Scarlet Elf Cup and Deciever

[watsthat]

Scarlet Elf Cup was out in East Yorkshire on Sunday, in exactly the same spot as last year. There are more than last year, covering a slightly bigger area but not evident anywhere else on my patch. I also came across a substantial amount of what I think is Laccaria laccata or am I being decieved, as they seem a bit unseasonal. Whatever; something has induced them to fruit.








Cheers

Pete

[mollisia]

Hallo Pete,

no Deceiver, sorry, but Tubaria hiemalis.

best regards,
Andreas

[watsthat]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo Pete,

no Deceiver, sorry, but Tubaria hiemalis.

best regards,
Andreas

Yes; thankyou Andreas, I can see that now. The gills and stem are not like Laccaria at all. T. hiemalis being a winter specialist would also argue against the possibilty of T. furfuracea I suppose.

Here is one that I found last August, that is new to me but I think it is Xerula radicata. What do you think?





Cheers

Pete

[NickCantle]

Yes it is definitely Xerula radicata Pete

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo Pete,

no Deceiver, sorry, but Tubaria hiemalis.

best regards,
Andreas

hi Andreas

do you still maintain Tubaria hiemalis as a a separate taxon? I see that the GB Basidiomycete checklist doesn't, and nor does Jan Vesterholt in Funga Nordica where it is synonymized with furfuracea (as are T. anthracophila and T. romagnesiana)

I have hitherto kept it separate, but these guys have seen a much wider range of material than I have, and from a wider geographic area

I think the major problem with lumping is that, unless material is kept (and who keeps every Tubaria collection they examine?) if at a later stage a split is deemed justified any previous records become much less useful unless the name used by the original collector is noted; to its credit the BMS Fungal Records Database does indicate the original name used by a recorder; how do you cope with this issue in Germany?

I shall post later (probably tomorrow) about Pyrenopeziza chailletii and how it now appears in BMSFRD ( Species data - British fungi ) a situation I just cannot understand . . .

you have been warned!

Herzliche Glückwünsche

Chris

[mollisia]

Hallo Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hi Andreas

do you still maintain Tubaria hiemalis as a a separate taxon? I see that the GB Basidiomycete checklist doesn't, and nor does Jan Vesterholt in Funga Nordica where it is synonymized with furfuracea (as are T. anthracophila and T. romagnesiana)

I have hitherto kept it separate, but these guys have seen a much wider range of material than I have, and from a wider geographic area

I think the major problem with lumping is that, unless material is kept (and who keeps every Tubaria collection they examine?) if at a later stage a split is deemed justified any previous records become much less useful unless the name used by the original collector is noted; to its credit the BMS Fungal Records Database does indicate the original name used by a recorder; how do you cope with this issue in Germany?

I use to keep both names for collections which meet the characteristics each "species" has (in my opinion). But even for the "Großpilze Baden-Württemberg" I have worked with only one species, because it was impossible to separate the data, even if the original collector has named them zhis or the other. I cannot judge in most records, with which literature the collector determined his Tubaria and which characters he did lay most stress on.

I kept provisionally apart Tubaria romagnesiana, because it is said to have much broader hyphae of the gill trama compared to hiemalis/furfuraceus.

You are absolutely right, that a data base collectiong records should keep them as exact separated as possible. We had some anger about that in the many synonymications in the german data base, often following Krieglsteiner. And now it was found that many of them are well separable species, but the data will never be possible to sort out. In some cases the collectors remarked their ss.str. determination, but often no remarks was made.

I shall post later (probably tomorrow) about Pyrenopeziza chailletii and how it now appears in BMSFRD ( Species data - British fungi ) a situation I just cannot understand . . .

I'm very VERY interested in this one, because I'm preparing a publicvation for TAXON with the help of Dick Korf, about the situation of Pyrenopeziza chailletii, which is based on a species that is a Heterosphaeria and therefore the whole genus Pyrenopeziza is a synonym to Heterosphaeria as chailletii is the type species .....

best regards,
Andreas