Coprinus domesticus

[JoulesH]

Knowing nothing about mosses or fungi,I had posted this as an unidentified moss, however, I gather from our County Keeper of Natural Collections that it is the mycelium of Coprinus domesticus (he was sent a sample as well as the picture taken in Jan) - I'll have to get some more pix in autumn. He got 2 others to look at it too.

2 for 1 - Turkey Tail also visible

[fairplay]

Yes that is correct Joules8, confuses lots of people.
There is another species of 'Coprinus' which also produces similar mycelium.

Neil.

[mykonik]

Originally Posted by fairplay

Yes that is correct Joules8, confuses lots of people.
There is another species of 'Coprinus' which also produces similar mycelium.

Neil.

There are several Neil - and the Oozonium state is identical in each, so how would anyone be able to say that this is C. domesticus ????

Nick

[fairplay]

Ah..., now if you were really clever like me Nick and carefully follow that mycelium down to the right bottom corner of the photo, you will just about see (just off camera) a pair of C. domesticus

Neil.

[mykonik]

Originally Posted by fairplay

Ah..., now if you were really clever like me Nick and carefully follow that mycelium down to the right bottom corner of the photo, you will just about see (just off camera) a pair of C. domesticus

Neil.

Well, I would have Neil (might even try to look off camera !) but the pictures disappeared !!

Nick

[JoulesH]

The photos have been moved to identifed fungi, but I clicked on my picture in the first post above and it took me there. I'm not in a position to debate this being an absolute novice, but the identifier did have a physical specimen as well as these photos and he was going to put it through a series of tests /under a microscope. He is a lichen specialist but I suspect knows more than a fair bit about fungi too, he is Keeper of Natural Collections at our county council so I have every reason to trust his ID esp as he got 2 others to verify.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by JoulesH

The photos have been moved to identifed fungi, but I clicked on my picture in the first post above and it took me there. I'm not in a position to debate this being an absolute novice, but the identifier did have a physical specimen as well as these photos and he was going to put it through a series of tests /under a microscope. He is a lichen specialist but I suspect knows more than a fair bit about fungi too, he is Keeper of Natural Collections at our county council so I have every reason to trust his ID esp as he got 2 others to verify.

Hi Joules, your image has not been moved to the identified fungi gallery but has been removed. I suspect that it was linked to a third party site. Please see http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/faq#n25750


Also, the identifier may be the keeper of the Natural Collections at your county council but, is he /she a trained Mycologist. There's a big difference.

John

[JoulesH]

I don't understand. It's not linked to an external site and it was moved by a moderator yesterday when I requested it after identification and I can still see it when I click on the post in the thread above!
(there are 2 other pictures)

I don't know whether he's a trained mycologist but as a professional lichenologist with over 40 years field experience he knows these things are important. If I'm going to get the nth degree at every posting I think I'll go home now! He has suggested I check the site in the autumn, which I will.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by JoulesH

I don't understand. It's not linked to an external site and it was moved by a moderator yesterday when I requested it after identification and I can still see it when I click on the post in the thread above!
(there are 2 other pictures)

I don't know whether he's a trained mycologist but as a professional lichenologist with over 40 years field experience he knows these things are important. If I'm going to get the nth degree at every posting I think I'll go home now! He has suggested I check the site in the autumn, which I will.

Hi Joules

Because you stated in a thread that ‘The photos have been moved to identified fungi’ I checked to see if they had been moderated or were awaiting moderation. Since they weren’t there I assumed (wrongly it seems) they may have been rejected due to having a link to a third party site. Sorry for this.

However, your image size of 240 x 180 would not be accepted in the main gallery because it is too small. Gallery images need to be larger than 800 x 600 and of high quality. If you contacted a Moderator or Gallery editor they would normally state this. Can you remember who you contacted?

Regarding your final comment: Again I apologise if you feel offended but we do have to be very careful about who is providing information, especially so if it may involve edibility. We have had occasions in the past where a few members had considered themselves experts and the consequence of such statements could easily lead in time to false identification. See Read Me First

Hopefully you will understand and continue to enjoy being a member of Wild About Britain.

John