Microscopes

[fairplay]

Before this thread runs dry, I'll get my tuppance worth in.

If anyone else is planning to get a new microscope always try different makes if you can before you buy, which means you will have to go to a workshop of some sort.

Most people will not mind you using their scope if they know you are planning to buy one and will be only too pleased to give advice.

The BMS bring Leica equipment to their workshops and the 'student' type microscopes are not as expensive as you will think. It is all down to the type of objective lenses used, but to measure spores you do need a 1000x oil immersion lens and the better the quality the better you can see the ornamentation of spores.

I was lucky when the microbiology lab at a hospital had an open day and I was able to use their Olympus equipment - stunning is all I can say !!
My mind was made up there and then, so that is the make I have, but they are definitely over-priced though.

Neil.

[fairplay]

Before this thread runs dry, I'll get my tuppance worth in.

If anyone else is planning to get a new microscope always try different makes if you can before you buy, which means you will have to go to a workshop of some sort.

Most people will not mind you using their scope if they know you are planning to buy one and will be only too pleased to give advice.

The BMS bring Leica equipment to their workshops and the 'student' type microscopes are not as expensive as you will think. It is all down to the type of objective lenses used, but to measure spores you do need a 1000x oil immersion lens and the better the quality the better you can see the ornamentation of spores.

I was lucky when the microbiology lab at a hospital had an open day and I was able to use their Olympus equipment - stunning is all I can say !!
My mind was made up there and then, so that is the make I have, but they are definitely over-priced though.

Neil.

[Leif]

I will add that IMO it is better to buy a used microscope from one of the big names. There are some good examples out there. The older ones use finite tube length optics, and there are lots of objectives on the used market for bargain prices. Not so for infinity optics.

[Stewy]

I think I've done my neck in!! Not looking at any spores unfortunately but having a good look at some pollen from an Amaryllis that we've got and it's quite impressive with what you can see, I've also been messing about with a gill from a supermarket "flat" shroom and that's quite interesting. I've tried getting some spores from it but alas no luck so far.

Would a bog standard supermarket labeled flat shroom be a Field Mushroom? ie Agaricus campestris or is it more likely to be some sort of cultivated hybrid?

Where's the deepheat??

[NickCantle]

Supermarket mushies are generally Agaricus bisporus Stew.

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Not the best photo but how about the Pluteus "horned" cystidia at 400x,
That should give you plenty to play with

Mal

Dementure setting in when talking about "Not the best photo" you have to include the link


Mal

[Stewy]

I did wonder Mal when you posted but it's so far over my head I didn't dare question!!!!

I did Google it though!

I put new batteries in this thing earlier and they've gone already!

[Stewy]

Crikey, I'm only looking at mushroom spores down a microscope as I type!!

Only shop bought so called "open" mushrooms whatever they are classed as, it's not really powerful enough to get a good look at them but I can see them.

[flaxton]

Stewy
With the shop bought mushrooms they are agaricus bisporus ie the basidia only have two spores. Most fungi have four to each basidia. If you look at the gill of most fungi just laid on a slide relatively low magnification you will see

Showing that whatever this fungi is it has four spores to each basidia. Your bisporus should show clearly only two. Which with higher magnification would show this


Mal

[Stewy]

I can't seem to be able to get that sort of detail with this thing Mal, I've been looking at a gill edge and I can see that it's all jagged but nothing more than that.

I think I'm out of my depth with all this!!

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Stewy

I can't seem to be able to get that sort of detail with this thing Mal, I've been looking at a gill edge and I can see that it's all jagged but nothing more than that.

I think I'm out of my depth with all this!!

It's not your technique Stewy, it's just that you haven't got enough magnification to see the detail.

It also makes a big difference to have seen the various micro-characters down someone else's microscope first so you know what you are looking for.

I still tear my hair out hunting for the cystidia of some species of Mycena. It can take several slides before you even track any down, let alone work out what shape they are. But with only x450 magnification you wouldn't have a hope.

At least you should be able to make out the spore shape OK, which can help in narrowing down the options.

Ken

[Stewy]

Thanks Ken, yes I can roughly make out the shape of the spores but again they are very small looking using this thing. Are there any mushrooms that have very large spores so I might be in with a chance of getting a good look at them, I should be able to get my hands on oyster mushrooms, chanterelles and an amanita fulva (at least I think it is) would any of these have large spores?

[flaxton]

Stewy

Pleurotus 7-11 x 3-4
Fulva 9-11 globose

If you can find any coprinus or paneolus they have nice dark spores and some quite big.

Mal

[Stewy]

Thanks Mal, hopefully the weather at the weekend will be fair so I can go and hunt some goodies to mess about with.

I can find loads of shaggy inkcaps a bit later on, what about them?

[NickCantle]

They're Coprinus, so I would presume so Stew

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

They're Coprinus, so I would presume so Stew

Yeah I know, I can only ID 3 of them and that's Coprinus comatus and Coprinus atramentarius and Coprinus picaceus.

[Leif]

Stewy: I think you need Macrocystidia cucumis. I'll let you figure out why.

Surely though ~x500 is fine for cystidia? That is what I use, since I hate using oil immersion without reason. What I find is that the cystidia can sometimes be hard to find. IMO stain is needed (at least with the species I've tried) and a thin sample, squashed a bit. I found a sharpened kitchen knife worked well with cultivated mushrooms. But I am quite handy with a kitchen knife. Racking the focus in and out while searching helps. Maybe I'm a carp microscopist, or maybe not, but that is what works for me.

[Stewy]

Cystidia on gill edge large?

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Leif

Surely though ~x500 is fine for cystidia?

As I'm sure you know yourself Leif, it depends very much on what lenses you have ie both quality and the magnification. I found looking at cystidia very "challenging" with my old Russian Biolam at x400, and everything seeming to go very murky at x1000 with the oil immersion, so I just couldn't see enough detail to work out the shape of the cystidia of Mycena.

I still prefer x600 myself (ie x60 objective and x10 eyepiece) which gives you that bit more resolution without having to go up to oil immersion all the time.

With higher quality lenses you get a better depth of field so it's easier to work out what you are seeing without having to continually rack up and down with the fine focus.

But Stewy's magnification of x450 sounds an unusual figure to me. There isn't an obvious combination of eyepiece lens with x40 objective lens that would give that figure. If the objective lens has a magnification of less than x40 that may be part of the problem, because x40 is the minimum I would say you need for looking at cystidia. Putting a x15 eyepiece with a x30 objective to give x450 does not give better resolution than x400 from a x10 eyepiece and x40 objective. The x15 eyepiece will give you a bigger image than a x10 but it doesn't improve the resolution because it is the objective lens that determines the resolution.

But I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted.

Ken

PS And of course x450 from a x50 objective and x9 eyepiece (if you can get such lenses) would probably be fine for seeing cystidia because you would have better resolving power than from a x40 objective.

[CapAndBracket]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

I still prefer x600 myself (ie x60 objective and x10 eyepiece) which gives you that bit more resolution without having to go up to oil immersion all the time.

With higher quality lenses you get a better depth of field so it's easier to work out what you are seeing without having to continually rack up and down with the fine focus.

The x15 eyepiece will give you a bigger image than a x10 but it doesn't improve the resolution because it is the objective lens that determines the resolution.

But I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted.

Ken

That's useful information, i was thinking of a X15 eyepiece to take my x40
objective up to 600 magnifycation for the reasons you state, but can
understand now that i will be better of getting x60 objective (if possible) for
my scope.

Cheers J.P.

[fairplay]

Has anybody ever used a water immersion lens as opposed to an oil immersion ?

I ask this because some time ago I read an article either by Ernest Emmett or Jack Marriott in which they say that if ever you can get your hands on such an objective lens, do so.

Presumably this is because cleaning is easier, water is cheap and always available and is not carcinogenic like oil (although I think all immersion oil now is free of carcinogens - well I hope so.)

Question is: so why ain't everybody using them ?

Neil.

[CapAndBracket]

I didn't know anything about these so googled the subject.

It seems price and availability is one reason that aren't used by more people.

Their advantage (where they are better) is in viewing material not against
the slide cover, especially the inner workings of complete cells or organells.

As our slides seem to go for a very fine squash with material in contact with
the slide cover (or very near) then they appear to hold little if any advantage.

There's little doubt we would all like to see more detail, but scopes are working at the boundary of what can be achieved with visible light due to it's
wave length, using beams of shorter wavelength is really the only way to
up the magnifycation and detail, this looses natural colours and will always
require some form of indirect viewing as those wavelengths would not be
visible to the human eye and would destroy it's structure.

Cheers J.P.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

As I'm sure you know yourself Leif, it depends very much on what lenses you have ie both quality and the magnification. I found looking at cystidia very "challenging" with my old Russian Biolam at x400, and everything seeming to go very murky at x1000 with the oil immersion, so I just couldn't see enough detail to work out the shape of the cystidia of Mycena.

I plead ignorance m'lud. Thanks for the information.

I only have experience of two microscopes, and I guess both must be pretty decent then, even though one is rather old, and cheap.

[Stewy]

I've managed to get some spores from this which I am pretty sure is a Amanita fulva but again they are so small I can't really get a good look at them, not that I know what I'm looking for anyway!!

I can see that they are quite "roundish" but that's about it, I'm sure there's a more technical term for that!

[fairplay]

Stewy.

A tip, when squeezing a drop of stain onto the specimen with a pipet, don't do what I did, that is don't suck the specimen back into the pipet and return it to the bottle. It will contaminate the whole bottle contents, luckily I realised what I'd done before screwing the pipet back onto the bottle.

Neil.