More fungi (1 Viewer)

psilo · Oct 17, 2004

Here are a few specimens of unknown fungi. All, except the beige coloured glossy one were found growing on beech wood. The glossy one was growing out of the leaflittler.
I know there are few clues to go on but does anyone have any ideas, Alan, Leif?

Many thanks

psilo · Oct 17, 2004

Actually for fungi number 2 I had Entoloma majaloides but I could be way off!! lol!

Silver · Oct 18, 2004

psilo said:
Actually for fungi number 2 I had Entoloma majaloides but I could be way off!! lol!

Yes, Psilo, you do need to provide a few more clues.

From left to right:

No. 1. What is it like underneath? Was it a toadstool, with a stalk and gills, or a bracket?
What it reminds me of is the toadstool, Rhodotus palmatus, but if so, then the wood it was growing on will have been elm, not withstanding the beech litter that has fallen onto it. R. palmatus should have a network on the cap surface, at least near the margin, and, looking at your photograph, with a bit of imagination ...?
I don't know. I think I recall Leif having posted a photo of R. palmatus and he will know it better than me, so maybe he can comment. Leif?
The wood does look like elm to me.

No. 2. An easy one this, and, sorry, yes you are way off. It is the Rooting Shank, Oudemansiella radicata. The slimy cap with the radiating wrinkles is very characteristic. It will be coming up from buried wood and it is a common beechwood species.
Had you taken it back and put the cap down on white paper you would have found it gave you a white spore print. The gills themselves will have been a very pure white colour (often with a brown edge).
Entoloma species give a pink spore print and, while you should not always equate gill colour with spore colour, the gills of E. majaloides themselves would have turned pink.
Spore prints are important in getting to know fungi and they can sometimes stop one making some very silly mistakes. Well, they do for me, anyhow!

No. 3. One of the Sulphur Tufts (Hypholoma). I think it is most likely the very common Hypholoma fasciculare, which is usually much brighter in colour but can also be dull coloured as in your photograph.
(H. capnoides is very similar and is more commonly that colour, but it grows on conifers. H. sublateritium is also a member of this group and also varies in colour, but it tends to be more chunky and there would be more fibrils of veil on the cap surface I think. So I'm sticking with H. fasciculare doing a 'capnoides' impersonation, as it often does.)

No. 4. This is a manky old Tricholoma that might better have been ignored!
There are a few of these grey ones, but in view of the yellowing of the gills with age, I am reasonably certain it is Tricholoma scalpturatum.

psilo · Oct 18, 2004

Thanks for all that Alan!

To be honest with you the first photo does not belong to me but to a friend who found it. She did say afterwards that she thought that it had a short stalk but wasnt sure. From the photo I thought that it would be very difficult to get an id but then I thought you might

Thanks for the second one. That is mine and it just goes to show how little I still know about this subject lol so thanks for putting my right

Actually yes I did think it was a sulphar tuft. I just forgot to add that bit (honest) lol! and the fungi were slightly darker than shown in the photo as my exposure was alittle high.

The last one was my friends photo too and again I didnt think you would come up with anything.

In the field I am now trying to look for more clues when finding fungi. Do you know of any good websites that will help guide me through the clues I should look for?

Silver · Oct 19, 2004

psilo said:
In the field I am now trying to look for more clues when finding fungi. Do you know of any good websites that will help guide me through the clues I should look for?

I don't know of any "fungi for complete beginners" type websites, though it is an interesting idea.
A very interesting idea .....

Any popular guide worthy of its name should have an introduction worth reading.
Roger Phillips' "Mushrooms and other fungi of Great Britain and Europe" has a limited but simple and non-technical introduction which gives an initial outline.
The old Collins Guide to fungi by Lange & Hora (long out of print but occasional in second-hand bookshops) had an excellent summary of practical hints and techniques that I still find useful even though I like to think I know stuff.

However, I think by far the best way to get to know fungi is to attend local forays. With a good leader who will take the time to explain the "why" rather than just produce a lot of names you will start to learn your way around the fungi.

And since this is primarily an ornithological site, I should also mention that the two are not incompatible - mycologists and ornithologists often move at the same speed on woodland meetings and both groups have problems with "LBJs" (little brown jobs). It's just that some look up and some look down.

And fungi don't move so damn fast!

psilo · Oct 19, 2004

The kind of thing I was also thinking about was the extent to which you go to to id a fungi. Many books say to cut mushrooms to look at gills, stalk etc and talk of taking spore prints. When I see just the one fungi I am always reluctant to handle it. To what extent, if you dont know what something is, is it ok to examine it?
Thankyou for the advice on local mushroom forays. I know that they do do them in the area as where I live it is lush in moorland,pasture and mixed woodland and fungi is everywhere, so I will certainly seek a group out.

Leif · Oct 19, 2004

Silver said:
Yes, Psilo, you do need to provide a few more clues.

From left to right:

No. 1. What is it like underneath? Was it a toadstool, with a stalk and gills, or a bracket?
What it reminds me of is the toadstool, Rhodotus palmatus, but if so, then the wood it was growing on will have been elm, not withstanding the beech litter that has fallen onto it. R. palmatus should have a network on the cap surface, at least near the margin, and, looking at your photograph, with a bit of imagination ...?
I don't know. I think I recall Leif having posted a photo of R. palmatus and he will know it better than me, so maybe he can comment. Leif?
The wood does look like elm to me.

No. 2. An easy one this, and, sorry, yes you are way off. It is the Rooting Shank, Oudemansiella radicata. The slimy cap with the radiating wrinkles is very characteristic. It will be coming up from buried wood and it is a common beechwood species.
Had you taken it back and put the cap down on white paper you would have found it gave you a white spore print. The gills themselves will have been a very pure white colour (often with a brown edge).
Entoloma species give a pink spore print and, while you should not always equate gill colour with spore colour, the gills of E. majaloides themselves would have turned pink.
Spore prints are important in getting to know fungi and they can sometimes stop one making some very silly mistakes. Well, they do for me, anyhow!

No. 3. One of the Sulphur Tufts (Hypholoma). I think it is most likely the very common Hypholoma fasciculare, which is usually much brighter in colour but can also be dull coloured as in your photograph.
(H. capnoides is very similar and is more commonly that colour, but it grows on conifers. H. sublateritium is also a member of this group and also varies in colour, but it tends to be more chunky and there would be more fibrils of veil on the cap surface I think. So I'm sticking with H. fasciculare doing a 'capnoides' impersonation, as it often does.)

No. 4. This is a manky old Tricholoma that might better have been ignored!
There are a few of these grey ones, but in view of the yellowing of the gills with age, I am reasonably certain it is Tricholoma scalpturatum.

I agree with Alan on 2, 3 and 4.

Actually for 4 my preferred choice was T. argyraceum based on the cap colour and texture. However I believe that many/most authors consider it to be the same species as T. scapturum. I get rather confused as some books recognise several distinct species that others consider merely as variants of one species and I do not know who to believe. Hygrocybe conica is another confusing species that some authors split.

Regarding 1, my first though was an old wood mushroom, Agaricus silvicola. Although the colour seems wrong, old ones develop a purple/red tinge, and photographs often do not give an accurate representation of colour. (The light can have a colour cast e.g. blue if the sky is blue, or yellow if the light filters through yellow Birch leaves. The eye corrects for this cast, but the camera does not, and so records the actual colours.) As to whether it is R. palmatus, a first I thought not, mainly because the cap lacks the distinct wrinkled texture, but the colour and shape are not that far off. However R. palmatus grows from wood and you seem to suggest that it was growing from leaf mulch, and presumably not from buried wood, and if so then it cannot be R. palmatus. Anyway, R. palmatus has bright orange/pink gills and a white stem, sometimes with red droplets on the stem. The Wood Mushroom has pink or brown gills and a white stem with a large fleshy ring near the apex of the stem. So if you had the courage to examine it closely, you would have seen instantly whether or not my suggestion is correct.

Leif · Oct 19, 2004

psilo said:
The kind of thing I was also thinking about was the extent to which you go to to id a fungi. Many books say to cut mushrooms to look at gills, stalk etc and talk of taking spore prints. When I see just the one fungi I am always reluctant to handle it. To what extent, if you dont know what something is, is it ok to examine it?
Thankyou for the advice on local mushroom forays. I know that they do do them in the area as where I live it is lush in moorland,pasture and mixed woodland and fungi is everywhere, so I will certainly seek a group out.

You make some good points. Generally most fungi you will find will be common ones. In addition if you find lots, then picking one will be okay. However you might indeed find some solitary rare ones and you are right to show concern. There's no harm in using a finger to gently push the mushroom to one side to examine it more closely. You can also carry a small mirror, and use it to view the underside. (I know someone who does just that!) If I find a potentially rare fungus that i cannot id, I use a penknife to cut a small piece from the cap and the stem. I can then examine the colours and the flesh and take notes.

Something that really annoys me is that in one park in Southern England large boletes such as Penny Buns, Boletus edulis, are commonplace. However so are many very rare species. Each year some nasty so and so walks through the park, slices off every bolete (s)he finds, and then throws away those that are not in his/her edible category. Such behaviour merits a large fine or even a prison sentence IMO given that some of the species are on the red data list and hence threatened. After all, someone who injures or kills a bird will receive a hefty punishment if caught. Anyway, that's enough angry rant from me!

psilo · Oct 19, 2004

Leif said:
You make some good points. Generally most fungi you will find will be common ones. In addition if you find lots, then picking one will be okay. However you might indeed find some solitary rare ones and you are right to show concern. There's no harm in using a finger to gently push the mushroom to one side to examine it more closely. You can also carry a small mirror, and use it to view the underside. (I know someone who does just that!) If I find a potentially rare fungus that i cannot id, I use a penknife to cut a small piece from the cap and the stem. I can then examine the colours and the flesh and take notes.

Something that really annoys me is that in one park in Southern England large boletes such as Penny Buns, Boletus edulis, are commonplace. However so are many very rare species. Each year some nasty so and so walks through the park, slices off every bolete (s)he finds, and then throws away those that are not in his/her edible category. Such behaviour merits a large fine or even a prison sentence IMO given that some of the species are on the red data list and hence threatened. After all, someone who injures or kills a bird will receive a hefty punishment if caught. Anyway, that's enough angry rant from me!

Thanks for that Leif. It is very helpful. Some fungi are very distinctive and dont need touching but others are more of a puzzle. If there were only one or two I wouldnt dream of pulling them up though I guess cutting out a small piece wouldnt hurt them unduly. The mirror is a good idea too. I reckon a dentist mirror would do brilliantly.
SOme people are just incredible. As long as they get what they want they dont care what harm they do! Are there laws or fines in place at all for the collection or destruction of fungi? I can imagine why it must make you so mad.

Silver · Oct 21, 2004

Leif said:
Actually for 4 my preferred choice was T. argyraceum based on the cap colour and texture. However I believe that many/most authors consider it to be the same species as T. scapturum. I get rather confused as some books recognise several distinct species that others consider merely as variants of one species and I do not know who to believe.

Yes, the pale ground colour does suggest the true T. argyraceum, though I don't feel it matches that species in other respects. I still think it is T. scalpturatum that has lost colour with age, and the beech habitat makes T. scalpturatum much the more likely of the two.

The 1960 checklist of British agarics regarded T. scalpturatum as a synonym of T. argyraceum and this tradition continued in popular guides. Roger Phillip's book, for example, didn't separate them, and consequently his photograph under the name of "argyraceum" is actually scalpturatum.
The BMS database has them separate now, but it seems from the records that T. scalpturatum is still being recorded as the much rarer T. argyraceum. British records are hopelessly confused.

European authors have recognised the distinction much more clearly. Moser's keys separated the two on modern lines (albeit with unreliable habitat distinction) and Bon's Tricholoma monographs (especially his 1995 revision of Tricholoma in Europe: Die Grosspilzflora von Europa, vol. 2) gave further clarification. Volume 9 of Marchand's Champignons du Nord et du Midi, very valuable for identification of critical Tricholoma species, gives excellent photographs of both.

Two of the best recent field guides, The Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and North-Western Europe, by Bon, and Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and Europe by Courtecuisse and Duhem, separate the two and give useful illustrations.

Basically, T. scalpturatum is the common species, chunky habit, conspicuous dark scales on the cap surface, gills and flesh strongly yellowing with age, under a variety of trees, often with beech.
T. argyraceum is much more slender, often with a relatively longer stipe, very pale silvery grey cap with small, usually inconspicuous scales much the same colour as the cap surface, flesh and gills not or only weakly yellowing with age, again with a variety of trees but apparently most often with birch or oak.
Additional microscopic characters are given by Noordeloos & Christensen in Flora Agaricina Neerlandica vol 4.

In my own experience these distinctions work, but I have to admit that the other recent European Tricholoma monograph, Riva's Fungi Europaei vol 3, with beautiful colour plates, allows T. argyraceum to be darker, though still with a pronounced silvery texture, and sometimes with conspicuous scales.

So yes, they were grouped together in the past, but I'd say that there is pretty much a consensus amongst authors now that there are two species, albeit not always easily told apart. (Plus a couple of others in the same aggregate.)

Leif said:
Hygrocybe conica is another confusing species that some authors split.

Yes, most of the recent monographs keep H. conica as one species. However, having been running a student exercise for several years in a rich waxcap area, I am coming to the conclusion that H. pseudoconica, at least, is ecologically very distinct. Still, that is a whole new topic!

Silver · Oct 21, 2004

Leif said:
Regarding 1, my first though was an old wood mushroom, Agaricus silvicola. Although the colour seems wrong, old ones develop a purple/red tinge, and photographs often do not give an accurate representation of colour. (The light can have a colour cast e.g. blue if the sky is blue, or yellow if the light filters through yellow Birch leaves. The eye corrects for this cast, but the camera does not, and so records the actual colours.) As to whether it is R. palmatus, a first I thought not, mainly because the cap lacks the distinct wrinkled texture, but the colour and shape are not that far off. However R. palmatus grows from wood and you seem to suggest that it was growing from leaf mulch, and presumably not from buried wood, and if so then it cannot be R. palmatus. Anyway, R. palmatus has bright orange/pink gills and a white stem, sometimes with red droplets on the stem. The Wood Mushroom has pink or brown gills and a white stem with a large fleshy ring near the apex of the stem. So if you had the courage to examine it closely, you would have seen instantly whether or not my suggestion is correct.

Actually I am more convinced now that it is Rhodotus palmatus than I was when I first responded.

Sorry, but I really don't believe it can be Agaricus silvicola. Granted it can develop some purplish pink colour with age, but the photo here shows a fungus that is uniformly a clear pink. There is no obvious colour cast in the rest of the photograph and I think we have to take that colour as genuine. (I tried colour cast corrections with Photoshop and any reduction in the pink gives the rest of the photograph a vicious cyan cast.)

Granted there is no obvious network on the cap surface, but, as I said before, with a little imagination there does seem to be something near the cap margins. The network on R. palmatus is a variable character and may only be developed near the margins, the mesh varies in size and, while often paler than the rest of the cap, it can also be exactly the cap colour. The photograph is not clear, and the angle of lighting is unhelpful, but looking at the cap outline on the right hand side, there is an irregularity that seems to indicate that there is some kind of raised texture on the cap surface.
Again with Photoshop I tried enlarging the photograph a little, played around with brightness and contrast - didn't get anything convincing enough to be worth re-posting, but I don't think it is just my imagination!

As for the habitat, Psilo does say that it was found growing on beech wood - not in litter. I think that log is more likely to be elm than beech, even though beech litter is falling onto it, and if so, the habitat is right.

Silver · Oct 21, 2004

Leif said:
Something that really annoys me is that in one park in Southern England large boletes such as Penny Buns, Boletus edulis, are commonplace. However so are many very rare species. Each year some nasty so and so walks through the park, slices off every bolete (s)he finds, and then throws away those that are not in his/her edible category. Such behaviour merits a large fine or even a prison sentence IMO given that some of the species are on the red data list and hence threatened. After all, someone who injures or kills a bird will receive a hefty punishment if caught. Anyway, that's enough angry rant from me!

Yes, this must be infuriating and is pretty disgraceful, but I don't think much argument can be made on conservation grounds (or, if so, more for the contained insects than the fungus).

The fruitbody is just that, the rest of the fungus remains below ground or in the log or whatever. It will already have released a large proportion of its spores and, in any case, the chances of a new mycelium being established from spores from that particular fruitbody seem very low. As long as the habitat itself is not removed or damaged, there seems to be no scientific reason for concern about the collection of fruitbodies, even if the species happens to be a rare one.

There has been some debate on the effects of repeated, large scale commercial collecting and there is indeed evidence of a severe decline of the Chanterelle in some traditional areas on the continent. Viewed in isolation, the data do seem to provide powerful evidence on the effects of collecting.
However, there are parallel data showing an equally dramatic decline in the Panther Cap in the same areas, and nobody is going to be collecting Panther Cap for food, or not more than once anyhow!

The evidence points strongly to atmospheric pollution, specifically nitrogen oxides, being the real reason behind the declines and it seems that ectomycorrhizal species are those that are particularly affected. This would also explain why many of the species that seem to have been regarded as common here in Britain a hundred years ago are certainly not common now.

So scientifically, I don't think there is cause for worry about collecting, even when there is only one fruitbody to be seen. It will be gone in a couple of days anyway.

However, when a fungus is by a path or where other people may see it or want to see it, then I feel that is a different matter. Also, I admit that I often hesitate to damage beauty and I think it is for that reason that I don't pick a fungus until I am sure that I need to do so.

Last week I needed a sample of the Ballerina Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis) and despite the fact that there were quite a number of fruitbodies and that I was in the middle of a pasture on private ground (with permission to collect), I did just carefully cut out a single section of cap with a few gills. In truth, I was not harming the actual population of the species in the slightest, but taking any more just seemed it would be such a shame.
(And yes, the rest of the fruitbody was still in good condition a couple of days later.)

Silver · Oct 21, 2004

psilo said:
The kind of thing I was also thinking about was the extent to which you go to to id a fungi. Many books say to cut mushrooms to look at gills, stalk etc and talk of taking spore prints. When I see just the one fungi I am always reluctant to handle it. To what extent, if you dont know what something is, is it ok to examine it?
Thankyou for the advice on local mushroom forays. I know that they do do them in the area as where I live it is lush in moorland,pasture and mixed woodland and fungi is everywhere, so I will certainly seek a group out.

To supplement what I have said above, no I don't like to needlessly damage or remove any fruitbody, especially when it is the only one. I am particularly loath to damage any bracket fungus or other long-lived fruitbody. But that is more though a feeling of respect for wild habitats than for any scientific reason.

It won't really do any damage and if it is done for good purpose it may actually benefit fungal conservation. While knowledge of our rarer (and indeed, commoner) species has leapt forward in recent years, we are still lacking much basic distributional and ecological data. Not taking a single fruitbody will probably mean that a record has been missed.

Ideally, a record, once made, will eventually reach the BMS database. But records need to be reliable. (We already have plenty of unreliable records and really don't need any more!)
The great majority of species need some kind of check, often microscopic examination, so fungi DO need to be taken back.
An individual building his/her experience to the point where they can make reliable records is equally valid.

There is an increasing trend for people managing woods, nature reserves, etc. to say you can look but not collect. In their ignorance they imagine that identifications can be made in the field or from photographs - and look at the way Leif and I are disagreeing in this thread!

I do think that an attitude that taking a fungus is some kind of sin is actually damaging to conservation. We need knowledge and that must be based on careful examination, and indeed drying and preservation of material of rare species so that records can be re-verified in the future.

psilo · Oct 21, 2004

Everything that the pair of you say here makes fascinating reading. I knew that photo 1 would have you debating its id lol. Sadly photo 1 and 4 were not mine but a friend who like me is only just learning more about fungi. I have been telling her though what to start looking out for when she sees them so I can better clues as to the id. Having you guys to help us is great because even though I do trawl through alot of sites looking for photos and research I do miss alot of even the common fungi.
What you say about conservation Alan is also interesting. Like you I have a respect for nature and feel reluctant to damamge the fungi. However I would like the opportunity to study them more and get more experienced in their id. I have read about spore prints. How do you take and preserve those? Is it just a matter of pressing the fungi onto paper? also examining them under a microscope sounds fascinating too. Do you have to buy an expensive set up for this?
Next time I go out looking for fungi i will go equipped with a sharp knife and if needed will cut out a sliver of the cap to examine more carefully. Now I k now that it wont harm them I feel better about doing it if necessary. There are so many habitats around here that I would love to really learn what is here.

Leif · Oct 21, 2004

psilo said:
Everything that the pair of you say here makes fascinating reading. I knew that photo 1 would have you debating its id lol. Sadly photo 1 and 4 were not mine but a friend who like me is only just learning more about fungi. I have been telling her though what to start looking out for when she sees them so I can better clues as to the id. Having you guys to help us is great because even though I do trawl through alot of sites looking for photos and research I do miss alot of even the common fungi.
What you say about conservation Alan is also interesting. Like you I have a respect for nature and feel reluctant to damamge the fungi. However I would like the opportunity to study them more and get more experienced in their id. I have read about spore prints. How do you take and preserve those? Is it just a matter of pressing the fungi onto paper? also examining them under a microscope sounds fascinating too. Do you have to buy an expensive set up for this?
Next time I go out looking for fungi i will go equipped with a sharp knife and if needed will cut out a sliver of the cap to examine more carefully. Now I k now that it wont harm them I feel better about doing it if necessary. There are so many habitats around here that I would love to really learn what is here.

Alan can probably give you a better answer, but taking a spore print is easy. As you say leave the cap on white paper, or a microscope slide, for an hour or two.

I would not leave a cap overnight in a warm room. By the following day it will have decomposed into a very smelly liquid with lots of happy maggots having a bean feast.

Regarding microscopes, for measuring spores you will need one that goes to about 1000x and has a graticule allowing measurements to be taken. I bought mine used many years ago for under £200 and the markings indicate that it came from a teaching hospital. It was made in the UK when we still had a decent optics industry. Chinese and Russian instruments are okay, and cost about £300 new. You will need a stage allowing fine motion of the slide in 2 axes. You will also need to learn about stains, and the use of microscope slides and covers. I would read around first before making such a large investment. In any case, careful examination of the macroscopic features often precludes the need for microscopic analysis.

Leif · Oct 21, 2004

Silver said:
The great majority of species need some kind of check, often microscopic examination, so fungi DO need to be taken back.

In their ignorance they imagine that identifications can be made in the field or from photographs - and look at the way Leif and I are disagreeing in this thread!

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point. I think most species can be identified in the field. Often there is a key feature such as a smell of mice, an elastic peelable cap cuticle, an association with Hornbeam which pins down the species. When I think about a recent walk, in the space of 5 minutes I found Slippery Jack, Tricholoma sciodes, Pseudocraterellus sinuosus, Shaggy Pholiota, Lactarius deliciosus, Shaggy Milk Cap and Russula emetica. All are fairly easy to identify given a little familiarity. Mind you, I recently spent an hour examining and photographing an interesting Suillus, only to discover back home that it was merely a common Suillus bovinus: I had never seen pink specimens before. I think you are interested in Hygrocybe and I must admit to finding those hard. Boertmann reckons Phillips and the Swiss Guides have a few mistakes in that area, so evidently I am not alone. Some are easy: colemanniana, psittacina, conica, nivea etc.

Mind you, I do have a tendency to ignore certina species, such as brown Cortinarius and small Galerinas. I also ignore some of the large brackets. They are too difficult.

As far as our disagreeing in this thread, it's hardly surprising as we have very little to go on. We can't even see the stem of the pink mushroom. You are obviously far more knowledgeable than me, or maybe you have a much better library!

Leif · Oct 21, 2004

Silver said:
Yes, this must be infuriating and is pretty disgraceful, but I don't think much argument can be made on conservation grounds (or, if so, more for the contained insects than the fungus).

The fruitbody is just that, the rest of the fungus remains below ground or in the log or whatever. It will already have released a large proportion of its spores and, in any case, the chances of a new mycelium being established from spores from that particular fruitbody seem very low. As long as the habitat itself is not removed or damaged, there seems to be no scientific reason for concern about the collection of fruitbodies, even if the species happens to be a rare one.

There has been some debate on the effects of repeated, large scale commercial collecting and there is indeed evidence of a severe decline of the Chanterelle in some traditional areas on the continent. Viewed in isolation, the data do seem to provide powerful evidence on the effects of collecting.
However, there are parallel data showing an equally dramatic decline in the Panther Cap in the same areas, and nobody is going to be collecting Panther Cap for food, or not more than once anyhow!

The evidence points strongly to atmospheric pollution, specifically nitrogen oxides, being the real reason behind the declines and it seems that ectomycorrhizal species are those that are particularly affected. This would also explain why many of the species that seem to have been regarded as common here in Britain a hundred years ago are certainly not common now.

So scientifically, I don't think there is cause for worry about collecting, even when there is only one fruitbody to be seen. It will be gone in a couple of days anyway.

However, when a fungus is by a path or where other people may see it or want to see it, then I feel that is a different matter. Also, I admit that I often hesitate to damage beauty and I think it is for that reason that I don't pick a fungus until I am sure that I need to do so.

Last week I needed a sample of the Ballerina Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis) and despite the fact that there were quite a number of fruitbodies and that I was in the middle of a pasture on private ground (with permission to collect), I did just carefully cut out a single section of cap with a few gills. In truth, I was not harming the actual population of the species in the slightest, but taking any more just seemed it would be such a shame.
(And yes, the rest of the fruitbody was still in good condition a couple of days later.)

Alan: You make some very interesting points, and I can only own up to ignorance on this matter. Is the research you mention recent? A few years back I was sent a leaflet detailing a collecting code agreed by the BMS. They had some fairly strict rules and gave the impression that collecting could detrimentally influence fungal species. Maybe they were working on the precautionary principle. BTW Is not part of the reason for the paucity of many species a direct result of habitat loss? Many wax cap species have almost disappeared due to the loss of unimproved pasture. I suspect that Field Mushrooms, Field Blewits and Giant Puffballs are less common for similar reasons. Also we seem to plant more conifers than 100 years ago, and the fungal fauna is rather different than for hardwoods. I suspect that old growth forest has a higher range of species, though that is just a guess.

psilo · Oct 22, 2004

Leif said:
Alan can probably give you a better answer, but taking a spore print is easy. As you say leave the cap on white paper, or a microscope slide, for an hour or two.

I would not leave a cap overnight in a warm room. By the following day it will have decomposed into a very smelly liquid with lots of happy maggots having a bean feast.

Regarding microscopes, for measuring spores you will need one that goes to about 1000x and has a graticule allowing measurements to be taken. I bought mine used many years ago for under £200 and the markings indicate that it came from a teaching hospital. It was made in the UK when we still had a decent optics industry. Chinese and Russian instruments are okay, and cost about £300 new. You will need a stage allowing fine motion of the slide in 2 axes. You will also need to learn about stains, and the use of microscope slides and covers. I would read around first before making such a large investment. In any case, careful examination of the macroscopic features often precludes the need for microscopic analysis.

Thankyou Leif for the advice on the spore prints and the microscope. I like the idea of studying them through a microscope but I think I ought to learn a bit more about fungi first by sight and external examination, and at least learn to identify some of the commoner ones before I move onto anything further!

Silver · Oct 23, 2004

Leif said:
Alan can probably give you a better answer, but taking a spore print is easy. As you say leave the cap on white paper, or a microscope slide, for an hour or two.

I would not leave a cap overnight in a warm room. By the following day it will have decomposed into a very smelly liquid with lots of happy maggots having a bean feast.

Yes, Leif gives the essential points here, I can certainly corroborate his 2nd point! It is advisable to put set-ups for spore prints on a tray, or leastways not on a wooden table-top of any value. This also makes rounding up wandering wildlife a little easier.

What I would add is that for small or more delicate fungi, it is a good idea to put some kind of container over the cap once it is on the slide or paper. Plastic tub, lid of a collecting tube, whatever is appropriate. This keeps the cap from drying out before it has dropped its spores.
But, important, put a coin or some such object under one side of the container so that there is some air-flow. If the atmosphere under the container becomes too humid, this will inhibit spore release and the cap will decay more quickly.

As Leif says, an hour or two is usually enough to be able to see the colour (or to obtain well-formed, mature spores for microscopic examination).
An exception is in the case of Russula and a few other genera, when the precise colour is vitally important for correct ID. The caps need to be left longer to get a thick enough spore print, and then the spores need to be scraped together and patted down to show the exact colour of the solid mass.
Also, sometimes, a fungus may not be quite mature when first collected and it may take a day for them to drop a spore deposit. A number of Entoloma species have white gills when young and can be puzzling, until they drop a nice, pink spore-print.

Alan

Silver · Oct 23, 2004

Leif said:
Alan: You make some very interesting points, and I can only own up to ignorance on this matter. Is the research you mention recent? A few years back I was sent a leaflet detailing a collecting code agreed by the BMS. They had some fairly strict rules and gave the impression that collecting could detrimentally influence fungal species. Maybe they were working on the precautionary principle. BTW Is not part of the reason for the paucity of many species a direct result of habitat loss? Many wax cap species have almost disappeared due to the loss of unimproved pasture. I suspect that Field Mushrooms, Field Blewits and Giant Puffballs are less common for similar reasons. Also we seem to plant more conifers than 100 years ago, and the fungal fauna is rather different than for hardwoods. I suspect that old growth forest has a higher range of species, though that is just a guess.

Yes, I agree with your points here. The BMS leaflet surprised me a little - it went against some previous discussions at the time I served on the old BMS foray committee and I do think it is precautionary/PR rather than based on any scientific evidence.
However, I do also have to say that I have seen some bad behaviour on BMS meetings back in the past - not so much by individuals as by their cumulative effect, and they can cut a swathe through woodland leaving not a single fruitbody that hasn't been turned over (inexplicable in the case of those species that can be given an instant, positive ID).

I recall one meeting when I was slightly ahead of the main party and I found a large and attractive bracket fungus. I forget which species it was now, but it was an obvious one, no collecting needed. I stood guard by it as the rest of the party came though and I let them all wander off in their various directions before I went back to recording myself. Probably the one bracket was included on about 20 people's lists, recording job completed.
Job well done? Er ... no. That evening, back in the laboratory, the same bracket was produced in triumph. Not by a beginner wanting the ID but by someone who collected it simply because it was such a good specimen. Later it went in the bin. Pointless!

So probably it is good that the code of practice now discourages needless damage to fungi, even though there is no substantial conservation argument.

And yes, habitat loss is undoubtedly THE major factor in the decline of many species, but it doesn't seem to explain everything. Some species seem to be rarer now than they used to be, even where habitat exists.
But this is argument without data. If only the current BMS database had been operating 100 years ago!

More fungi (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Registered Sane

Well-known member

Registered Sane

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered Sane

Registered Sane

Registered Sane

Registered Sane

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered Sane

Registered Sane

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread