 'Mycological Notes' on this family to the FUNNZ site ...
http://www.funnz.org.nz/node/127

One of my earlier posts was ‘The Stropharia, Hypholoma, Pholiota, Leratiomyces, Clavogaster series in NZ’. This post covers the remaining genera in the strophariaceae in a broad sense. The genera included here may or may not reside in the family according to different views. I have deliberately excluded Hebeloma, Psathyloma and Naucoria (but included Galerina).

Keys to genera for fungi are becoming increasingly difficult to construct because in recent years genera are named or redefined based on phylogenetic entities, sometimes without a set of unique morphological characters separating them, or at least not characters that are easily seen. In reality, only keys to species work well. For that reason this key to genera should be used in conjunction with the key to species in the earlier post.

I’ve used micro-features in the key because, even without phylogenetic splitting, naming genera (and certainly species) purely by macro-morphology is often a betting game with poor odds. If you want to name fungi accurately then get a microscope.

Some jargon is used. Google the terms if you don’t know them. Chrysocystidia are a very useful micro-character in this group. It refers to the reaction of the cystidia to KOH solution. Some species will show yellow staining content. The dye Patent Blue is even more effective but difficult to obtain. It is sometimes sold in tablet form as a ‘dental revealer’ but banned in NZ. Beware species that have yellow cystidia anyway, without the addition of KOH, e.g. in Gymnopilus.

The keys, as usual, are rough and need refining. I’ll work on them as I get time.

The Genera

Agrocybe/Cyclocybe & Crucispora

Agrocybe acericola, A. howeana & A. puiggarii are all considered doubtfully present, based on inadequate material.

Agrocybe praecox is very common on wood chips, especially in spring. An endemic fungus recorded rarely (A. olivacea) is suspiciously similar to a recently described wood chip species (A. rivulosa) spreading in the northern hemisphere. The presence of Agrocybe arvalis requires confirmation. It is a species associated with sclerotia and may have been confused with Hypholoma tuberosa (or vice versa). There is no vouchered material of A. arvalis to confirm or refute. Cylocybe parasitica is the new name of Agrocybe parasitica, which itself is very close (same as) the confused pair A. cylindracea/aegerita of the northern hemisphere. An earlier name for C. parasitica might be A. chaxingu, which was obscurely published (if at all). Cyclocybe species are phylogenetically very different to the rest of Agrocybe. Interestingly Crucispora naucorioides, described by Egon Horak from New Zealand appears to be related to Cyclocybe based on sequences of a 2nd collection of this rare fungus. Crucispora, as the name suggests, has cruciate spores, unlike all the species below. C. naucorioides is the only species in the genus and has only been collected once in NZ, until recently.

Agrocybe pediades is common in NZ on soil/sand in open areas, especially areas manured (usually with rabbits pellets). Material confirmed by sequences as this species has a surface ixocutis and the hymeniform nature of the partially gelatinised subpellis difficult to discern or absent. For that reason it has been misidentified as the microscopically similar as Deconica subcoprophila, but that species has a darker cap, often radially striate, and above all else has dark brown/violaceous spores, without the typical cinnamon coloration of the gills/spores of Agrocybe.  

Deconica

Some species originally placed in Psilocybe have been historically recorded and not include here. D. physaloides is a nom. dub. and Guzman’s concept, according to Noordeloos, is a mixture of species including D. subviscida and D. xeroderma. Relatives of both are known in NZ and material labelled D. physaloides has not yet been examined by me. NZ material labelled Psilocybe subcoprophila by Johnston et al., 1995, is annulate, related to D. merdaria, and included in the key as D. merdaria cf. Other NZ material labelled D. subcoprophila is a misidentification of Agrocybe pediades. 

Psilocybe brunneoalbescens was described from Tasmania under a broad concept of Psilocybe. From the description it might be assumed to fit within the modern concept of Deconica, perhaps like D. montana aff. However, NZ collections identified as P. bruneoalbescens by Gen Gates and David Ratkowsky, and Tasmanian material are similar, and NZ material has sequences which fall within Kueheneromyces. The recombination K. brunneoalbescens was created.  It has a darker brown stem and sweet taste compared to similar Deconica species. It does not have a large germ-pore which is characteristic of northern hemisphere Kuehneromyces spp.

Galerina

The moss/non-moss groups are phylogenetically different and will be split sometime. The moss Galerinas are poorly known in NZ and names I’ve used will probably change. They are little more than sequence-informed guesses. Amongst the wood inhabiting Galerina species with a ring we have G. patagonica (sensu Australasia) which is recorded from Australia and New Zealand. There are 2 or 3 species within a complex with others known from Pacific Islands and the Subantarctic Islands. G. marginata cf in the key is a variant found in mainland NZ and can be distinguished by micro-features. G. patagonica tends to have a central nipple on the cap, but not always. G. marginata is deadly poisonous and contains the same toxins as the death-cap. G. patagonica and G. marginata cf. probably also contain the same toxins. G. patagonica, as the name suggests, was described from South America but no sequences have been published to confirm the equivalence of the Australasian species assigned to this name.

Gymnopilus

G. junonius is one of the most frequently reported fungi in New Zealand due to its preference for growing in large clusters on cut stumps of Pinus radiata. Current sequence data indicate little variation between collections under that name. Our species is the same as collections from Australia, North/South America and Europe at least according to ITS/LSU data. Asian material, under the name G. spectabilis, is a different species. Published sequence data is not yet available for some of the US blueing variants of G. junonius, or the similar G. ventricosus from the home of Pinus radiata in California. All Gymnopilus species grow on wood, and the purpuratus complex often on wood chips. G. luteofolius (luteifolius) has been recorded in both New Zealand and Australia, often associated with (pine) wood chips. Its relationship to G. purpuratus is not clear. Certainly ITS sequence data show named material appearing separately, with NZ material in a clade with all material named G. purpuratus from Australia, Cook Islands and Switzerland, and G. luteifolius in a different clade with variously named collections from North and South America. The morphological characters separating the two are less clear. One opinion is based on G. luteofolius with pleurocystidia and G. purpuratus without. NZ material of G. purpuratus does not posses pleurocystidia. G. allochrous is an unpublished name and I have not found a description. The characters in the key come from material with a sequence identical to one named G. allochrous from Australia. There is one poor collection of a faintly blueing Gymnopilus species as a weed in a mushroom farm. I have tentatively settled on the name G. megaspora (having started with G. cyanopalmicola). Sequence data indicate it is related to European collections of G. igniculus and (one group of) material labelled G. purpureosquamulosus. Multi-gene analysis, more collections and better moprhological data are required to clarify the NZ G. purpuratus complex.

Psilocybe

It is with hesitation that I say anything about Psilocybe. Species within the genus receive considerable scrutiny around the world and in New Zealand for obvious reasons. My knowledge is limited by comparison. Nevertheless, I do have some comments I’ll throw out there

Sequence data indicate we have at least three if not four species in the P. cyanescens complex. I think the P. cyanescens complex needs more work, globally. I believe the current sampling of gene loci (ITS, LSU, EF-a) and key morphological characters do not adequately resolve the differently named entities within the clade. I also believe there are closely related real ‘species’ involved (rather than over-splitting of a single broad species) because the secotioid P. weraroa sits within the group and is clearly a morphologically different species to say, P. cyanescens. The evidence suggests a recent divergence of P. weraroa, indicating how simple the gene switch must be from open mushroom to closed pouch.  Some species do seem to have been historically over lumped. Chang et al, 1992 lumped P. tasmaniana, P. australiana and P. eucalypta into P. subaeruginosa, but the equivalence of dung inhabiting and wood inhabiting species does not have much support, and I agree with other observers on this point. I also need more convincing that the current concept of P. subaeruginosa is the same as Cleland’s original concept. It might be correct, or it might not. Cleland did not designate a type for this species but lists some collections. The original description says it occurs in grass with one collection on dung. Guzman & Watling studied Cleland’s material, including 13251, which they called the ‘type’. That specimen is now missing. A formal lectotype AD 5603 (=Cleland 13256) from Belair National Park Australia has since been designated, but without published details of habitat, substrate and morphology of this critical collection. Likewise at least some reported collections of ‘Psilocybe tasmaniana’ on wood chips in NZ are not likely to be Roy Watling’s Australian species on dung “cap to 2cm and without umbo or papilla”, and probably represent another larger species in the cyanescens complex. Posted images of a smaller species in NZ plant pots and also called P. tasmaniana are perhaps closer to Watling’s species.  An undeposited sequence of Australian P. tasmaniana falls within a different clade to the cyanescens group.  All the wood chip species fall out at my couplet 6’. Species differentiation based on spore size, cheilocystidia length and cap morphology (used in some keys) does not work for me. If somebody can give me a key that works for all the named species in the P. cyanescens group I would be happy to test it. I think more sequence sampling of the dung, soil and wood species in southern Australia and Tasmania, and epitypification against sequenced and well described material is needed to resolve the use of several names of closely related species.

Stropharia

S.rugosoannulata can have pale forms. S. caerulea is the correct name for many NZ records identified as S. aeruginosa (with others being Cortinarius rotundisporus!). S. cyanea auct is the same as C. caerulea (Bolton’s original concept of Agaricus cyanea is unclear). S. 'Kennedy' may be the samas, or closely related to S. formosa from Tasmania.

The genus Geastrum is easy to recognise, but like many fungal groups it is not so easy to identify species within the genus. The late Ross Beever was interested in puffballs and their allies, and this current work builds on the collections and observations made by Ross. I wanted to get this preliminary key ‘out there’ so it can be used, hopefully to recognise interesting collections for further work. Like many of my keys it was written for my own benefit, at least in this first instance. I do not know Geastrum very well (which is probably apparent) and the process of developing a key clarifies the concepts needed to separate species in my own mind. I will change this entry as more information becomes available, and I learn more. Like most genera you can only reliably identify species using a combination of macro and microscopic characters.

Good collections of Geastrum are needed for correct identification. By that I mean examples of the fruitbody from bulb stage to fully expanded, making a note of the colour of fresh material (any pinkish/red colouration of the flesh may fade). A fruitbody still attached to a piece of substrate is useful for characterising rhizomorphs. If material in the field looks old and knocked about then don’t bother attempting to identify it. A number of the key features are ephemeral and difficult to observe in weather-worn specimens. Read the terms in the short glossary to work out which features are key.

Geastrum was last revised in New Zealand by Cunningham in 1944 (Gasteromycetes of Australia and New Zealand). He recognised the following 7 species: G. pectinatum, G.plicatum, G. minus, G. limbatum, G. velutinum, G. triplex & G. floriforme. Like many authors he adopted names from the Northern Hemisphere. Although our species look similar to northern hemisphere species, and in many cases are closely related, the current sequence data suggest they are mostly localised in their distribution and probably indigenous. They are found in both natural and modified habitats, but there are some exceptions. G. floriforme might be introduced and is identical to the northern hemisphere species. In NZ this species favours dunes and alpine areas but isn't common in macrocarpa plantations, unlike many UK records where it is found under macrocarpa. On the other hand G. coronatum aff. and G. tenuipes, both like macrocarpa plantations, and G. velutinum aff. likes pine plantations. All of these species are not exclusively limited to these habitats and other Geastrum species occur in the same habitats. 

Because our species are near, but not the same as northern hemisphere species the names are followed by ‘aff.’ meaning ‘having and affinity with’ (phylogenetically and morphologically). Most are probably undescribed species. In some cases the sequence data indicate the names cover multiple species within a complex (G. velutinum aff. & G. saccatum aff.). The separate phylogenetic species within these complexes usually have no differentiating morphological characters (that I can find at the moment).

With reference to Cunningham's names his G. pectinatum/plicatum are treated here under the name G. tenuipes. It is possible that collections with a stalk, sulcate peristome and non-ridged apophysis may turn out to be different to collections posessing a ridged apophysis and a new name will be required for that species. Likewise G. minus is generally treated as a synonym of G. quadrifidum and here would key out under G. coronatum aff. It is likely that smaller versions of G. minus auct. NZ (of which there are a few collections) represent a good species which is likely to be G. austrominimum. More collections are needed to genetically characterise G. minus in NZ (in section quadrifida). There have been no confirmed collections since 1926. G. limbatum is now generally treated as a synonym of G. coronatum. A number of collections have been historically identified as G. triplex but on closer examination they represent G. lageniforme, G. australe or G. minutisporum aff. as well as G. triplex aff. The latter species is distinctly larger than any of the others. The presence of a residual collar of pseudoparenchymatous material around the endoperidium has been shown not to be a unique and reliable feature of G. triplex (the so-called collared Geastrum), and I haven't used it as a character.

A number of names were added subsequent to Cunningham's 1944 treatment. A collection of G. drummondii was incorrectly identified. G. morganii was represented by a single collection which was used in an exhibit and not returned to PDD (duh!) but another collection related to G. morganii has been identified. G. fimbriatum has been recorded quite often but it is possible all these records refer to one of the species in our G. saccatum complex. G. fenestratum is generally regarded as a synonym of G. fornicatum and in New Zealand probably refers to G. setiferum aff.

Modern phylogenetic treatments by Zamora and colleagues (e.g. Zamora et al., 2015. Integrative taxonomy reveals an unexpected diversity in Geastrum section Geastrum (Geastrales, Basidiomycota); Persoonia, 34: 130-165) have opened up the black-box of Geastrum. They provided a phylogenetic framework to place species, and some new characters assist in identifying them. In some cases reliable identification of NZ species, even to the broad ‘species complexes’ treated here, is not easy. In particular the G. saccatum/G. lageniforme groups are difficult to separate without observation of the form of crystals attached to the rhizomorphs attached to the fruitbodies, which are often not collected. 

As mentioned above, a preliminary phylogenetic analysis of a number of NZ collections show they are closely related to some recently named southern hemisphere relatives and I have adopted those names, with the ‘aff.’ because they aren’t the same (to re-iterate what aff. means). Thus G. setiferum was named in 2002 from South America and G. minutisporum also from South America in 2016 and in both cases our species are phylogenetically close and do have different characters. They need new names. The numbers in brackets after a species name in the key refer to the Zamora classification (in the following table)and the position of representative sequences of NZ material in that classification.

It isn’t easy to incorporate photographs into this journal entry so those will have to wait.

NZ Trial Key to Geastrum

The Zamora et al classification of Geastrum, and NZ representatives

Glossary

Apophysis – collar/ring like swelling on stalk or junction of endoperidium and stalk.

Binding litter - The outer mycelial layer can bind litter or not, and this is a key feature. This doesn’t mean lumps of substrate that can be trapped by rays bent backwards. It means fine material firmly embedded within and stuck to the mycelial layer on underside of the rays. It is an indication the closed fruitbody was hypogeous (buried), and not sitting on the surface before it opened. However, soil encrusted layer may flake off, as a whole or in bits, and so I find this a difficult character to be absolutely certain about. The point of attachment of the fruitbody is often smooth, so don’t be fooled by that.

Endoperdium – the globe-like structure in the centre of the earth-star, specifically the skin of that structure. The texture of the surface is a useful feature. In some species it is obviously smooth/polished, but in most species it is superficially matt and under a lens either looks smooth or minutely hairy (tomentose), sometimes with aggregations of white crystals.

Exoperidium – The outer skin of the fruitbody can form three major layers. The outer mycelial layer (which can be simple or double), a middle fibrous later, and an inner pseudoparenchymatous (fleshy) layer. Outer and inner layers are evanescent, flaking off, sometimes lost entirely. Any pinkish colour to the fleshy layer is an important feature. The exoperidium splits into petal-like rays, which fold back.

Fornicate – rays arched downward and tips attached to remains of a separated exoperidial layer forming a basin in the soil. In some species the rays arch downward but without a separated cup layer.

Hygroscopic – You need to wet dried material to see the rays open out and then close up again as it dries. However, dried fruitbodies of hygroscopic species will be closed with the rays entirely covering the endoperidium so it isn’t visible. In non-hygroscopic fruitbodies the closed rays won’t cover over the endoperidium.

Mesoperidum – sometimes seen as a transient layer on surface of fleshy layer and surface of endoperidium, but usually dispersing rapidly.

Peristome – the circular zone around mouth, often different to rest of endoperidium (delineated) in either colour, texture, or raised/sunken. The area can be radially fibrillose, sulcate (ridged/pleated/folded) or smooth. Sometimes the term seems to have been used to refer just to the edge of the stoma rather than the circular zone surrounding the mouth.

Rhizomorphs - the rope-like hyphae connecting the fruitbody to the mycelium in the soil. They often have small (microscopic) crystals stuck to them, and the shape/form of these crystals is very useful fo separating groups. 

Saccate – an endoperidium sitting inside exoperidium at maturity, i.e. the globe is sitting in a bowl, not pushed up and exposed. Conversely the endoperidium looking like it is sitting on an upturned bowl (and then often with a stalk).

Stalk – between the endoperidium and exoperidium. Present or absent, and with or without an apophysis. Sometimes difficult to see without a vertical section.

Stoma – mouth where spores emerge. Edge of the stoma may be regular, fibrillose or ragged.

Scleroderma is ectomycorrhizal and the species appear to be rather host specific in New Zealand, according to current sequence data, which makes their identification a little easier. In addition to the species treated in the key a Scleroderma has been reported in New Zealand with conifers, but I have not examined collections and no molecular work has been done yet. It is likely to be an additional introduced species to those in the list, possibly S. citrinum auct. I will amend the key when I know more.

The species with tea-tree and Eucalyptus pose a problem for naming. Cunningham did the previous work on NZ species (1920-1940's) and he tended to adopt overseas names and didn't bother about noting associated ectomycorrhizal host species. Consenquently his treatment is confused.

First the Eucalyptus associated species. S. radicans was named in Australia (presumably with a mrytaceous/Eucalyptus host) by C.G. Lloyd in 1906, but Guzman, in his 1970 global monograph, considered it to be a synonym of S. albidum, a species named from a garden in North Africa in 1899 and the host tree not mentioned. The name S. albidum has now become generally accepted for common Eucalypt associated Scleroderma species around the world wherever the tree is planted. Howevere, current phylogenetic data indicate there are several Eucalypt associated species to which the name S. albidum has been applied. It seems possible S. radicans provides the correct name for at least one of these species. I will use the name S. radicans for the Eucalypt associated species in NZ until proven incorrect. The NZ material is different to other currently sequenced material.

Now the NZ tea-tree associated species. Most NZ collections with tea-tree got lumped under the name S. flavidum by Cunnningham. That was originally described from the USA, and is now considered to be a synonym of S. cepa, and neither is present in NZ, synonyms or not. 

We have a coarse scaly species associated with tea-tree in geothermal areas, and it was known by Cunningham, but does not have an existing name. Here I am calling it Scleroderma sp. 'geothermal' and it needs more collections and characterisation.

We have just one other species associated with tea-tree but there are three potential names to consider. Cunningham named S. flavidum forma macrospora for some material with tea-tree. The spores are actually quite variable in size so the name is misleading. I am using this as a stop-gap name for the tea-tree associated species in New Zealand. It is distinctive microscopically because the large spines are broad-based and confluent, giving a spiny/reticulate appearance to the spores, which is quite different to other NZ Scleroderma, including S. albidum/radicans with Eucalyptus. I will use this name for the NZ tea-tree associated species for the moment, but it is unsatisfactory and a new name is needed. Cunningham did not typify the name (being just a forma) and he introduced it for both Australian and New Zealand collections, presumably with a variety of hosts tree species, which he did not note. Sequences of NZ material indicate an NZ-only clade for this species, but with one sample from China. The clade is closely related to a group of species labelled S. albidum from Brazil associated with Eucalytpus (but is not the same as all Brazilian collections of S. albidum !) and also S. aurantium from Pakistan, also associated with Eucalyptus. S. aurantium is a name of uncertain application. It has been misapplied in Europe for S. citrinum and the original use possibly S. verrucosum. S. aurantium is a name best buried.

There is one more name to consider for the NZ tea-trea species. C.G. Lloyd, working in the 1920's, was sent a Scleroderma by Helen Dalyrmple from Dunedin and Lloyd named it S. caespitosum. Cunningham was always rather frustrated and dismissive of Lloyd's contributions and considered it to be yet another synonym of his adopted US name S. flavidum. It is possible this provides an earlier name for our tea-tree species, but the original description, and the epithet suggests this is a synonym of the introduced S. bovista. The original material (in formalin) requires re-examination (and I have just tracked it down in the Lloyd herbarium at Beltsville).

So, to conclude, it would seem the myrtaceous associated Scleroderma species globally need some work. They can't all be S. albidum, and certainly older names, like S. radicans, need serious re-evaluation. In addition the NZ tea-tree associated species are not the same as Australian Eucalyptus associated species.

Finally, Scleroderma is a a popular species for inclusion in mycorrhizal additives to enhance tree growth in nurseries and plantations.  Whilst that is marginally acceptable for exotic plantation trees it is not acceptable for native trees. It is critically important to get the right species for the right tree, otherwise we are deliberately introducing and spreading potentially invasive species. These fungi are much more host-specific than previosuly assumed (at least in this part of the world). Fungi need to be eco-sourced, just like native plants they grow with.

Below is a very draft key to the NZ species I know in this related group of genera (Hypholoma tuberosa is also recorded but I haven't seen it). The key is based on macro-features only, which makes it easy to use, but will probably fail. There are quite a number of undescribed species in the group and in some cases the genera are not clear and new genera may be required. As a whole the group sits within the Strophariaceae, the boundaries of which (and overlap with Hymenogasteraceae) are not settled, in my opinion. In a broad sense there are similar looking species in Deconica, Psilocybe, Galerina, Agrocybe (sensu stricto), Flammula, Gymnopilus, Kuehneromyces and Protostropharia. Photographs of all the species below can be found on the NZFUNGI2 website.

Clavogaster is marginally supported by phylogenetic data as an independent genus, and C. virescens is most closely related to Stropharia hornemannii in current data. C. virescens is a bit similar to the grey and blue/green staining Psilocybe weraroa. Clavogaster 'Whakapapa' has been collected a few times and prefers woody debris and is only semi-secotioid with gills and a cap that opens partially. It has been referred to Nivatogastrium (Mushroom Observer), a secotioid North American snow-bank genus within Pholiota. The NZ species is not one of Egon Horak's New Zealand species of Nivatogastrium, none of which are related to Pholiota and require re-disposing.  Clavogaster 'Whakapapa' is also not a Pholiota in disguise. A number of the Clavogaster, Leratiomyces and 'Pholiota' species listed below show a brilliant fluorescence under ultra-violet light.

Pholiota multicingulata is qute variable in colour, often with an olivaceous hue and Hyphloma-like. The phylogeny indicates P. multicingulata var. hanmarensis falls within the same broad species group. P. multicingulata is known also from Australia and Asia.

Pholiota aurivella in NZ is part of the species complex of P. aurivella/adiposa. Our species is phylogenetically different to European/North American material and is more closely related to collections from Asia. Pholiota glutinosa may be the correct name for the NZ taxon.

Hypholoma fasciculare does not seem to occur in New Zealand. All specimens under this name examined so far are either H. austalianum or H. subviride aff.

Hypholoma australianum in NZ is phylogenetically slightly different to the original from Australia, but not enough to warrant a different name. It is a variable species and historically given a number of names, including H. fasciculare, H. frowardii and H. sublateritium. Red forms should be compared with Cortinarius rubrocastaneus. The NZ Hypholomas can be distinguished from the other genera treated here by their consistently dark brownish-purple spore print, which is paler brown in the other genera The traditional character of bitter taste for Hypholoma is true for some some NZ species, and not for others. Non-related species similar to Hypholoma, like Pholiota chrysmoides , are also bitter.

Hypholoma subviride cf looks like a small H. fasciculare. It is not H. subviride, or H. marginata and appears to be an undescribed indigenous species. The Tasmanian Hypholoma fasciculare var. armeniaca appears to be distinct. Phylogenetically there is a species complex showing regional differentiation.

Pholiota 'Te Wera', P. cerea and P. chrysmoides are closely related, as are P. 'Tahakopa' and P. 'Hinewai'. P. 'Borland' is out on its own in phylogenies. None of these species truly belong in Pholiota but their generic assignment remains uncertain, and may require an additional genus. P. cerea is an informal name used by Horak for a yellow viscid-capped species on wood. Karl Soop named P. chrysmoides as a larger yellow terrestrial species. In a number of Karl's publications on Cortinarius he figures a species he called P. cerea which is P. 'Borland' of this treatment, and is not Egon Horak's species. Pholiota 'Hinewai' is related to the rare northern hemisphere P. henningsii found in similar habitats. It requires critical comparison with the Tasmanian P. fieldiana, for which insufficient information is available. P. 'tahakopa' is probably the same as Pholiota pallidocaulis described from Tasmania, which also posesses yellow rhizoids, but Australian material has not been examined..

Stropharia aeruginosa has been documented a few times in NZ but so far all collections have turned out to be the related S. caerulea (=S. cyanea auct) with a less pronounced ring and paler gills.

Stropharia 'Kennedy' is an undescribed species morphologically and phylogenetically close to S. jilinensis from China, which has a greyish purple cap rather than brown. It is similarly squamulose. It might be the same, or close to S. formosa from Tasmania.

P. carbonaria is a species associated with fire sites and is probably introduced. It seems NZ has few fire-adapted fungi. The sequences of one fire-site collection is identical to the closely related P. chocenensis which is not supposed to be fire-adapted. It seems we have two entities under this name. Our species are not Crassisporium/Pachylepyrium.

P. subflammans is very common in NZ and sequence data indicates it is identical to P. nubicola from Venezuela (originally Pachylepyrium nubicola). P. oblita is probably another synonym of the same morphologically variable species. It has also incorrectly been called P. squarrusoides and P. squarrosipes in NZ (mainly by me), although it might be the same as Cleland's Australian P. squarrosipes (which would become a synonym). Pholiota terrestris cf. is similar but the NZ taxon has a dry rather than slimy cap.