Large Fungi on Fallen Birch

[tigger]

Hi. Wondered if anyone could ID the following large fungi I found on a fallen birch?

Many thanks. Jane

[solus]

Oooh!! Me! Me! One (of the few) that I know - Birch polypore! (Piptoporus betulinus)

[tigger]

Thanks. It doesn't look a bit like the birch polypore in my ID book

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by tigger

Thanks. It doesn't look a bit like the birch polypore in my ID book

An extremely variable species Jane, perhaps due to the very wide and common distribution.

Nick

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by tigger

Hi. Wondered if anyone could ID the following large fungi I found on a fallen birch?

Many thanks. Jane

I think these are great shots, particularly the first one showing the structure of the pores. If fungi photo guides included such pics, along with the "standard" type photo's, it would make learning the subject that bit easier for us fungi novices.

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If fungi photo guides included such pics, along with the "standard" type photo's, it would make learning the subject that bit easier for us fungi novices.

The trouble with that is that there are so many variations and atypical examples in each species that even the most comprehensive guide couldn't cope with an image of each

It's like the domestic feline - Felis catus (odd comparison, but bare with me ) The one species holds a massive variation in cats having different fur lengths, fur colours, fur thicknesses et-cetera. They're all the same species and are similar as a family, but as separate specimens they are massively different. It'd be like seeing Felis catus in a book with the following 8,893 pages of slight variations

That's one thing I've learned about this year. That there's no end to the variability of fungi.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

...It's like the domestic feline - Felis catus (odd comparison, but bare with me ) The one species holds a massive variation in cats having different fur lengths, fur colours, fur thicknesses et-cetera. They're all the same species and are similar as a family, but as separate specimens they are massively different. It'd be like seeing Felis catus in a book with the following 8,893 pages of slight variations...

When you put it like that, I can't disagree. But I'm sure in large books such as Phillips & Jordan etc. they could make room for say one large "standard" photo, with a couple of thumbnails showing typical young and old stages as well. (Just make the standard photo slightly smaller and, hey presto, you've made room for the thumbnails - OK I know it's not going to happen, but it would be very nice if it did).

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

Don't get me wrong mate- I'd love to see a few thumbnails too. It would make sense. I guess that's why WAB's fungi A-Z is so good (well, the species that have been finished)

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

That's one thing I've learned about this year. That there's no end to the variability of fungi.

depends on the group Nick . . . members of the Laboulbeniales tend to be highly similar at the species level - even down to the arrangements and number of cells in their tiny fruitbodies; also a lot of other asco's and micro-fungi belonging to other groups are very consistent in their structure

sod's law is that the larger fungi - which most non-specialists come across - are the variable ones

I have said it before and shall doubtless say it again - fungi are not in the business of making it easy for us to name them - they have their own agendas (often at the DNA level)!

I've just been reading a couple of papers on Galerina - lovely pieces of work, and including an attempt to reinstate G. hypnorum (the name numerous books use, but few really understand), but they differ considerably from British Fungus Flora vol. 7 in their interpretation of both the fungi and (importantly) the names used for them - let us never forget these are not the same thing

sigh

Chris

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

depends on the group Nick . . . members of the Laboulbeniales tend to be highly similar at the species level - even down to the arrangements and number of cells in their tiny fruitbodies; also a lot of asco's are very consistent in their structure

sod's law is that the larger fungi - which most non-specialists come across - are the variable ones

I have said it before and shall doubtless say it again - fungi are not in the business of making it easy for us to name them - they have their own agendas (often at the DNA level)!

I've just been reading a couple of papers on Galerina - lovely pieces of work, and including an attempt to reinstate G. hypnorum (the name numerous books use, but few really understand), but it differs considerably from British Fungus Flora vol. 7

sigh

Chris

If fungi were simple, they'd not be so beautiful to study