Are These Two Fungi The Same Species ?

[Lancashire Lad]

Just been looking at Digglekens photo (below): -

Which is currently being identified as: - Kuehneromyces mutabilis.

My pic of 12th November (copied below): -

Was also identified as: - Kuehneromyces mutabilis.

But the cap colouring seems to be completely different. ie. darker at the centre with lighter margins, whereas Kens is lighter at the centre with darker margins.

Would mine just be typical of the sort of variation in cap colour to be expected of this species?

(All pics I've seen in books look more like Kens photo than mine, and I was just wondering if perhaps my pic was not in fact Kuehneromyces mutabilis.).

Apologies if this is a silly question but I'm only just learning ID'ing.

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

It's a perfectly reasonable question Mike, and one that I too would love to find the answer to.

Did you notice any remains of a ring on the stem of your fantastic group?

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

It's a perfectly reasonable question Mike, and one that I too would love to find the answer to.

Did you notice any remains of a ring on the stem of your fantastic group?

Thanks for your reply Nick.

I had another photo in which you can just about make out the ring remnant on the stipe of one of the fungi at the top right of the pic.

I've copied the pic below if its of any use.



Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

Personally I would say that these are Kuehneromyces mutabilis

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Personally I would say that these are Kuehneromyces mutabilis

I'm happy to go with that then - If I ever get anywhere near your sort of knowledge on this subject I might dare to challenge an opinion.

But as things stand I might be better off trainspotting or something

At least now I will remember these variations for any future finds.

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

It does take quite a bit of constant subjection to the subject in both the field and in relevant literature to pluck the courage to have a go.

I see it like this;

If you've got the interest built in (which you obviously have or you'd not be asking for ID's ) then it's possible to go as far as you want. Personally, I think that it was having such a diverse interest that motivated me to go for it. We're all learning more and more every day- places like this are so invaluable!

I have a very long way to go, but I'm enjoying the ride

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I'm happy to go with that then - If I ever get anywhere near your sort of knowledge on this subject I might dare to challenge an opinion.

But as things stand I might be better off trainspotting or something

At least now I will remember these variations for any future finds.

Regards
Mike.

The title of the thread is already an interesting one - are these the same species? it can all get very philosophical . . .

I suspect (fear) that one day soon we will be feeding collections into a sausage machine, the DNA will be checked, parsimonies rated and names will come out . . . and sadly that will be the way that fungi are named with 100% accuracy

taxonomy is the art (not the science) of trying to place the fantastic variety of living organisms around us into a framework which enables us to say something sensible about them, from the basic "I saw species A on a branch of species B in .......... today"

photographs vary . . . flash - no flash . . . white balance calibrated - what's white balance? . . . young fruit-bodies - old fruitbodies and so on

there is no reason why two different fungal species should have any macroscopic or microscopic differences to distinguish them from one another: they are not in the business of helping human beings name them, they are in the business of continuing the genetic line; fungi are ultimately made up of "tubes" with chemicals in them and it is the chemicals which are the most important bit

I have been assured by entomologist friends that there are fireflies that can only be distinguished, one species from another, by the way they "flash" physically they don't need to be different, for the purpose of mating that flash pattern is what is required to stop cross-breeding (=failed breeding)
so a dead insect under a microscope, in a reference collection, whatever, will not yield up its secrets - DNA probably, but not necessarily would answer the question

hence the interesting discussion on the site re Lepista sordida - how different is it? is it a separate species? a subspecies? a variety?

any vascular plant botanist who has struggled with Ophrys and Dactylorhiza species (particularly in Europe) or birdwatchers trying to make sense of wagtails or 'Herring Gulls' in Europe will know that in some areas groups of "species" are in a state of flux, and ultimately it's a matter of opinion as to where you draw the line between one "species" and another (although of course the opinions of the people who have looked long and hard are probably the most worthy of consideration)

LancashireLad's question has made me assemble the above, which I have been musing on recently

musing over!

sorry if it's boring

best

Chris

[flaxton]

Chris
I still struggle over what constitutes a species and what is just a variety. Some species are almost identical microscopically but differ macroscopically and jet some vars show totally different features both macroscopically and also under the microscope

Mal