identification of dermatocystidia

John Watt
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 7:21 am

identification of dermatocystidia

Post by John Watt » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:27 pm

This is actually a follow on from an earlier post to the NWFG but I have some additional material photographed which may assist.
My query concerns identification of dermatocystidia in the Russula group, using either Cresyl Blue or Plaqsearch, ie as an alternative to sulfovallin, which GK does suggest in his Russula synoptic key book.

I thought I was reasonably happy with their identification, till I looked at Russula ochroleuca which I took home from Roudsea to 'practise' on, indeed since it is said not to have dermatocystidia. However, I seemed to see stained hyphal cells which I would previously have called dermatocystidia, though barely 5 mc wide ( x 40 objective), and I admit I could not see septa.

So I proceeded to fetch Russula atropurpurea which has been abundant in my woods just now, and which has dermatocystidia.
I guess these are what are shown on the photos attached? More like 7.5 mc wide.

I apologise that the photos are not great but hopefully adequate to address this issue.

Apart from the photos in Geoffrey's book, are there any other good images out there ?

Regards,


John Watt
Ormskirk

(PS Minehead from this coming Saturday.)
Attachments
Russula ochroleuca 1a.JPG
Russula ochroleuca
Russula ochroleuca pellis Cresyl Blue1a.JPG
Russula ochroleuca pellis with Cresyl Blue
Russula ochroleuca pellis Plaqsearch1a.JPG
Russula ochroleuca pellis with Plaqsearch
Russula atropurpurea 1a.JPG
Russula atropurpurea
Russula atropurpurea pellis Cresyl Blue1a.JPG
Russula atropurpurea pellis Cresyl Blue
Russula atropurpurea pellis Plaqsearch1a.JPG
Russula atropurpurea pellis Plaqsearch

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by Lancashire Lad » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:14 pm

Hi John,

I doubt whether I could give anything useful in answer to this query, but I imagine that it does stand the best chance of a useful response here on this forum.

Might I suggest though, that larger photos would assist anyone wishing to respond.
The photos you provide here are quite small, and very little of the micro-details can be made out.

In comparison, the photos you provided on this other enquiry: - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=308#p1996, are much larger, (especially when opened and then clicked on a second time, to be viewed at full size), and much more of the small detail can be seen.

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

John Watt
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 7:21 am

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by John Watt » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:16 am

HI Mike,

Thanks for looking at this: When you suggest larger photos, I take it you don't mean file size? I had to reduce them a couple of times over to get them posted. I could indeed have gone up to x 630 without going all the way to oil immersion when I would never have been able to search round again.

I may have a chance this coming week at Minehead to quizz people more on this.

CHeers,

John W

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by Lancashire Lad » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:25 am

Hi John,

I'm not specifically referring to file size - although that will inevitably increase with larger images. (You my already be aware, but the maximum filesize that UK Fungi's image upload will accept is 400KB).

I was referring to the physical size at which your photos are being displayed.

When clicked on, your microscope photos above are displaying at 499 pixels wide, and cannot be enlarged from that. Consequently the detail is too small to be seen.

On your previous thread (to which I linked above), and again, when clicked on, your microscope photos are displaying at 1325 pixels wide, and can be clicked on a second time after which they display at 2000 pixels wide - which obviously allows those viewing to better see what's in the image.

I can't tell what filesize those images actually were, but they are obviously less than the 400KB maximum, as if they were over that limit you would have got a "file too large" error message when trying to upload them.

You mention that you had to reduce them a couple of times to get them posted, but there shouldn't really be any need to reduce the overall pixel width to that sort of degree.
I upload jpeg's at 1250 pixels wide, and they are generally between 100-200KB file size.

Have you tried doing whatever you did to upload those previous, but much larger, (pixel-wise), images?

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

John Watt
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 7:21 am

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by John Watt » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:19 pm

HI Mike,

I have looked at the pixel sizes on the posted images, by LC and reading off label. Does this itself also change as the file size is reduced, excuse my ignorance !

I generally use an IXUS220HS down the microscope eyepiece since I got stalled trying to download trying to load Richard Shotbolt's Mykocam and trying to work out what digicam to be using on trinocular. In the short-term therefore I have resorted to placing the digital camera over the eyepiece but had to buy a Canon IXUS (12Mpiexel) in order to get a decent view. My previous digital camera would not show the image adequately but I maybe need to try more with my Sony HX50 (21MPpixel). Thus the microscopy photos are taken with the IXUS and the macro with either. I can't quite fathom the differences in file sizes however between the first set of micro photos and the latest.

I would like next year to make progress on all this and may need to pick your brains further.
Many of the digicam products require their own programmes and I was uncertain of the compatibility with Richard's programme.


Sorry to bog you down with all this - tedious !

Best wishes,

John W

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by Lancashire Lad » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:40 pm

John Watt wrote: . . . I have looked at the pixel sizes on the posted images, by LC and reading off label. Does this itself also change as the file size is reduced . . . .
Not sure exactly what you mean by that John.

I can appreciate that some of the necessary image editing techniques might seem rather daunting if you are not really into that sort of thing.

But in all honesty, what is actually needed to get images into satisfactory shape to upload here is quite simple. ;)

With your current microscope shots, where there is a lot of "black space" (which is adding nothing to the image, but is definitely adding to the file size), I'd suggest cropping your shots to square shape, immediately surrounding the circle of vision of your microscopes lens.

That will immediately reduce the file size quite considerably.

I don't know how big each image file is when it comes straight out of your camera, but I'm assuming that you will have your camera set to capture in jpeg format, and that the full size images will be in the order of 3000-4000 pixels wide, by 2000-3000 pixels tall.

Again, I'd suggest (once you have cropped the images to get rid of any unwanted portions, that you then resize the shots to - say 1250 pixels wide. That again should significantly reduce the file size, and should (hopefully) bring the resultant "edited" shots within the 400KB file size limit for uploading to UK Fungi.

I've put information about how to resize and crop, (using Microsoft Paint, which is pre installed on every Windows based computer), here: -
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75
&
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=510

There are other image editing softwares with far more features - (I use Paintshop Pro), but if you aren't familiar with such third party software, then Microsoft Paint can do just as good a job with these basic resize and crop functions.

Give it a go, it really is very easy. ;) (Although, if you are using an Apple Mac, I wouldn't know where to start and you are on your own :D :lol: ).

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

John Watt
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 7:21 am

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by John Watt » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:46 pm

HI again Mike,

Now that you point out how the black surround is wasting valuable file size, I realise I should have been cropping as you say.
Nearly all programmes I use are Linux based ones but I can try GIMP and fotoxx next time.

Kind regards,

John W

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by Lancashire Lad » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:21 pm

John Watt wrote: . . . . . Apart from the photos in Geoffrey's book, are there any other good images out there? . . . . .
Hi John,

Going back to your question, I just did a quick image search for "Dermatocystidia in Russula", which brought up this page: -
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=derma ... vDuc&dpr=1

On that page there are numerous images from websites "bioimages.org.uk", and "photo.navi-pon.com", which show the dermatocystidia of various Russula species. (Although the stain used for most of the images I looked at was Sulfo-vanillin).

However, looking at those images, and browsing to their respective webpages / websites, might give you the information you seek if it is the physical characteristics of the dermatocystidia you are interested in, rather than the specific staining effect that Cresyl Blue or Plaqsearch might have.

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

John Watt
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 7:21 am

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by John Watt » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:32 am

Thanks again.
A similar search for fuchsinophile cystidia not so helpful unfortunately.
They are not so common anyway and I don't think I've had a Russula with such up to this point.

I do see internal encrustations sometimes by contrast.

Cheers,

John W

User avatar
adampembs
Frequent user
Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:40 am
Location: Pembrokeshire
Contact:

Re: identification of dermatocystidia

Post by adampembs » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:17 am

You can find an example of dermatocystidia (dcy) by searching this forum!
Made by yours truly (I use an SV kit, the dcy really stand out and impossible to miss, the other stains need more experience to know what you're looking at)
http://fungi.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=385

EDIT: ..but here is a clearer example (think of sperm...) - they are usually septate and much thicker than the surrounding hyphae
Attachments
P1090904.JPG
Russula dermatocystidia
Adam Pollard
Site admin

Post Reply