Calvatia cyathiformis (Bosc) Morgan J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. His., 1890
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.362.2.3 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13703088 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4377FA36-FFEF-FFAA-FF42-96A9FD4C4B6D |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Calvatia cyathiformis (Bosc) Morgan J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. His. |
status |
|
Calvatia cyathiformis (Bosc) Morgan J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. His. View in CoL 12(4): 168 (1890).
Distribution:— CHATTISGARH (Ahlawat et al. 2008); GUJARAT: Ahmadabad ( Anand Rao 1964); HIMACHAL PRADESH: Chambaghat, Solan( Sharma et al. 1978); MAHARASHTRA: Khandala ( Nair & Patil 1977),Amravathi region, Taponeshwar, Tapovan Goshala ( Hedawoo & Mohite 2008); UTTAR PRADESH: Varanasi & Raibareli ( Khare 1976); WEST BENGAL: Howrah, Mahisgote, Sankrail block ( Chakraborty et al. 2012).
This is one of the most easily recognized and widely reported species from India. This species is closely related to C. fragilis . However, C. fragilis is clearly distinguished from C. cyathiformis in the field by having a distinctly plicate fruitbody with reduced to almost nil subgleba. Microscopically, C. cyathiformis differs from C. fragilis in the strongly echinate basidiospores with broad spines that are up to 2 μm long, whereas, C. fragilis has echinate spores with shorter spines up to 0.5 μm long ( Cortez et al. 2012).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Calvatia cyathiformis (Bosc) Morgan J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. His.
Gunasekaran, Senthilarasu, Chinnarajan, Ravindran & Parasnis, Anjali 2018 |
Calvatia cyathiformis (Bosc)
Bosc 1890: 168 |