Hi Raul

why not say Mollisia cinerea to this?

Zotto

Hi Zotto 
I discarded cinerea due to spore width. You both say 2,5-3 and I saw more 2-2,5, but I see in "Mollisia cinerea cf., HB 1241" that you have (1,5)2-2,5(-3). That´s a good cinerea?
Raúl

I must admit I haven't a good concept of cinerea. But if one admits a certain variability, I think this here could be named so.
Zotto

Ok Zotto, thanks a lot!

Hello Raúl,

the micoscopical details say indeed M. cinerea. I wouldn't lay to much emphasis on the differences in spore width.
But there are other things which bother me a little, e.g. the macroscopical appearance. My imagination of a (typical) cinerea is a ash grey hymenium and a growth of many apothecia in direct contact, so that they difforme each other.
Also the rich subicular hyphae do not suite my concept of M. cinerea.

My idea would be, whether this could not be M. lividofusca. Though the subhymenium of the examined apothecium is hyaline. If have noticed several times, that sometimes within a collection you need to examine several apothecia, until you have one with an obviouse brownish subhymenium. So may be you can examine some more apothecia (best is a cut through the middle axe, and then observe in KOH 3% that will show the pigmented areas the best).

Spore measurements would also fit better to M. lividofusca, especially when the loger spores up to appr. 12 µm would be not so rare that you have to put that value in brackets.

best regards,
Andreas

Hi Andreas
Thanks for your opinion. I checked 6 apos and I did not notice brownish subhymenium. About the subicular hyphae, they were scanty and only present at the apothecial base. I attach more photos of the subhymenium.
I send to your mail a link with the hole micro pictures.
Raúl

Hello Raùl,

thanks a lot.
So M. lividofusca seems to be no opinion and I would leave the collection as M. cinerea agg., due to missing better choices ;-))

best regards,
Andreas