More of an artsy shot than an identification shot, but as I don't know what it is I will stick it up anyway. Taken in upland beech woodland.
The Ultimate "What is this Fungi?" thread.
- Thread starter Crafty
- Start date
Hi All,
I found these chaps in the forest on Sunday....
My first thought was that they were Panther Caps (Amanita pantherina) but the more rounded shape and the pinkish tinge on the stem ring (it was a more pronounced colour in the flesh) lead me to think it's a blusher?
Kind regards,
Matt.
I found these chaps in the forest on Sunday....
My first thought was that they were Panther Caps (Amanita pantherina) but the more rounded shape and the pinkish tinge on the stem ring (it was a more pronounced colour in the flesh) lead me to think it's a blusher?
Kind regards,
Matt.
Hi Geoff - amongst many people on here I've benefited from your in depth knowledge on fungi - sure I won't be alone in thanking you for that. It's a lot more fun if someone can ID your find. But can I make a small cheeky request please? When you ID them can you provide the "common" name as well as the latin one?
thanks
Mike
A. rubescens is a Blusher. A. spissa doesn't have a generally-accepted common name, and also has two latin names - it is sometimes called Amanita excelsa var. spissa. And sometimes called a "false blusher" and sometimes called a "grey spotted amanita".
More of an artsy shot than an identification shot, but as I don't know what it is I will stick it up anyway. Taken in upland beech woodland.
It's a russula. Beyond that I haven't a clue.
Which is why the scientific names are used in the first place. Common names are confusing.
But they're easier to remember and often descriptive.Which is why the scientific names are used in the first place. Common names are confusing.
Thanks Geoff. Good call on the A. Spissa. From description in books and online, I am leaning more towards that ID rather than it being A. Rubscens. Both species are extremely similar though so it could really be either.
I am now beginning to find the scientific names more and more confusing. They change them, change familys, remove familys at such regularity that learning them is getting impossible!
Look at the boluetus genus for example. A few weeks ago I found a boletus parasitic on earthballs. This is now called Boletus parasiticus. Not that long ago I knew it as Xerocomus parasiticus.
The red cracking bolete which was Boletus chrysenteron is now known as Xerocomellus chrysenteron. From what I have read they now believe that the true red cracking bolete is incredibly rare, and the chances of finding it are quite remote. So what now, does it get broken down in to many further sub species.?
I truely love fungi, but keeping up with the scientific names is a full time occupation!!!
Xerocomus is a particularly extreme example, because it is a case of what was considered to be a couple of species of Boletus now been split into a new genus containing about 15 species.
Latin names have always been subject to revision, but right now is a very special case. It is only in the last ten years that genetic sequencing technologies have become cheap enough for people to use it to work out what species (of all organisms) really are related to what others. On top of that, fungi were previously an unusually difficult group of organisms when it comes to working out the taxonomy, because the fossil record is almost non-existent. This double-whammy means that the latin name of fungi are going through a one-off turbulent period because lots of work is currently being done to work out, once and for all, what is related to what. Give it another 20 years and things will start to settle down again, and after that the naming system will probably be considerably more stable than it ever was before.
And for common names, and how useful their descriptive powers can be, I give you the slow worm.
Granted, that is an extreme example too.
I think there is room for both common and scientific names. Both have value. Lots of people say to me "I can never remember scientific names". I ask them to name a dinosaur. They say immediately "Tyrannosaurus rex". I rest my case.
Granted, that is an extreme example too.
I think there is room for both common and scientific names. Both have value. Lots of people say to me "I can never remember scientific names". I ask them to name a dinosaur. They say immediately "Tyrannosaurus rex". I rest my case.
I'm personally finding the re-arrangements fascinating. Who would have thought that the inkcaps, which looks so obviously closely related to each other, turn out to belong to three different families, or that the most famous of them all - the shaggy inkcap - belongs to a different family to all the others? In the other direction, shaggy inkcaps were just one of several groups of previously-thought-unrelated fungi that are all now known to belong to the Agaricaceae. Taxonomic families are quite close - we belong to the Hominidae, along with the chimps, orangutans and gorillas - just seven species that are obviously all closely related. But the Agariceae are now known to contain not just shaggy inkcaps but the parasols and all of the puffballs, as well as a whole bunch of smaller fungi like the deadly poisonous "Dapperlings". So a field mushroom is as closely related to a giant puffball as we are to gorillas! Or something along those lines...
Don't get me wrong, I too find it fascinating. At the same time I do find it confusing as I'm finding it hard to keep up.
I've only really been interested in fungi for 5 years now, so still very much on a steep learning curve, but in that 5 years things have changed so very much.
I've only really been interested in fungi for 5 years now, so still very much on a steep learning curve, but in that 5 years things have changed so very much.
If anybody is interested I'm going to be on the Mark Forrest show on BBC local radio (all of them, I think) tonight at about 7.45pm, talking about fungi foraging.
Evening Gents,
A short walk this morning with the dog found these
The size of a small football, very firm, found growing on a big old living beech tree, some sort of bracket fungus.... Ganoderma resinaceum ???
Dont have a clue about these though...
loads of these growing in a horses field this morning, quite small, very firm any ideas?
This one was growing in amongst bracken... In groups of about 3-6
thanks for looking
rob
A short walk this morning with the dog found these
The size of a small football, very firm, found growing on a big old living beech tree, some sort of bracket fungus.... Ganoderma resinaceum ???
Dont have a clue about these though...
loads of these growing in a horses field this morning, quite small, very firm any ideas?
This one was growing in amongst bracken... In groups of about 3-6
thanks for looking
rob
It's a lovely spot. Sheep pasture just outside the edge of a Forestry Commission larch plantation. Penny Bun (Boletus edulis) in the middle, Larch Bolete (Suillus luteus) to the immediate left and right, and stretching away in the distance top right. Large patch of The Miller (Clitopilus prunulus) in the middle background. There's also one or two Larch Spikes (Gomphidius maculatus) hidden in there. The Gomphidius are parasitic on the mycelium of the Larch Boletes. Only ever seen them in Scotland before.
ETA: This was my first decent session with customers since the mini-drought hit in September. Birthday treat for an old boy called Geoff.
Another angle, image hosting courtesy of the Association of British Fungus Groups (http://www.abfg.org)
ETA: This was my first decent session with customers since the mini-drought hit in September. Birthday treat for an old boy called Geoff.
Another angle, image hosting courtesy of the Association of British Fungus Groups (http://www.abfg.org)
Last edited:
Similar threads
