Page 1 of 1

Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:07 pm
by adampembs
Found today under Hazel. Oak and Spruce not far away. Two specimens that I think are the same, but not 100%.
Neither has a strong smell. No milk.
Both with a faint yellow hue and pinkish at stipe base.
Before I do microscopy, does anything leap out?

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:19 am
by Chris Yeates
The almost total lack of lamellules would point me towards Russula (easy to check), the idea of Russula would point me away ;) (just a personal quirk - I do virtually all other groups (or try to).

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:28 am
by adampembs
Thanks Chris, good call, and I'll get yer coat! :D :lol:

It has a greenish look to it particularly at the centre (not clear from photos) and a violacious coloured stem which should make it more identifiable.
Flavour mild. Cap peels 3/4. I reckon spores are at least pale ochre. (Q in Kibby)
No flesh discolouration.
Will measure spores later.

I think my vanillin H2SO4 kit needs renewing, as Im not getting the yellow discolouration when mixing. Need guaic too!

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:43 am
by adampembs
Hopefully ,someone will do some DNA on Russulas and get some barcoding done!

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:06 am
by Chris Johnson
adampembs wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:43 am
Hopefully ,someone will do some DNA on Russulas and get some barcoding done!
... and change all the names. :shock:

Chris

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:03 am
by Chris Yeates
adampembs wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:43 am
Hopefully ,someone will do some DNA on Russulas and get some barcoding done!
I'm sure that lots will be being done, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1500400 lays down some recommendations for the portion of the barcode to aim at.
I recently attended the BMS DNA course and shortly intend to start sequencing material myself.
However sequencing in itself is only one tool. Sites like Genbank are replete with wrong names etc. The ideal is:

1. locate the type collection of a species or genus.
2. get a sequence from that - people are getting better at getting DNA from even old material; failing that define a neotype which matches the type as closely as possible (and is preferably from close to the find site).
3. get the barcode of the type or neotype.
4. get photographs, drawings etc of the type or neotype
5. keep the specimen in a recognised fungarium
6. work out the macroscopic and microscopic characters which correspond to the barcode, based on this and future collections which match the type.
7. re-write the monographs, field guides etc. if necessary - then hand it back to the field mycologists.

The problems arise if someone without a lot of knowledge of a group dives in, decides they have found "Mycena x" (from whatever source) sequences it perfectly and sticks it on Genbank as a bona fide sequence of "Mycena x". Trouble is it's "Mycena y" or not a Mycena at all. Btw expect the confusion that is Mycena to change vastly in the next few years, many of the species will be fine but generically it's highly polyphyletic. I have guide books which talk of "Mycena fibula" - Rickenella fibula and its allies are now placed in the Hymenochaetales, along with http://www.fungikingdom.net/fungi-photo ... a1020.html.
Chris Johnson wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:06 am
adampembs wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:43 am
Hopefully ,someone will do some DNA on Russulas and get some barcoding done!
... and change all the names. :shock:
Chris
But do we want to keep on using names that are questionable or downright wrong? Or classifications based purely on gross morphology? Most mycologists now realise that just having a cap and gills does not place a fungus in a given order - look at Russula and Lactarius, Paxillus, Cantharellus, Schizophyllum and (we now realise) Rickenella.
Mycology is a rapidly developing science and will not be sorted out for many decades (actually centuries if we keep finding new fungi despite our attempts to destroy the planet). I'm tempted to say that if one doesn't like the heat become a botanist, but there have been ructions there as well . . . .

Hope some of the above makes sense
Chris

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:30 pm
by adampembs
Thanks Chris. Interesting stuff. We are doing some barcoding here in Pembs. David did a workshop recently for us. Cantharellus is a genus we're looking at, as some good work has been done there.

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:16 am
by Chris Johnson
A thoughtful and well reasoned post from Chris, as usual.

My comment was meant to be flippant ...

Chris

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:38 am
by adampembs
Sorry, Chris J, your comment was also appreciated :D I should have been more specific (no pun intended)

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:27 pm
by MykoGolfer
Have a look at Russula violeipes.

Re: Tricholomoid looking mushroom

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:35 pm
by adampembs
MykoGolfer wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:27 pm
Have a look at Russula violeipes.
Thanks, its a possibility. Im out of sulphuric acid for the SV kit, and its almost impossible for an amateur to get it now even in a little bottle. I'll have to try a different stain. Acid fuchsin is not so good.