Cuphophyllus virgineus
species of fungus
Cuphophyllus virgineus is a species of agaric (gilled mushroom) in the family Hygrophoraceae. Its recommended English common name is snowy waxcap in the UK. The species has a largely north temperate distribution, occurring in grassland in Europe and in woodland in northern Asia and North America. It typically produces basidiocarps (fruit bodies) in the autumn.
Taxonomy
The species was first described in 1781 by the Austrian mycologist Franz Xaver von Wulfen as Agaricus virgineus. It was subsequently combined in a number of different genera, being transferred to Hygrocybe in 1969 before being transferred to Cuphophyllus. The specific epithet comes from Latin "virgineus" (= pure white). Hygrocybe nivea, first described by the Italian mycologist and naturalist Giovanni Antonio Scopoli in 1772, was sometimes distinguished by producing smaller and more slender fruit bodies than H. virginea, but is now regarded as a synonym.
Molecular research published in 2011, based on cladistic analysis of DNA sequences found that Hygrocybe virginea does not belong in Hygrocybe sensu stricto and belongs in the genus Cuphophyllus instead.
Description
Basidiocarps are agaricoid. The cap is convex at first, becoming flat or slightly depressed when expanded, up to 7.5 centimetres (3 in) across.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Cuphophyllus virgineus” as species of fungus. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of fungus. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q84335147. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1781, 1969, 1772 and 2011.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Cuphophyllus virgineus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Cuphophyllus virgineus primary sources, Cuphophyllus virgineus archive and Cuphophyllus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cuphophyllus virgineus”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Cuphophyllus virgineus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.