Possibly Russula nitida or Russula atropurpurea for ID

[chrishorak]

I know I am probably asking for the impossible with Russula sp ID from photos, but was just hoping for some pointers on these photos, especially to possibly help me with ID the next time I see them. (I don't have a microscope)

From what I can see they appear to be either Russula nitida or Russula atropurpurea, but these do seem to be quite variable from the photos I have seen here on WAB and elsewhere.
To my untrained eye, all 5 my photos seem to be the same variety...











Thanks
Chris

[Andy Overall]

Originally Posted by chrishorak

I know I am probably asking for the impossible with Russula sp ID from photos, but was just hoping for some pointers on these photos, especially to possibly help me with ID the next time I see them. (I don't have a microscope)

From what I can see they appear to be either Russula nitida or Russula atropurpurea, but these do seem to be quite variable from the photos I have seen here on WAB and elsewhere.
To my untrained eye, all 5 my photos seem to be the same variety...











Thanks
Chris

Hi Chris,

A couple of things. You really need to get your photography up to scratch. if you are limited camera wise, please try at least to get the image in focus, it really helps. The other thing is, it looks as if your Russula are growing with Pine. This type of information is crucial with Russula. Some grow with Pine exclusively as some grow exclusively with deciduous broadleaved trees. If with Pine, this is not R. atropupurpurea which prefers Oak, R. nitida is a Birch associate. So, more details please.

Andy

[chrishorak]

Thanks for the photography advice Andy, I will try much harder next time to get the perfect shot for you.

As for the location, it was in a very mixed forest, although the specific area where I found these was mainly conifer. But it is probably only about 50 yards to the nearest Oak or Birch tree. So I guess that doesn't help much.

Am I looking at a choice between Russula nitida or Russula atropurpurea, or are there other possibilities? As I mentioned in my original post, I realise that identifying Russula sp from photos if very difficult, but I was just hoping for some pointers.

Thanks
Chris

[Andy Overall]

Originally Posted by chrishorak

Thanks for the photography advice Andy, I will try much harder next time to get the perfect shot for you.

As for the location, it was in a very mixed forest, although the specific area where I found these was mainly conifer. But it is probably only about 50 yards to the nearest Oak or Birch tree. So I guess that doesn't help much.

Am I looking at a choice between Russula nitida or Russula atropurpurea, or are there other possibilities? As I mentioned in my original post, I realise that identifying Russula sp from photos if very difficult, but I was just hoping for some pointers.

Thanks
Chris

We don't need the perfect pic Chris just the various characteristics such as gills, stem and cap, in focus. Also any information on habitat, such as you have given. I don't think this eitherR. nitida or R. atropurpurea but more likely R. fragilis If you nibble a small piece of the flesh, DONT SWALLOW, just taste, I think you will get a nasty acridness. R. nitida is mild, R. atropurpurea slightly hot. Don't try this with other fungi, it is one ID clue for Russula.

Andy

[KeenTeen17]

the photos aren't that bad - It was just probably a bit too dark when you photographed them. I struggle all the time,

I think r. atropurpurea grows under oak and sweet chestnut where as r. fragilis grows under birch and other trees.

[fairplay]

KT,

Please allow me to make a friendly suggestion to make your posts look more 'professional'

When using the scientific name of any organism, the genus always starts with a capital letter, followed by the species which is lower case, even if named after somebody like berkeleyi ( Miles Joseph Berkeley 1803-89, a great British mycologist)

Hope you find that little piece of useless info useful.

Neil.

[chrishorak]

Thanks for the replies. I was hoping that there were limited options for purplish coloured Russulas, but it seems like there are even more than the 3 mentioned in the thread so far. When I see them again I guess I will just call them 'one of the purplish coloured Russulas'....

(As for the photos, they were taken in a dark forest very late in the afternoon. Had to set at 1600 ISO and over expose just to get these images.)

Thanks
Chris

[KeenTeen17]

Originally Posted by fairplay

KT,

Please allow me to make a friendly suggestion to make your posts look more 'professional'

When using the scientific name of any organism, the genus always starts with a capital letter, followed by the species which is lower case, even if named after somebody like berkeleyi ( Miles Joseph Berkeley 1803-89, a great British mycologist)

Hope you find that little piece of useless info useful.

Neil.

I get you. you mean like A. citrina or R. fragilis or G. australe etc. what am I like?