Puccinia circaeae

Plant diseases
Post Reply
marksteer
Frequent user
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Glamorgan VC41

Puccinia circaeae

Post by marksteer » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:12 pm

Fairly certain on this one based on previous posts. On Circaea lutetiana. Other possibility on this host is Pucciniastrum circaeae but macroscopically look quite different.
Attachments
USBx10 Brynna Woods 19aug2015 1.jpg
'The more I know the more I realise I don't know'

User avatar
Chris Yeates
Frequent user
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Puccinia circaeae

Post by Chris Yeates » Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:55 am

marksteer wrote:Fairly certain on this one based on previous posts. On Circaea lutetiana. Other possibility on this host is Pucciniastrum circaeae but macroscopically look quite different.
Quite right Mark
the less common Puccinia circaeae - UK Fungi proving its worth once again :)
best wishes
Chris
"You must know it's right, the spore is on the wind tonight"
Steely Dan - "Rose Darling"

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: Puccinia circaeae

Post by Lancashire Lad » Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:28 am

Chris Yeates wrote:
marksteer wrote:Fairly certain on this one based on previous posts. On Circaea lutetiana. Other possibility on this host is Pucciniastrum circaeae but macroscopically look quite different.
Quite right Mark
the less common Puccinia circaeae . . . .
Is it a case of being less common locally, Chris? - or is there something that the record numbers alone don't explain?

I just had a look on FRDBI, and from that, it would suggest that Puccinia circaeae is the more common, having 657 records.
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/g ... GBNum=1840
With Pucciniastrum circaeae having 463 records. :?
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/g ... GBNum=1100

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

User avatar
Chris Yeates
Frequent user
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Puccinia circaeae

Post by Chris Yeates » Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 pm

Lancashire Lad wrote: Is it a case of being less common locally, Chris? - or is there something that the record numbers alone don't explain?

I just had a look on FRDBI, and from that, it would suggest that Puccinia circaeae is the more common, having 657 records.
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/g ... GBNum=1840
With Pucciniastrum circaeae having 463 records. :?
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/g ... GBNum=1100
Regards,
Mike.
All I know is that in Yorkshire the Pucciniastrum is much more common, indeed I'm surprised if I don't find it on good patches of the host at this time of year. I suspect it's down to visibility and people taking the trouble to check. Yesterday I had a look at the first patch of Circaea I came across and there was the Pucciniastrum, and in several other places in the same area of woodland; but often the leaves were only very slightly discoloured and bore very few uredinia (visible - to me at least - only by checking with a handlens).
The Puccinia on the other hand is much more visible and easily spotted from above (not the case with the Pucciniastrum). It will probably also come to the attention of people looking for plant galls, who are not primarily mycologists, but who can run it down in the excellent AIDGAP gall book.

That's my take on it.
Best wishes
Chris
"You must know it's right, the spore is on the wind tonight"
Steely Dan - "Rose Darling"

Post Reply