New Field Guide

[arvensis]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

do I gather from this that Courtecuisse and Duhem is a sought-after item? I'll keep my eyes open if that's the case - for anyone who doesn't own a copy - it's by far the most useful of the general 'picture books' I have I must admit (what's the going rate? I wouldn't wish to make any profit on it before selling it on)

and my copy was signed for me by Monsieur Courtecuisse himself on a foray - very nice guy

Chris

I have a rather battered C&D and at the moment it seems it would be easier to get rocking horse poo than a another C&D - a fantastic book to take out in the field - I wish they would do an up to date version.

Anyway, I digress! I'll have a look at the new book and see what its like.

Mark

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by cybershot

I bought mine, in 2007 via Amazon, from Bookbarn International for £24.75 + pp, and I know young Mr Cantle would be very interested in obtaining a copy.

I bought my Courtecuisse and Duhem in 2007, brand new, for £20 from Abe books. There were two available at the time.

I've just checked on there now, and they have a few copies of the French version, GUIDE DES CHAMPIGNONS DE FRANCE ET D'EUROPE, which the cheapest (which is new) is £26.57 plus P&P. (My guess is that they are pretty much the same, almost identical number of pages, except for the language, but others may know more ....) Or for Euro26 plus P&P from Amazon.fr.

[thebeard]

ended up buying this from waterstones at face price, £16! i just saw it and got it there and then, couldnt be bothered to wait! good book with good photos, which i'm sure will prove useful (already id'd some with its help) but it does miss out a few things which have already been mentioned. also noticed red-cracking bolete wasn't there! sure there's others missed out too

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

A reasonable book for the price but very poor on gill images ... or the almost complete lack of!

John

So is the Phillips book a better general guide?

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by thebeard

ended up buying this from waterstones at face price, £16!

£17.

I just did the same.

It is one of a series of Collins Guides, all of which are generally very good.

Here's a sample description:

Fly Agaric Amanita muscaria
Probably the most easily recognised mushroom in the British Isles, with a scarlet cap spotted with conical white fleecy scales. CAP To 20cm across; hemispherical, then convex and finally flat. Margin somewhat striate. The fugitive cap colour fades to orange or yellow with age or after heavy rain, which can also wash off the white scales. Not to be confused with the rare form var. aureola, which is naturally orange and lacks velar scales. GILLS Crowded; white STIPE To 23 cm long; cylindrical, with a bulbous base encased in a small volva and covered in scales. Ring pendulous, with a scaly edge. HABITAT In acidic woodland, particularly where birches are present. STATUS Widespread and very common in its favoured habitat.

For comparison, Michael Jordan's 'Encyclopedia of Fungi of Britain and Europe':

Large, fleshy agaric, cap red with white patches, white gills, ring, bulbous base; solitary or scattered, on poor and sandy soils favouring birch woods but also pines.

Dimensions cap 8-10cm dia; stem 8-18 cm tall x 1-2cm dia.
Cap deep scarlet, fading to orange-red or orange-yellow in older specimens; at first sub-spherical, becoming expanded-convex or flattened, smooth, sometimes with a distinct sheen, decorated with pure white, warty velar remnants, readily washed off by rain. Flesh white, or tinged cap colour beneath the cuticle, firm.
Gills white, free, crowded. Spores hyaline, smooth, ellipsoid, non-amyloid, 9.5-10.5 x 7-8 um. Basidia 4-spored. Cystidia not distinctive.
Stem white or ivory, smooth or slightly sculptured, often with velar fragments in several warty rings above the basal bulb. Ring white or tinged yellow, membraneous and pendant with double margin, superior or sub-apical. Flesh white, firm and stuffed in part.
Odour not distinctive. Taste not distinctive.
Chemical tests none.
Occurrence late summer to autumn; common.
Dangerously poisonous, hallucinogenic, but generally not fatal.

The Jordan book uses images showing upright and horizontal specimens of each species, in order to expose the gills. The Collins book just shows a single upright shot.

[Phillips' book is very similar in text, but has more pictures, but of cut specimens, whereas Jordan and the Collins book both use dubious in situ photos]

Clearly the Collins book has been made to fit a publishing footprint. Losing the detail on microscopic spores can only be a sensible thing for a field guide, and also considering the relevance for the casual reader.

On the other hand, failing to discuss edibility is very bad form, as a substantial proportion of readers will be looking for edibles.

I do think gill/pore photos would be a good idea as I'm not at all sure that readers will distinguish "Small and rounded, whitish, becoming rufous and bruising brownish" (Leccinum aurantiacum) from "Small; dark cream" (Leccinum vulpinum).

Overall the number of species in a small size is good, but the target audience is likely to feel shortchanged by the lack of information on edibility.

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by fairplay

Dammed cheek !!!!

Just bought a copy of said guide today, flicked through the pages, see a nice photo of Myriostoma coliforme - the Pepperpot Fungus, I read the text, and horror of horrors, what does it say at the bottom ?
Recently rediscovered in NORFOLK It was SUFFOLK, geddit ? SUFFOLK !!

All Ihave to say is

[ManwithNoname]

Originally Posted by thebeard

also noticed red-cracking bolete wasn't there

That would probably be because they have selected Boletus cisalpinus as a representative of this group. In some parts of the UK this species is much more common than Boletus chrysenteron. It's good to see that this book is helping to bring the new thinking into the public domain.

In spite of the obvious criticisms at the lack of photographic information on gills and stems, I think this book is a useful addition, particularly since so many other guides are out of print. From a quick glance at the photos it seems that the identities of the species photographed have been properly checked. No doubt Geoffrey Kibby's involvement has been instrumental in this.

One minor criticism is that the photo labelled "Grey Spotted Amanita" (page 91) isn't going to help people distinguish this species from the Blusher. I'll leave those with a copy of the new book to work out why.

[solus]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

On the other hand, failing to discuss edibility is very bad form, as a substantial proportion of readers will be looking for edibles.

Overall the number of species in a small size is good, but the target audience is likely to feel shortchanged by the lack of information on edibility.

I collected my copy from WH Smith's yesterday - ordered online Tuesday, £10.87 delivered free to my local store.

I disagree with the above criticism re: edibility - there are plenty of other books on the market specifically dealing with edible fungi and this one is intended as a general field guide - explained well in the box entitiled "Edibility" at the bottom of page 5. It does mention those species regarded as good eating as well as those which are poisonous in the text which is good enough for me as I have no plans to eat anything I find anyway!

I still can't see what Beamish means about the photos - his eyes must be a lot sharper than mine! I can see the dark bit he mentions on the right of that pic on p.167 but I would see that as a dark piece on the (possibly damaged?) other side of the specimen... but then maybe I'm just too trusting! All it says in the book (p.5) is that the photos were mostly taken specifically for the book, some in other parts of Europe. It conveniently fails to mention whether they were in situ or transplanted to a studio so I'm none the wiser!

Anyway, the book looks like a potentially useful addition to my collection of (2 !) fungi books but I will have to wait patiently until we get some decent rainfall and some nice new fungi before I can test it out properly and see if it works!

Gill photos would have been helpful but that would have made the book twice the size and no doubt more than twice the price and the gills/pores are described in the text so in combination with another guide (Jordan, for instance) I think I might be able to manage...

This is going to show up my ignorance of the subject good and proper but...
do I detect a couple of tiny red bruises on the cap of the amanita Mr Anonymous refers to in his post above?

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by solus

I collected my copy from WH Smith's yesterday - ordered online Tuesday, £10.87 delivered free to my local store.

I disagree with the above criticism re: edibility - there are plenty of other books on the market specifically dealing with edible fungi and this one is intended as a general field guide - explained well in the box entitiled "Edibility" at the bottom of page 5. It does mention those species regarded as good eating as well as those which are poisonous in the text which is good enough for me as I have no plans to eat anything I find anyway!

The thing is though, probably the majority of the target audience are interested in mushrooms as 'free food'. So if you're out for a walk, spot a mushroom on a tree, identify it as Jew's Ear from your guide, but do not realise that it is in edible, you're not going to be gathering any.

The very brief 'edibility' section mentions only 5 species. The section on 'boletes' starts by saying that there are several excellent edibles, but then doesn't list any of them other than the edulis and badius. For example, the entry for boletus reticulatus, named as 'summer bolete', says it is similar to the cep, but doesn't mention whether it is edible or not.

Gill photos would have been helpful but that would have made the book twice the size and no doubt more than twice the price and the gills/pores are described in the text so in combination with another guide (Jordan, for instance) I think I might be able to manage...

Jordan and Phillips are both the same price and provide much more. What you are paying for is a compact guide. Much information has been omitted, and not to reduce the price, but to reduce the size.

This is going to show up my ignorance of the subject good and proper but...
do I detect a couple of tiny red bruises on the cap of the amanita Mr Anonymous refers to in his post above?

I assume he means that without showing a bruised/cut stem, you won't 'get' what the most important feature of Rubescens is (and therefore how to distinguish it from the excelsa var. spissa. OTOH he could mean that the grey-spotted photo is actually a Rubescens as well. Either way, there is a general issue that where species can be confused, little/no effort has been made to select photos that exemplify key identifying features. I think this is why Beamish's comments arise - this book has been designed, and I've seen it before in other books, to look pretty first and foremost, and therefore the concerns of the mycologist are very much an afterthought.

[fairplay]

Why is 'failing to discuss edibility bad form' ?
This book is not meant for the novice foodie, it is meant for people who treat the subject seriously in my opinion, without becoming too heavy.

OK, we all like to eat the odd good edible, but there are more than enough books on edible fungi already on the market - this book is aimed at people who want to take the study of fungi to the next stage.

'thelawnet' states "Jordan's and Collins books both use dubious in situ photos" - that's pretty strong language, can you enlighten us as to what you mean please ?

Neil.