Field Guide Notes and Comments

[Fungus Ken]

A thread for flagging up doubtful images in popular field guides.

Originally Posted by cybershot

And looking at his entry for T. gibbosa on p.105, no wonder confusion reigns

... which is why it pays to consult several reference books and read the descriptions as well as looking at the images.

Even if the authors have got their IDs 100% correct (which would be unusual judging by the professional reviews I have seen of even some of the leading books such as the Fungi of Switzerland series) the photographs themselves can show unrepresentative specimens or omit the important characters.

I have a small narrow green book by Paul Sterry - A Photographic Guide to Mushrooms of Britain and Europe (New Holland 1995) - which I keep for amusement. It passes a little time pre-foray season to flip through the book and see just how many of the specimens in the photographs have been incorrectly identified and then to work out what they really are.

To pick just one example, the photo labelled Inocybe fastigiata is actually Collybia butyracea. That's a whopper of an error for an ID guide and shows that at least some of the identifications were never properly checked with even a check on spore colour. If anyone has the book, do have a go yourself.

Ken

[Fungus Ken]

PS If anyone does have the book, perhaps we could play a game on a separate thread sometime and try to see how many errors we can spot between WAB members. Perhaps people could take it in turns to pick a photo that is wrongly labelled and suggest the true identity.

Just a thought and maybe a little unfair on those who don't have the book.

But just to whet people's appetite, I'd say that at least 10% of the 252 species covered in the book are either glaring errors or very dubious, so there are plenty to go at.

And to me the classic image - and probably the error I treasure most, although it's a close call - is the photo labelled Amanita inaurata. I'm chuckling away to myself just looking at it now.

(And to save any confusion, I have the first edition dated 1995 with a green cover and an image of Amanita muscaria. I'm not sure whether any of the errors were corrected in later editions.)

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

... which is why it pays to consult several reference books and read the descriptions as well as looking at the images.

I have a small narrow green book by Paul Sterry - A Photographic Guide to Mushrooms of Britain and Europe (New Holland 1995) - which I keep for amusement. It passes a little time pre-foray season to flip through the book and see just how many of the specimens in the photographs have been incorrectly identified and then to work out what they really are.

To pick just one example, the photo labelled Inocybe fastigiata is actually Collybia butyracea. That's a whopper of an error for an ID guide and shows that at least some of the identifications were never properly checked with even a check on spore colour. If anyone has the book, do have a go yourself.

Good Lord, you're right. I never paid too much attention as the photos are ... ahem ... not the best technically speaking.

I have doubts about his Lactarius piperatus (Collybia geotropa ?), Hygrocybe langei (H. chlorophana?), Suillus bovinus (Boletus/whatever piperatus?)

BTW does Michael Jordan's Boletus aereus look suspect to you?

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Leif

I have doubts about his Lactarius piperatus (Collybia geotropa ?), Hygrocybe langei (H. chlorophana?), Suillus bovinus (Boletus/whatever piperatus?)

BTW does Michael Jordan's Boletus aereus look suspect to you?

In my copy of Michael Jordan's book (first edition) the photo labelled Boletus aereus looks to me much more like Boletus badius.

And I agree with your comments on all three of the doubtful photos you mention in the Paul Sterry book. Hygrocybe langei is now a synonym of Hygrocybe persistens var persistens, which would have a more pointed cap and a fibrillose stem. I think the photo shows Hygrocybe chlorophana as you suggest. Now just 20 odd more errors to spot.

Let me flag up three of the more blatant errors:

Amanita inaurata - clearly shows a dried out specimen of Amanita muscaria
Hygrophorus hypothejus (Herald of Winter) - is quite obviously Paxillus involutus
Clitocybe fragrans - is actually Rooting Shank, Xerula radicata.

Over to you and anyone else who has the book!

I'll move these comments over to a thread of their own for any additional thoughts.

Ken

[Fungus Ken]

Currently under discussion: A photographic guide to mushrooms of Britain and Europe by Paul Sterry (New Holland 1995 edition)

Originally Posted by Leif

I have doubts about his Lactarius piperatus (Collybia geotropa ?), Hygrocybe langei (H. chlorophana?), Suillus bovinus (Boletus/whatever piperatus?)

BTW does Michael Jordan's Boletus aereus look suspect to you?

In my copy of Michael Jordan's book (first edition) the photo labelled Boletus aereus looks to me much more like Boletus badius.

And I agree with your comments on all three of the doubtful photos you mention in the Paul Sterry book. Hygrocybe langei is now a synonym of Hygrocybe persistens var persistens, which would have a more pointed cap and a fibrillose stem. I think the photo shows Hygrocybe chlorophana as you suggest. Now just 20 odd more errors to spot.

Let me flag up three of the more blatant errors:

Amanita inaurata - clearly shows a dried out specimen of Amanita muscaria
Hygrophorus hypothejus (Herald of Winter) - is quite obviously Paxillus involutus
Clitocybe fragrans - is actually Rooting Shank, Xerula radicata.

Over to you and anyone else who has the book!

Ken

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

I'll move these comments over to a thread of their own for any additional thoughts.

Ken

What a good idea
David

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

A thread for flagging up doubtful images in popular field guides.

Currently under discussion: A photographic guide to mushrooms of Britain and Europe by Paul Sterry (New Holland 1995 edition)



In my copy of Michael Jordan's book (first edition) the photo labelled Boletus aereus looks to me much more like Boletus badius.

And I agree with your comments on all three of the doubtful photos you mention in the Paul Sterry book. Hygrocybe langei is now a synonym of Hygrocybe persistens var persistens, which would have a more pointed cap and a fibrillose stem. I think the photo shows Hygrocybe chlorophana as you suggest. Now just 20 odd more errors to spot.

Let me flag up three of the more blatant errors:

Amanita inaurata - clearly shows a dried out specimen of Amanita muscaria
Hygrophorus hypothejus (Herald of Winter) - is quite obviously Paxillus involutus
Clitocybe fragrans - is actually Rooting Shank, Xerula radicata.

Over to you and anyone else who has the book!

Ken

I flipped through the Sterry book last night, and spotted a few errors which we agree on. I've not checked but I'm happy to accept your others. It really is shameful. Some of the errors concern quite common species too, and not just rarely documented ones. Fortunately I paid about £1.50 for the book, and I suppose if you file it under humour then the price is okay. I have other books in the same series.

The fact that the photos are often taken in full sun, with heavy shadows makes it hard (for me anyway) to check a species.

I'm glad we agree on Jordan's Boletus aereus. I also think it is more likely to be a Boletus badius. I also think one of his Summer Boletes is probably a Penny Bun. I guess there must be other slips. He claims the photos have been checked by respected figures (even Roy Watling I think). I doubt Watling would have passed the Boletus aereus given that he is a world authority on Boletes (I can perhaps claim to be a Luton authority assuming no real mycologists live here ).

[FungiJohn]

I've made this a 'sticky' and added the previous threads. I hope it helps
John

[Leif]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

I've made this a 'sticky' and added the previous threads. I hope it helps
John

Perhaps you could change the thread title to "Public humiliation of guide book authors with a view to making the rest of us feel less embarrassed about our own mistakes" ?

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by Leif

Perhaps you could change the thread title to "Public humiliation of guide book authors with a view to making the rest of us feel less embarrassed about our own mistakes" ?

I've changed it to 'Field Guide Notes and Comments' ... for now

[NickCantle]

Has anyone got David Pegler and Brian Spooner's 'The Mushroom Identifier'?

It was my first fungi book and I received it at the tender age of 5 I've still got it on the shelf, it's one of my favourites. I always seem to refer to it for IDs still

[Leif]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Has anyone got David Pegler and Brian Spooner's 'The Mushroom Identifier'?

It was my first fungi book and I received it at the tender age of 5 I've still got it on the shelf, it's one of my favourites. I always seem to refer to it for IDs still

No but it should be good given their knowledge. I have goodness knows how many little guides picked up cheap, and most are good, and not as per Ken's favourite little green book. Sadly many very respected mycologists do not write (semi-) popular books but I am sure they have a wealth of knowledge to share. There are often key features to look for but which many authors do not mention.

[Fungus Ken]

In case anyone else does have the Paul Sterry book "A Photographic Guide to Mushrooms of Britain and Europe" (New Holland 1995), here is my list of dubious photos to watch out for.

Errors:

Suillus bovinus - actually Chalciporus piperatus (compare photo on previous page)
Hygrocybe langei - perhaps Hygrocybe chlorophana
Hygrophorus hypothejus - actually Paxillus involutus
Clitocybe flaccida - actually Paxillus involutus (again)
Clitocybe fragrans - actually Xerula radicata
Tricholoma fulvum - actually Hebeloma sp.
Mycena epipterygia - actually Bolbitius titubans (= B. vitellinus)
Entoloma porphyrophaeum - not this species but not sure what this is
Inocybe fastigiata - actually Collybia butyracea
Inocybe napipes - cap is far too dark for this species. Cortinarius sp. maybe?
Inocybe geophylla var lilaciana - actually Mycena pura
Stropharia hornemanni - actually Psathyrella sp., probably P. piluliformis
Hypholoma sublateritium - probably Flammulina velutipes
Panaeolus campanulatus - ring on stem is clearly visible on both specimens in the photo. Actually Panaeolus semiovatus
Coprinus plicatilis - actually Bolbitius titubans (= B. vitellinus) (again)
Amanita inaurata - actually a dried out Amanita muscaria
Bjerkandera adusta - actually Auricularia mesenterica
Heterobasidion annosum - not this species but I'm not certain what it is

Dubious:

Boletus luridus - stem and cap look wrong
Boletus subtomentosus - looks like an old cep
Leccinum versipelle - cap looks more red-brown than orange
Leccinum variicolor - nothing in the shot to show the distinctive characters of this species
Russula nigricans - gills look quite closely spaced so could be one of the other species in this group
Lactarius vietus - looks far too chunky
Hygrocybe punicea - stem and cap look wrong. Maybe H. coccinea?
Lactarius piperatus - maybe Clitocybe geotropa?
Armillaria mellea - maybe Armillaria ostoyae?
Lyophyllum decastes - looks too pale on the cap but photo is too poor to tell
Mycena crocata - nothing in the photo to suggest this species
Gymnopilus penetrans - cap colour far too red but may just be a poor photo
Agrocybe cylindracea - old Hypholoma sp. perhaps?
Amanita aspera - could just be a pale Amanita rubescens. Nothing in the photo to suggest otherwise.
Clavariadelphus junceus - looks too chunky for this species. Macrotyphula fistulosa var fistulosa perhaps?
Clavulina cristata - doesn't look very cristate at the tips. Clavulina rugosa perhaps?
Stereum gausapatum - doesn't look like a Stereum at all
Neobulgaria pura - if it is, it's not a good photo

So I'd say there were 18 species definitely misidentfied and 18 that are dubious. There are a few others that I would also question. But 36 out of 252 wrong or unidentifiable from the photo is an amazingly bad tally.

Still, I do find it entertaining trying to spot the errors in published field guides. Bet you can't beat that with other field guides.

Ken

[Xylaria]

Still, I do find it entertaining trying to spot the errors in published field guides. Bet you can't beat that with other field guides.

edmund garnwiedner collins nature guide mushrooms and toadstools.

I have disposed of my own copy so i can't make a list, it labelled nearly every entry as poisonous except amantia virosa. There was several photos that looked nothing like what they were labeled as. There was literally errors on every page either ID or ediblity/toxicology.

[Alantb]

Re the Jordan Encyclopedia - when it was published it got a hammering from the great and good which is allegedly why he fell out with the BMS - probably the new edition is better. But nobody is perfect; Roger Phillips' latest edition still believes in Mycena alcalina, which has been a dubious name for ages. Perhaps we need to go back to Wittgenstein's "Don't ask for the name, ask for the use"........

Alan

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Alantb

Roger Phillips' latest edition still believes in Mycena alcalina

Hi Alan, and welcome to the WAB Fungi Forums. Hope you have time to pop back when you're not too busy doing all the MYFG records or preparing the newsletter.

Yes, it's a bit irritating that the new edition still includes this name which, it seems, has not been in use by professional mycologists for many years.

We have had a few discussions about this on the Fungi Forums in the past.

Here is what the Basidiomycota Checklist has to say about Mycena alcalina:

"Notes: A nomen dubium variously interpreted. Sensu NCL includes both M. stipata and M. silvae-nigrae."

There's still a lot of confusion amongst us amateurs on these species, as indicated in the Checklist's comments on Mycena stipata:

"Habitat: On decayed conifer wood.

Notes: Apparently widespread, but the majority of records are reported from deciduous substrata, and virtually all are unsubstantiated with voucher material. Until recently, included with M. silvae-nigrae in M. alcalina."

In any event, we shouldn't be using the name Mycena alcalina any more because it is a name that has lost all credibility.

Ken

[cybershot]

Somewhat slightly off topic, but in my own limited experience of less than two years I find it very hard to determine, except for the publication dates of popular references, exactly which data is the most current. Recently a notable verified collection of Arrhenia chlorocyanea indicates that Michael Jordan's ABFG data base is more up-to-date than that of the BMS, thus shedding some doubts over the currency of the BC. I appreciate that, for any organization, the task of maintaining accurate, up-to-date records must be a perennial nightmare. Perhaps some one with more experience can enlighten me regarding the policies adopted by the various bodies for keeping abreast of, and promulgating the ever changing specifications.

David

[flaxton]

David
The BMS database is generally added to at the end of each season when people and groups send in their records for the whole year. In the case of the Arrhenia it would not be up to the person who confirmed the identification to submit this record. Although the same is true generally of the ABFG, Michael Jordan is the central figure who is involved in identification and updating of the Database (and most other things). I think you will find at the end of 2008 the two database systems will be much more in line.

Mal

[Fungus Ken]

As for the Basidiomycota Checklist, I understand the intention is for the authors/editors to keep the online version up to date by reasonably regular updates. It looks as though this is being done annually because there are two update documents on the website, one dated 2006 and the other 2007:

BasidioChecklist - Latest Updates

Ken

[cybershot]

Thanks for the heads up guys and in a dedicated thread I will be pleased to give some insight to the new ABFG recording and uploader package currently being road tested for release in April. Suffice it to say here that the database update will be instantaneous and not dependent on the vagaries of overstretched moderators.

David

P.S. With respect to the BMS database can I just clarify whether in the case of a vouchered specimen is it the collector, recorder or determiner who is responsible for the submission?

[Alantb]

We are all prone to error, even the most experienced. The fact that a database on a scientific subject is instantaneous does not make it more reliable. One might think that it would have more than its share of rash judgements.
Of course identification of the 'obvious' large fungi should be reasonably correct but what, for example, about Cortinarius, a genus which even the great and good find problematic? I'd much rather wait for a considered evaluation than a hurried scramble for brownie points. And if you won't trust the experience and expertise of Britain's possibly the world's) premier mycological institution, well....