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