Hymenagaricus luteolosporus

Name and identity

Hymenagaricus luteolosporus is the name under which the species was first described. Heinemann and Little Flower published it in 1984 in the genus Hymenagaricus, a group of agaricoid fungi in the family Agaricaceae. In 1997 Little Flower, Hosagoudar and Abraham transferred it to the genus Xanthagaricus, and the national checklist databases now treat Xanthagaricus luteolosporus as the accepted name. Older catalogues and some regional lists still use the original combination, so a reader meeting either name is probably meeting the same species.

The catalogue that supplied this record keeps the name as a research label and does not reconcile it against a current authority. The identification has therefore not been confirmed in this page. Only the nomenclatural history above is established from the taxonomic databases consulted.

Food use in the recorded source

The only food record for this species comes from an ethnomycological study of Tshopo Province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Interviews recorded the mushroom as locally consumed, and the interviews were backed by herbarium vouchers. The catalogue says the source does not establish how the mushroom was prepared, so this page does not describe a method.

The source describes the species as a forest saprotroph, a fungus that feeds on dead wood and leaf litter. It is recorded as a wild-collected mushroom. No market sale, cultivation or seasonal pattern is recorded for it.

Safety and limits of the record

A record of local consumption shows that people in one place have eaten this mushroom. It does not show that the mushroom is safe for any reader to eat, and it does not identify which mushroom a collector would be handling in the field. The source is an ethnomycological food-use record, not a toxicological assessment, and the catalogue states that no edibility conclusion follows from its inclusion.

Wild mushrooms in the same group of genera include look-alikes that differ in toxicity, and the catalogue does not list any. A safe identification needs a qualified specialist or a reliable local reference, and a reader should not treat this page as one.

Notes

Open questions: the species-specific preparation, the local name, the seasons of collection and whether the Tshopo records extend beyond that province are not established. A further check against the original interview record and a current taxonomic review would close the first two gaps.