3 for ID please

[stickman]

OK first was growing on (and around) a rotting log, I'm thinking Agrocybe sp, but it's a stab in the dark! most had rings which aren't that evident in the pic. Largest cap 11cm. No obvious smell.



Second I suspect is Boletus erythropus; cap 10cm, turning blue rapidly when cut. Cap noticably sticky.



And lastly, I was initially thinking ramaria/clavaria for this one but I don't think either fits the substrate (rotting wood/moss) so maybe calocera? As you can see, stabbing in the dark again.....


Sorry out of focus, but you get the idea.

Cheers again, Nick.

[FungiJohn]

Hi Nick

Psathyrella candolleana
Boletus luridiformis
Calocera viscosa

John

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Hi Nick

Psathyrella candolleana
Boletus luridiformis
Calocera viscosa

John

Agreed on all three John!

[stickman]

Thanks for that chaps.

I clearly needed to sort my 'rings' from my 'velar remnants' to ID those psathyrellas, and If I'd have checked the British Mycota Checklist I may have found the proper name for that bolete.....so close!

Still feel at the bottom of a fairly huge learning curve, but getting there slowly

Nick

[mollisia]

Hello Nick,

Originally Posted by stickman

If I'd have checked the British Mycota Checklist I may have found the proper name for that bolete.....so close!

not only close, but identical. And I dare say, that except in Great Britain and may be Denmark the name erythropus is still used and not luridiformis - fully in concordance with the rules of the Code regarding conservation of names! (opinion of mine .... )

best regards,
Andreas

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hello Nick,



not only close, but identical. And I dare say, that except in Great Britain and may be Denmark the name erythropus is still used and not luridiformis - fully in concordance with the rules of the Code regarding conservation of names! (opinion of mine .... )

best regards,
Andreas

and (for what it's worth) of mine - I'm all for justified name changes, whether they are irksome or not but here . . . (and Persoon is perhaps my all-time mycological hero)

C

[stickman]

And I dare say, that except in Great Britain and may be Denmark the name erythropus is still used and not luridiformis

So you're both suggesting that we're using a name no-one else accepts?

Sounds like a typically British thing to do I suspect it's not quite as simple as that though is it?

Cheers, Nick.

[ManwithNoname]

Originally Posted by stickman

So you're both suggesting that we're using a name no-one else accepts?

It does seem we are out on a limb with this one, but the Checklist of British and Irish Basidimycota says of Boletus erythropus Pers.:

"A nomen dubium lacking type material and variously interpreted. The common British species so named is now B. luridiformis."

So the authors of the Checklist consider that there is uncertainty over which species the publisher of that name was originally referring to.

[Chris Yeates]

boletes

they're all actually the same - just different colours, shapes and sizes

C

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by ManwithNoname

It does seem we are out on a limb with this one, but the Checklist of British and Irish Basidimycota says of Boletus erythropus Pers.:

"A nomen dubium lacking type material and variously interpreted. The common British species so named is now B. luridiformis."

So the authors of the Checklist consider that there is uncertainty over which species the publisher of that name was originally referring to.

Hello,

I have some different opinions on this nomenclatural "problem".
First of all, we have to clarify about which species we are talking:
Boletus erythropus Persoon 1795 : Fr. 1821

The original description by Persoon is not very significant and is definitely ambigous. Some mycologist see Boletus queletii in his text and they may have right, I admit that. But the species was sanctioned by Fries in 1821 and the description of Fries is undoubtely the bolete we ever knew with this name. There has never been any doubt about its identity and this species is pictured in most books about fungi, even those which display only a small number. Even if we agree, that the description of Persoon indeed means what we know as B. queletii today, then we have the case, that Boletus erythropus Persoon : Fr. has to be regarded as a misinterpreted name. But misinterpreted names MUST be kept in use, if the rivalising name has no advantage (nomenclatoricaly seen) and its rejection in case of a demand on conservation would be probable. (Art. 69.4 Berlin Code = Art. 57.1 Tokyo Code). Unfortunately these rules of the Code are not followed by some mycologists, altough Redeuilh did already in 1990 publish his nomenclatural note on this species. The name luridiformis has been dug out by Rauschert 1987, short time before the Berlin Code took place.
When the usage of the name luridiformis keeps on by some authors and even spreads may be, then some day a demand on conservation of erythropus over luridiformis will be inevitable. This will cause the one who has to write this demand a lot of time - wasted time, because the situation today is clearly ruled by the Code and the name erythropus could well be used according to it.

Abother way of saving the name erythropus is the fact, that is was sanctioned by Fries as "Boletus luridus "b" erythropus Pers.", whereas the "b" is to be seen as undefined rank below species level. This has the result, that the Basionym Boletus erythrops Pers. has no sanctioning protection on species level. Acc. to Art. 7.20 Berlin Code = Art. 7.8 Tokyo Code it is allowed, to typifice names that Fries sanctioned 1821 - even on undefined rank level - in the sense of Fries. As there is no type material for Boletus erythropus Persoon, it would without problems be possible to select a neotype in the Frisian sense for Boletus erythropus. With this typification the name erythropus could be stabilized in the all days sense without the long time process of conservation by the botanical congress.

By the way, those who like to use the name Boletus luridiformis should be consequent enough to then use the name Boletus erythropus for the species always called Boletus queletii. Because the description of Persoon does mean one of these two sepcies, that can be seen as certain (in my opinion).

Congratulations to all who have read just down to here, and a lot more congratulation to all those who even did comprehend it.

best regards,
Andreas