ID confirmation, please...

[Chris Yeates]

hi both

having had a longer look at 3 on a better monitor, I think that Biscogniauxia nummularia is actually the correct shout

if you carefully cut across a stroma (like taking the skin off a fried egg yolk) and it has jelly-like contents, that means that it's got mature spores; touch that jelly with a clean handkerchief or tissue and if it's noticeably dark you've probably got a member of the Xylariales (which includes Biscogniauxia and Hypoxylon); trouble is that quite often you'll find empty chambers - the fungus doesn't really change in external appearance: this is a good time of year for pyreno's though

cheers

Chris

[jennyb]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

EDIT - for heavens sake the first image you come across if you google Diatrype disciformis is wrong!!!!:

http://www.english-country-garden.co...ark-spot-1.jpg - rubbish!!

I really object to your tone about this. At least you had the decency to email me afterwards to explain my mistake. This photo was taken in 2006 when I was a complete beginner and just developing an interest in fungi. I also posted a photo in the WAB Gallery at the same time and no-one has pointed out my mistake in all that time. It is still there so maybe someone should delete it.

It would be nice if you could learn to be civil in your communications. You are the type of person who gives mycology a bad name.

Looking back at this ID, I realise that it is probably not on beech, but on birch, but on my web site, I take pains to point out that my IDs may not be correct.

The fact that my web site comes top in Google means that I am at least an expert in search engine optimisation if not in mycology!

Jenny

[mollisia]

Hallo,

I wanr to give my comments to these pictures too, although it makes it not easier I fear.

1.) I wouldn't have recognized Flamuulina velutipes when looking at the stipe. The underside of the cap are very well Flammulina. So I don't have a better idea for it, although it still makes me feel uncomfortable.

2.) Although you seem to have an accordance that the tree is birch, I would have said it is Alnus or may be even Corylus.
The pyreno on it is in my opinion very old Hypoxylon fuscum.

3.) I dont think it is Diatrype stigma, but for me it is without much doubt Biscognauxia nummularia. "Must" be Fagus then, this species is very strictly confined to it and exceptions are very rare (if they exist).

best regards,
Andreas

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by jennyb

I really object to your tone about this. At least you had the decency to email me afterwards to explain my mistake. This photo was taken in 2006 when I was a complete beginner and just developing an interest in fungi. I also posted a photo in the WAB Gallery at the same time and no-one has pointed out my mistake in all that time. It is still there so maybe someone should delete it.

It would be nice if you could learn to be civil in your communications. You are the type of person who gives mycology a bad name.

Looking back at this ID, I realise that it is probably not on beech, but on birch, but on my web site, I take pains to point out that my IDs may not be correct.

The fact that my web site comes top in Google means that I am at least an expert in search engine optimisation if not in mycology!

Jenny

hi Jenny

yes in retrospect that was wrong of me and I apologise unreservedly; one forgets that this medium can be very blunt-edged and that behind a website are people with sensitivities - this came after I had looked at lots of sites and was becoming more and more exasperated at some of the stuff out there

"It would be nice if you could learn to be civil in your communications. You are the type of person who gives mycology a bad name".

In my defence may I point out that

(a) in my response to your website (which no one else on here will have seen of course) I was not uncivil, and did indeed comment favourably about the site in general, and
(b) that in fact that second comment is far more disrespectful and personal than anything I posted originally (which was after all a comment on an image and not an individual)

perhaps following a line of previous mycologists on this site I should walk . . . .

Chris

[solus]

Oo-er I seem to have opened a can of worms here.

This is another photo of no. 2 from a few inches further along the branch, if that helps any. I am still more or less certain this was Beech. My Trees book describes the bark as "smooth, silvery-grey" which is just how it appears (to me) in the picture. I don't think there are either Alder or Hazel in that part of the woods.



Andreas: There were a couple of other patches of F. velutipes in these wood but in a much more "gone over" state. This group was, as I said, on top of a very rotten stump and so had been exposed to the elements more - we had warm sun on Saturday, sunny intervals on Sunday but no rain for a few days so everything was quite dry.

Chris: please don't go - us numpty-fungi-spotters need all the help we can get here: if it wasn't for the help I have had on this forum I have no doubt most of my photo collection would be wrongly named, although I wouldn't be brave enough to post them on the web. Having said that, I do still seem to have some wrong 'uns in the Gallery....

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hi Jenny

yes in retrospect that was wrong of me and I apologise unreservedly.....perhaps following a line of previous mycologists on this site I should walk . . . . Chris

Chris,

I would implore you on behalf of all the fungi afficionados not to even think about that. Your help is extremely valuable and it would be a massive blow if you were to cease contributing.

Jenny,

I can appreciate your indignation, but would ask you to consider Chris's apology, given the context in which his original unfortunate comment was made.

I have visited your website several times, and a very good one it is too. Yes there may be a few incorrect ID's and you do indeed point out the difficulties of specialist ID'ing.

I enjoy WAB, and gain personal benefit from both your inputs, so I would hope that this little hiccup can be put aside without permanent damage to either party - and WAB.

Best regards
Mike.

[CapAndBracket]

Couldn't agree more, we need people at all levels on WAB and the fledgling
foray groups that are emerging, i'm afraid mis-ID's are something we have to
live with and work on.

Cheers J.P.

[cybershot]

Most unfortunate that Chris' 'google' resulted in him alighting on a fellow Wabber's website, impressively familiar to many here. I'm hopeful that, from this incident, all of us can learn a lesson, so often reiterated on these forums, concerning the difficulties of identification based solely on photographic evidence regardless of the reference work's status. It would be a travesty if this blip creates any lasting repercussions as WAB can ill afford to lose such valuable contributions from well respected participants.

David

[FungiJohn]

Hi Jenny and Chris.

I do hope we can resolve this issue without anyone else leaving or feeling further offended. If it helps I can edit this thread. Please PM me if you wish.

I'll (temporary) close the thread for now.

Best Wishes - John