ID Request On These Two Fungi Please.

[NickCantle]

Excellent, good shout proved right Neil

Mycena Malcolm to the rescooooooooooooooooooooo

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Nick
I can go with inclanata for the first but unfortunately alkaina (if you look at the Checklist) nomen dubium and is either M. stipata or M. silvae-nigrae. Having said that I agree with Neil and think it is arcangeliana

Mal

Not sure if these additional pics might be of any benefit for these ID's?

The first one shows some of the gills at upper right of photo.


And this one is a better shot with the gills showing on the ? archangeliana. (EDIT - it is spelled this way in Jordan, but the photo in there looks nothing like these. )

Thanks once again.
Regards
Mike.

[leifus]

the gills look wrong for M.alcalina

[NickCantle]

That's because as answered by Neil and Mal, it's M. arcangeliana

[Lancashire Lad]

Thanks everyone, I thought I might get ID's to family, but to species is a bonus.

Regards
Mike.

[flaxton]

Mike
I know its an external image but how does http://home.online.no/~araronse/Myce...angeliana1.htm
compare to your find and if the mods get their editors fingers out too soon just check the A-Z

Mal

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Mike
I know its an external image but how does http://home.online.no/~araronse/Myce...angeliana1.htm
compare to your find and if the mods get their editors fingers out too soon just check the A-Z

Mal

Hi Mal,

The caps in this photo are pretty much identical to mine. I would initially have said that the stipes on mine were not the same grey colour as shown in this photo, but I have a few pics taken at the time and think that it is because of the natural lighting/sunlight that mine look slightly different.

EDIT: Plus - mine do seem to show the typical whitish "down" at the very base of the stipe which is typical of M. arcangeliana.

I'm as sure as I can be from the photo's that they are one and the same.

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

I'm probably being silly and telling you something that you already know, but fungi are extremely notorious for their variability. That's why we can't rely on images alone- macro characteristics are a massive part of the diagnosis obviously, but each specimen of the same species varies, sometimes minutely (i.e, slightly smaller and more coloured) and sometimes massively (i.e, cap shape infudibuliform rather than umbonate). If all specimens of the same species were the same, this would be a hell of a lot easier

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

...I'm probably being silly and telling you something that you already know, but fungi are extremely notorious for their variability....If all specimens of the same species were the same, this would be a hell of a lot easier...

I'm beginning to realise this in a big way.

Yes, I do very much appreciate from replies seen on WAB, that it's more often than not impossible to be absolutely certain of ID's by photo alone, (Apart from the relatively few "stand out" species that is eg. Amanita muscaria), and I accept that without microscopy, anything better than family will always be a bonus.

I do agree with something that I spotted on another thread, that it would be hugely useful to the beginner, (i.e mortals like me ), if there was some sort of reference available that showed each species in several different stages of growth, from just emerged through to mature. At least that way, we would have a better idea of what each individual species would typically look like at any given stage in its life.

Regards
Mike.