• 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.

Lichens and fungi? (1 Viewer)

Richard

Well-known member
May I ask for help with these please? All taken in deciduous woodland in South Notts and all were growing on dead trees, possibly willow or beech.

I think the first two are (? the same) lichens - the green stems with cup on are approx 0.5cm tall.

The third I was thinking is Microglossum viride. The size is right but Phillips mentions a deep furrow and a distinctly scurfy stalk. I didn't notice the stalk at the time but it doesn't look scurfy in my picture. Pics I have found on the net don't quite match either.

I don't know where to start with the forth unknown. It was rubbery and had creamy/slightly lilac gills which were quite deep thus overhanging in places. The largest cap was difficult to measure as it was so crinkly but had a diameter of approx. 2.5cm. A stringy stalk without a collar. No smell and a nondescript taste that almost reminds me of overwashed prawns (well that's what I think!). I have not done a spore print.

Thanks

Richard R
 

Attachments

  • Maybe lichen 4807a.jpg
    Maybe lichen 4807a.jpg
    124.8 KB · Views: 86
  • Maybe lichen 4936a.jpg
    Maybe lichen 4936a.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 82
  • Maybe Microglossum viride_4915a.jpg
    Maybe Microglossum viride_4915a.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 90
  • Unknown 4913a.jpg
    Unknown 4913a.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 89
Hi Richard,

Your first photograph is Cladonia coniocraea, a common species on old logs.

Your second is one of the pixie-cup lichens, a group that need care in identification, with attention to minute details and hampered by their considerable variability. In yours, the edges of the cups look to be minutely dotted with brown (as distinct from bright red) and the cups open abruptly and are quite short in proportion to the long, evenly cylindrical stalks. Consequently, as near as I can tell without examining the material, it is Cladonia fimbriata, which seems to be the commonest of the group in woodland in sourthern and central England.

I keep a website of lichen photographs. My Cladonia coniocraea is still in my "pending" file, though I am doing a little houseeeping on the site and may add it sometime in the next few days. I have a picture of "good" C. fimbriata at
http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/research/Asilverside/lichens/Cladonia_fimbriata.html, though I fear my photograph is not as good as yours!

Number 3, I am going to dispute is a fungus at all. One of my serious mycological interests over many years has been the Earthtongues and I circulated a key to them a few years ago, though there are some matters over correct names that I want to resolve before I formally publish it. Microglossum is central to my interests and I am (metaphorically) sitting on one that is new to Britain and Europe and one that I intend to describe as a new species. In other words I have spent a lot of time looking at them and, while cleft fruit-bodies are not unusual, I have never seen one like your photograph.

If it was really a Microglossum it would be the green form of M. olivaceum, not M. viride, which has a coarsely squamulose stem, but I think it is actually a seedling! With that bluish tint and evident waxy cuticle it looks kinda familiar, but I cannot place it.

Number 4 is a Mycena. I am not going to guess at its identity - best thing with these is to check some microscopic characters before starting to think and it may well be in a group that is currently somewhat confused in any case.

Alan
 
Last edited:
Silver said:
Hi Richard,

Number 4 is a Mycena. I am not going to guess at its identity - best thing with these is to check some microscopic characters before starting to think and it may well be in a group that is currently somewhat confused in any case.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the lichen info and the tentative ID - I will keep lichens for another day.

Re pic 3, yes I am sure you are right that I have taken a picture of an emerging plant in my desire to find new fungi! I will go back tomorrow and have another look.

I am really surprised that the fourth picture is a Mycena, I had decided that it was a type of 'woodwax'. I will collect one tomorrow and investigate further.

I have managed to get hold of a microscope and have done a couple of spore prints and looked at the spores. One was a Common Bonnet and the other I have yet to id (I may have to give in and ask for help!). Do you / does anyone know of a source of info for spore microscopy? Technique tips would do for starters. I can't find anything on the net and wonder if I need to purchase a book.

Richard R
 
Richard said:
I have managed to get hold of a microscope and have done a couple of spore prints and looked at the spores. One was a Common Bonnet and the other I have yet to id (I may have to give in and ask for help!). Do you / does anyone know of a source of info for spore microscopy? Technique tips would do for starters. I can't find anything on the net and wonder if I need to purchase a book.

Richard R

Not easy to answer this.

First, the book that first taught me some mycological microscopy is the book I first learnt fungi with, and I still think it has the best simple advice on examination of fungi, simple chemical tests, etc.
The book is the original Collins Guide to Mushrooms & Toadstools, by M. Lange and F.B. Hora, long out of print but quite often sitting on the shelves of second-hand bookshops at no great price.

There is a slim American book (though with one of the authors British), entitled 'How to Identify Mushrooms to Genus III: Microscopic Features', by Largent, Johnson, Watling, published a number of years ago (no date on my copy) by the Mad River Press, but still in print I think - though maybe at not such a slim price. It is excellent, assumes no prior knowledge and is full of practical advice for examining spores and the various types of tissue, has an excellent glossary etc.

It also occurs to me that a parts of a microscopy laboratory manual I wrote for our own undergraduate students could be adapted. I shall have to think about that.

Anyhow, some quick tips.

1) Be sure the microscope is correctly set up, notably the sub-stage condenser lens is in the right position and the sub-stage iris is also correctly adjusted. This really makes a lot of difference to the definition.

2) The smaller the amount of material on the slide the better, otherwise all kinds of optically bad things happen.

3) Read tip 1 again, it is very important. Also tip 2.

4) For examination of spores, best is to lay a clean glass microscope slide under the cap so that at least part of the spore print is dropped onto the slide. Do not use this directly for microscopy as the spores will be massed together and distorted, but having the spores on a glass slide is convenient for subsequent handling or comparing with colour charts (as is sometimes useful).
Take another clean glass slide, add a drop of mountant (presumably water) to the slide. A small drop. As the glass is clean you can touch the slide with the dropper without contaminating anything and it is easier to control the size of the drop.
Then scrape up a tiny amount of the spore print on the tip of a needle and transfer into the drop of mountant. (N.B. transfering any mycological material into the mountant reduces the amount of air that is trapped.)
Add cover slip and examine spores.

5) If spores are colourless ("white") and thin-walled, then ideally use Nomarski Differential Interference Contrast to make them more visible, but if, for some reason, you are disinclined to add some £3000 to the cost of the microscope, try a stain instead.
What stains will work will depend on the spores, and on whether the walls take up stain or whether the stain simply provides a better, contrasting background. There are various mycological stains but once, in emergency, I raided my parents' larder and tried a green food stain. It worked superbly well. Ensure any such colouring is truly dissolved and not granular.
Stains and other chemicals may slightly affect the degree of swelling of spores, so accurate measurements should be done in water.

6) Spore ornamentation requires careful microscopy and best possible definition, so read tip 1 again.
A x100 (oil immersion) objective ideally is needed, but it needs to be of high optical quality. A duff x100 objective may show less than a good x40 objective. (Note, on standard microscopes, total magnification is obtained by multiplying the power of the objective by the power of the eyepiece, so a x40 objective with a standard x10 eyepiece gives a magnification of x400. This may not be true with more advanced microscopes with extra insertions in the light pathway, or with old microscopes with adjustable tube lengths.)
Note that dilute ammonia, often used as a mountant, can dissolve some types of spore ornamentation.

7) Hydrophobic spores (e.g. from earthballs, puffballs and the like, in which spore examination is sometimes vital for reliable ID) trap air-masses when mounted in plain water. Smear a thin film of photographic wetting agent on the slide before adding the water droplet, or just mount in very dilute 'Fairy Liquid'. (Also works well with some 'moulds', such as Penicillin Mould.)

8) When examining spores, always try to use spores from a spore print rather than directly examining spores on a fragment of gill. That way you (mostly) get mature spores. Spores still on the gills may include some that are immature, deformed, over-sized, etc. This is particularly important with waxcaps (Hygrocybe), in which the very thin-walled spores show a lot of variation - though the variation in mature spores may still be considerable and important for identification.
Examination on the gill surface is important, however, for determining whether the fungus has two- or four-spored basidia (especially essential information in, e.g. Conocybe and Coprinus).

9) Read tips 1 & 2 again!


I hope this helps!

Alan
 
Last edited:
Silver said:
Not easy to answer this.

...

I hope this helps!

Alan

Many thanks for putting in the effort to answer this Alan. The microscope I am using is at least 40 years old but it has been well looked after. I hope it will be adequate for my needs. It has a sub-stage condenser which, as you say, greatly improves the image. I don't know how much magnification I am getting as the objective lenses are only marked in inches (1/6", 1/2" and 2/3") and the higher powered of the two eyepieces is x17. I have tried dry preparations and can see the spores and their outline but getting surface detail is trickier. I don't have any cover slips yet as it didn't occur to me to wet mount them. Will also have to get some green food dye.

Thanks again.

Richard R.

BTW the Microglossum indeed was not a glossum but a plantum!
 
Richard said:
BTW the Microglossum indeed was not a glossum but a plantum!

LOL!
Sycamore seedling perhaps?

As for spores, no, examining them dry is not a good idea. They will shrink and partly collapse, so will not show their correct shape and features.

Also, higher power objectives need the mountant and coverslip. Somebody who knows more about optics could give a better answer, but I think that the light paths require a uniform thickness of specimen plus mountant plus coverslip, and the objectives are designed for that.

Alan
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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