CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Agaricus deserticola

species of fungus

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 5, 2026
Entity authorityQ623048
Source-derived summary

Agaricus deserticola, commonly known as the gasteroid agaricus, is a species of fungus in the family Agaricaceae. Formerly named Longula texensis (among several other synonyms), the fungus was transferred to the genus Agaricus in 2004 after molecular analysis showed it to be closely related to species in that genus. In 2010, its specific epithet was changed to deserticola after it was discovered that the name Agaricus texensis was illegitimate, having been previously published for a different species.

The fruit bodies can reach heights of 18 cm (7 in) tall with caps that are up to 7.5 cm (3 in) wide. The tough woody stems are 1–2 cm (0.4–0.8 in) wide, thickening towards the base. The fruit bodies are secotioid, meaning the spores are not forcibly discharged, and the cap does not fully expand. Unlike other Agaricus species, A. deserticola does not develop true gills, but rather a convoluted and networked system of spore-producing tissue called a gleba. When the partial veil breaks or pulls away from the stem or the cap splits radially, the blackish-brown gleba is exposed, which allows the spores to be dispersed. Other mushrooms with which A. deserticola might be confused include the desert fungi Podaxis pistillaris and Montagnea arenaria.

Found only in southwestern and western North America, A. deserticola is adapted for growth in dry or semi-arid habitats, including fields or grasslands.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Agaricus deserticola” is species of fungus. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Agaricus, deserticola and species, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2004, 2010—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Agaricus, deserticola and species is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “species of fungus” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

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 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q623048. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2004 and 2010.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. 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.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Agaricus deserticola”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Agaricus deserticola primary sources, Agaricus deserticola archive and Agaricus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Agaricus deserticola”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Agaricus deserticola” 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.