• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Any fungi about? (8 Viewers)

Silver said:
I'm not 100% positive as it is so young, but I think it must be Coprinus romagnesianus.
A close relative of C. atramentarius, but scaly, the scales (velar remains) being pink or rust in colour.

It's an impressive fungus when mature!

Alan

Thanks Alan, I will check C. romagnesianus as the possible id. From what you say it seems worth a second visit as there were a few young specimens to come through.

Note that you mention the new Hebeloma book is out, that's more of my pocket money gone! Never found this group very easy to id and must admit to ingnoring many of them. No excuse from now on.

Fungbot
 
Adey Baker said:
Lots of these in the woods today

Adey: It's in the Lycoperdon genus (which I believe means Wolf's fart in Latin) and I believe it is L. perlatum.

The two common species of puff ball that grow in clumps are L. perlatum and L. pyriforme. L. perlatum grows on soil, though it can grow through very rotten wood. L. pyriforme grows on well rotted dead wood, which may be buried, and the name means pear-shaped which it is.

BTW Good picture!

Leif
 
Leif said:
Adey: It's in the Lycoperdon genus (which I believe means Wolf's fart in Latin) and I believe it is L. perlatum.

Leif


As Leif doesn't indicate complete certainty (though I am sure he is really), I'll just add my own agreement that this is L. perlatum.

There are a few rarer species, some of which can resemble L. perlatum, but not much doubt with this one!

Yes, nice photo, showing the details of the spines well.

Alan
 
Thanks, folks - photo was taken with 400mm lens but with a burst of flash from the built-in unit on the 20D (otherwise the exposure would have been the proverbial 'fortnight at F8!')
 
Four more. Exposure as above (bit of double image creeping into some where the daylight has recorded as well...)
 

Attachments

  • fungi-oct-27-2005-1.jpg
    fungi-oct-27-2005-1.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 74
  • fungi-oct-27-2005-2.jpg
    fungi-oct-27-2005-2.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 66
  • fungi-oct-27-2005-3.jpg
    fungi-oct-27-2005-3.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 74
  • fungi-oct-27-2005-4.jpg
    fungi-oct-27-2005-4.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 65
Silver said:
I'm not 100% positive as it is so young, but I think it must be Coprinus romagnesianus.
A close relative of C. atramentarius, but scaly, the scales (velar remains) being pink or rust in colour.

It's an impressive fungus when mature!

Alan


It's back, and become meaner and bigger than before! Do you still think it's C. romagnesianus Alan? The images I have found on the web don't look quite right, but I've never seen C.romagnesianus.

The specimens are now 17cm tall, very robust and heavy, no ring. They look somewhat like C. picaceus but atypical habitat and very robust versions. But never seen C. picaceus looking anything like this. For something so large and impressive it's proving difficult to get an id.

Thanks for you suggestion anyhow.

Fungbot
 

Attachments

  • Coprinus sm..jpg
    Coprinus sm..jpg
    273.3 KB · Views: 71
Adey Baker said:
Four more. Exposure as above (bit of double image creeping into some where the daylight has recorded as well...)

Hi Adey

The large mushroom looks like the clouded agaric Clitocybe nebularis the cap is looking a bit green/blue like Clitocybe odora (which has a sweet aniseed smell) but the robust size and decurrent gills fit with C. nebularis. It's not edible - would give mild poisoning if eaten. The orange bracket looks like Stereum hirsutum (?) a common species especally on oak logs. Finally, the white stems are candle snuff Xylaria hypoxylon another common fungus on logs.

Fungi are late this year but now slowly appearing.

Fungbot
 
Fungbot said:
It's back, and become meaner and bigger than before! Do you still think it's C. romagnesianus Alan? The images I have found on the web don't look quite right, but I've never seen C.romagnesianus.

The specimens are now 17cm tall, very robust and heavy, no ring. They look somewhat like C. picaceus but atypical habitat and very robust versions. But never seen C. picaceus looking anything like this. For something so large and impressive it's proving difficult to get an id.

Thanks for you suggestion anyhow.

Fungbot

No, definitely NOT C. romagnesianus, now we see mature fruitbodies. Shows the danger of attempting IDs on very immature material.

Such photos of C. romagnesianus I found on the web were disappointing, but clearly this is something quite different.

I think it is most likely C. picaceus, now we see how the veil splits, and it can be very robust. However, there is something else I'll check on. (Replying from my office just now, on a lunch break, so I don't have information to hand.)

Alan
 
Fungbot said:
Hi Adey

The large mushroom looks like the clouded agaric Clitocybe nebularis the cap is looking a bit green/blue like Clitocybe odora (which has a sweet aniseed smell) but the robust size and decurrent gills fit with C. nebularis. It's not edible - would give mild poisoning if eaten. The orange bracket looks like Stereum hirsutum (?) a common species especally on oak logs. Finally, the white stems are candle snuff Xylaria hypoxylon another common fungus on logs.

Fungi are late this year but now slowly appearing.

Fungbot

I looked at these late last night but decided that sleep was more important than composing an answer.

My IDs completely match Fungbot's.

Alan
 
Many thanks Fungbot and Alan.

There are lots of logs and branches left lying in the woods specifically for fungi - the information boards say over 100 species recorded.

Those Candle Snuffs certainly have photographic possibilities although those particular ones were not very 'get-at-able' being down in a dark ditch surrounded by brambles, etc!
 
An interesting piece in this morning's paper. This Kansas City guy finds a 56 pound mushroom near Maysville, Missouri (not far from where we live in Saint Joseph, Missouri).

It appears to be a world record for edible mushrooms. It is a "Chicken of the woods", "hen of the woods" or sulfur shelf mushroom, Laetiporus sulphureus.

I had trouble downloading the article from our paper, but I found the same article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701526.html
 
Some from this afternoon, taken at Fosse Meadows, Leics. Formerly farmland, now planted up with a variety of trees, shrubs, these were in an area consisting of Birch and Hazel with a few Oaks.
 

Attachments

  • fungi-oct-29-2005-1.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-1.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 66
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-2.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-2.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 77
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-3.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-3.jpg
    28.4 KB · Views: 65
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-4.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-4.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 69
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-5.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-5.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 102
Ditto:
 

Attachments

  • fungi-oct-29-2005-6.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-6.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 63
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-7.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-7.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 72
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-8.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-8.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 54
  • fungi-oct-29-2005-9.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005-9.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 66
  • fungi-oct-29-2005--11.jpg
    fungi-oct-29-2005--11.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 69
The nearest I can find to the last one is Shaggy Ink Cap - I've only got a small selection illustrated on a two-page spread in the 'AA Book of the Countryside.' I could do with a field guide, I think!
 
Is there a decent pocketable field guide that covers most of those we're liable to find in the UK without being too much of a weighty tome?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top