- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi all Found in Hampshire in a mixed wood, beside a path in sandy soil, amongst mainly pine trees.
Cap flattened with slight broad umbro, viscous and bright red. Diameter 4cm.
Gills free, mottled grey, distant and of mixed length.
Stipe was 6cm long, thin (3mm dia.) and coloured a patchy yellowy brown. Was tough as i could fold it 90 degrees without breaking it fully. No ring with a kink at the base.
Spore print dark brown/grey with a bit of yellow flecking, before the slides arrived, whereupon it was whisked off on to a slide (bottom left print).
Have received my slides but not my newly purchased microscope but in fairness, dont even know where to start as having flicked through my growing library of guidebooks, cant find anything that looks similar.
Greatly appreciate any help with identity or family
Hi, Interesting!
The only thing that comes to mind would be the possibility of
Leratiomyces ceres– Redlead Roundhead. (Also known under synonym of
Stropharia aurantiaca). Although this is certainly not typical of any of the ones I’ve seen. (Usually growing in large numbers on conifer woodchip etc.).
You do mention pine, which
L.ceresis often associated with, and there are some images to be found when searching for that species that do look remarkably similar to your shot. (But I am always wary of any reliance on internet images – too many on there wrongly named!). Looks like it could be a nice one to get under your new scope!
Couple of extracts from the original version of Funga Nordica below: –
[attachment=1]Stropharia aurantiaca.jpg[/attachment] [attachment=0]Stropharia aurantiaca.jpg[/attachment] Regards,
Mike.
Thanks Mike Good call. I had skipped it in the guides on account of differences in the thickness of both cap and stipe, but as you state, a google search highlights many similar looking fungi. Interesting the association with sand. We have very little around us here, and I had believed the spot where this one was found was only sandy on account of it being dumped here to help with drainage as its the lowest point on a pathway through Durford Woods. Will report back when I have examined under microscope. Thanks again
Wikipedia summarising “There has been some confusion between L. ceres, which has a fairly thick white stem, and L. squamosus var. thaustus, which has a slender stem and prominent scales below the ring zone (although the two taxa are quite easy to distinguish by sight). Around 1885 Mordecai Cubitt Cooke originated the names Agaricus squamosus f. aurantiacus and Agaricus thraustus var. aurantiacus, and this later gave rise to the name Stropharia aurantiaca.[5] This name is defined by Cooke’s illustration to his Handbook of British Fungi and in 2004 Richard Fortey discovered that this illustration was not of L. ceres, as had generally been assumed,[3] but it was L. squamosus var. thaustus.[6] Hi, From Mushroomexpert.com: –
QUOTE
Leratiomyces ceresLeratiomyces ceres, according to Spooner and collaborators, was traditionally misidentified as a match for Stropharia aurantiaca (originally named Agaricus squamosus f. aurantiacus by Cooke in 1887)—but the mushroom Cooke described is actually Stropharia thrausta (now known as
Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus), which has a more slender stem, lacks chrysocystidia, and appears in woods. UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustusSimilar species are typically not as orange, differ in habitat, or have different microscopic characters.
Leratiomyces squamosus var. squamosushas a yellow-brown to creamy yellowish cap; it is otherwise identical to Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus. If you are on the West Coast, be sure to compare Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus with Leratiomyces ceres, which grows in woodchips in urban settings, is more orange-red, and features chrysocystidia. UNQUOTE
To be sure of which you’ve got, it looks like you would have to do the microscopy for chrysocystidia.
Regards,
Mike.
mmmm…..that sounds very much like running before you can walk. The cap I still have, or a very shrunken, dried version of it. Would that still work for taking a sample? Thanks again Mike for taking the time and responding. Hi, To be honest with you, I’ve never gone down the road of working with dry/herbarium specimens.
My microscopy is almost always done on fresh finds which would thus still be “viable”.
Although, for obvious reasons, many mycologist do work with such dried material.
There are quite a few articles online, and a couple of YouTube videos too, showing typically what to look for, which might be worth a look.
But as you say, if you only have the dried specimen, and aren’t likely to be able to return to site to (hopefully) find more, I’d be tempted to forget it and move on, and learn to use the scope for more mundane things like measuring spores etc. before going into the realms of fungi dissection and looking for the more “subtle” micro-characteristics.
Regards,
Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.