ID confirmation, please...

[solus]

ID confirmation or otherwise, that is!
All found yesterday in Standish Woods, Gloucestershire, a more or less typical Cotswold Beechwood with some Ash, Birch and Larch mixed in.

I think this first one is Velvet Shank - Flammulina velutipes, albeit a rather dry specimen, growing on a very rotten stump, probably of Ash.




This was on a beech log and I think it's Beech Blackspot - Diatrype disciformis?




This was on a fallen branch and I decided (with the aid of Jordan) that it might be Beech Tarspot - Biscogniauxia nummularia?



I'm probably way out but at least I tried!
Thanks in anticipation for your help.

[Lancashire Lad]

Well, for what it's worth, I would be as "way out" as yourself, because having just looked in my books, and done a couple of image searches on the net, I think you are correct with all three ID's.

Regards
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

hi

yes to 1
2 looks like a Hypoxylon species on birch
3 looks rather like Diatrype stigma on beech

cheers

Chris

[KeenTeen17]

1) thats right
2) the bark is very white so its a betula sp. Not sure which Hypoxylon grows on birch though. I think its H. multiforme
3) can't help - beyond me

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

2 looks like a Hypoxylon species on birch

Is there something about the photo that definitely says not Diatrype disciformis?
I understand that D.disciformis has the synonym of Hypoxylon disciforme, and that whilst it mainly appears on Fagus, it is not all that infrequent on other deciduous trees, including Betula.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

3 looks rather like Diatrype stigma on beech cheers Chris

Again, for the benefit of us novices, is there something about the photo that says not Biscogniauxia nummularia? - I've browsed numerous images and can't readily see any visible (macroscopic) differences between B.nummularia, and D.stigma. (I understand that Biscogniauxia is specific to Fagus only).

I'd be very grateful for your thoughts.
Regards
Mike.

[solus]

Chris - I'm pretty sure No. 2 was Beech - as in 99% sure. Well, I was...
I notice (Index Fungorum) that Hypoxylon disciformis is a synonym for Diatrype disciformis?


I can't find Diatrype stigma in Jordan or on the Philips website. 'Googling' brings up a mix of pictures, some of which seem to suggest that D. stigma and D. disciformis are one and the same, but clearly this is not so from the Index Fungorum. I came up with Biscogniauxia nummularia by looking through Jordan - who incidentally gives an alternative name as Hypoxylon nummularium. I'm confused. (Easily done!)

[solus]

KT and Mike posted during the (considerable!) time I was composing my response above.

Sorry, but I still see no. 2 as being on the smooth grey bark typical of young-ish Beech: there is a lot in those woods that has been cut/thinned out while quite slender and all the debris is left lying on the ground to rot down.

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Hi Chris,


Is there something about the photo that definitely says not Diatrype disciformis?
I understand that D.disciformis has the synonym of Hypoxylon disciforme, and that whilst it mainly appears on Fagus, it is not all that infrequent on other deciduous trees, including Betula.


Again, for the benefit of us novices, is there something about the photo that says not Biscogniauxia nummularia? - I've browsed numerous images and can't readily see any visible (macroscopic) differences between B.nummularia, and D.stigma. (I understand that Biscogniauxia is specific to Fagus only).

I'd be very grateful for your thoughts.
Regards
Mike.

hi Mike

the name Hypoxylon disciforme is one of a number of synonyms for the Diatrype it dates to 1854 when an understanding of the relationships of these fungi to one another was far from perfect (and we're not there yet!); you might get large numbers of actually unrelated fungi lumped into a genus - go back early enough and virtually all these things would be called 'Sphaeria' something (and all gilled fungi were called 'Agaricus' something)

Diatrype disciformis forms roughly regularly sized circular fruit-bodies on beech, Fagus; these are erumpent- they burst through the bark leaving raised bits of bark around them - these black bodies are technically known as stromata (plural of stroma) and within each can be seen the openings of a number of individual fruit-bodies; a key feature is that the surface of each stroma is flat - think black crumpets and you are not far wrong; go into any mature beech woodland, look at fallen branches and thick twigs and you will find Diatrype disciformis almost immediately . . . trust me

This picture - which I still say is on birch - shows irregular fruit-bodies which are not flat topped and do not have the raised bark around them; I suspect that KT is correct and that this is Hypoxylon multiforme, but I always like to check these things at home

fungi that look like 3 are fairly numerous and one has to be careful - forget Jordan and Phillips, you need specialist literature and a microscope I fear; such fungi are found in Hypoxylon (and its segregates), Eutypa, Diatrype and other genera; a glimpse at the spores would tell you immediately which genus your fungus was in (for a start Hypoxylon has dark spores, Diatrype doesn't - though these fungi don't lend themselves to spore prints)

finally be very wary of what's on the net: looking at what you might have looked at I came across this page:

Mycophiles - Galerie photos de champignons 74

let's look at the first four images - though you can't be sure from the image I suspect that the Coprinus miser is probably C. cordisporus; Diatrype disciformis is not that, but probably what we have here in number 2 i.e. (prob.) Hypoxylon multiforme on birch; Diatrype stigma is certainly not that species - it could be Melanomma pulvis-pyrius . . . . at the bottom left I suspect that the Lasiosphaeria spermoides is a Rosellinia species

they have got Leptosphaeria acuta on nettle right - but if you can't get that right you might as well give up mycology

see what I mean? venturing into the 'pyrenomycetes' is a big jump

cheers

Chris

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!!

this page is 100% OK:

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/im...pe+disciformis

C

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed and instructive reply.
Much appreciated. (Although I will now have to spend some time to try to constructively take in the implications of what you have said. ).

Regards
Mike.

EDIT - Well, at least I've now learned what "Erumpent" means. - (and I've just added the term to WAB's fungi glossary).

[solus]

*Sob*


Thanks for all that Chris. Oddly enough, that wasn't one of the interweb sites I found this time! But as you say, there are plenty of others out there with dodgy IDs.

[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