Conifer Wood Fungus for ID please.

Lancashire Lad · #1 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 06:33 PM

Found these today in a conifer (mainly larch & spruce) woodland, and would appreciate an ID please.

They were in abundance all over the woods, growing directly among the needle litter, (definitely not on twigs etc.), mainly in small troups of three or four.
Largest in photo has a cap of about 50mm, but largest of all those seen today had a cap of about 8-9cm diameter, and stipe height of about same. All were dry to the touch.

Single specimen............Group detail shot.

Regards
Mike.

mollisia · #2 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 06:51 PM

Hallo Mike,

this is very probably the same Entoloma that a few days ago someone showed (it was Melanie, no?)
If you have picked them up you surely will find somewhere a hint to the pink sporeprint, on any cap or stipe.
To determine the species, microscopical work is needed and even then a determination is not guaranteed. It still give much chances to Entoloma pseudoturbidum, which then should have very small and weakly angled spores (for the genus).

best regards,
Andreas

Lancashire Lad · #3 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo Mike,

this is very probably the same Entoloma that a few days ago someone showed (it was Melanie, no?)
If you have picked them up you surely will find somewhere a hint to the pink sporeprint, on any cap or stipe.
To determine the species, microscopical work is needed and even then a determination is not guaranteed. It still give much chances to Entoloma pseudoturbidum, which then should have very small and weakly angled spores (for the genus).

best regards,
Andreas

Thanks Andreas. - Unfortunately I didn't keep any for spore prints etc., and I don't have the equipment for microscopy. I will have to leave it as Entoloma sp. (I will try to find the other thread that you mention).

Regards
Mike.

KeenTeen17 · #4 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:11 PM

What about Pluteus cervinus? I found one this time last year and it was exactly like the one in the photo. Same size and everything. I also thought Pluteus sp. had pink gills as well

NickCantle · #5 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

What about Pluteus cervinus? I found one this time last year and it was exactly like the one in the photo. Same size and everything. I also thought Pluteus sp. had pink gills as well

Pluteus grow on dead deciduous wood

KeenTeen17 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Pluteus grow on dead deciduous wood

sorry

(moves swiftly back to wildflowers forum)

NickCantle · #7 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

sorry

(moves swiftly back to wildflowers forum)

It wasn't a stern remark, I was just telling you.

Actually, I'm sure Pluteus like Pine too, or that might be my imagination.

KeenTeen17 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickCantle

It wasn't a stern remark, I was just telling you.

Actually, I'm sure Pluteus like Pine too, or that might be my imagination.

I saw the smiley

Sorry Mike. getting thread back on track now.

mollisia · #9 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:47 PM

Hello,

Pluteus cervinus grows on anything what has some woody components in it, including wood chips, saw dust, carton and furniture. But Pluteus should have free gills and they are definitly not in the species shown.

I could image that one might think also of Rhodocollybia butyracea var. asema, a Tephrocybe spec (e.g. T. inolens) or even Megacollybia platyphylla ...

best regards,
Andreas

Chris Yeates · #10 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

What about Pluteus cervinus? I found one this time last year and it was exactly like the one in the photo. Same size and everything . . .

hi KT

unfortunately, as regards the macrofungi, I personally think size is actually the least useful character a fruitbody has, and (probably? - Andreas might not agree with me here

) colour (though not spore-print colour) is probably the second least useful one . . . .

habitat requirements, host/substrate relationships, smell, texture, gill attachment and as I say spore-print colour are much more useful at the macro level . . .

best

Chris