| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 29 | 30 |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
| |
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
| |
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
| |
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
| |
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
| 1 | 2 | » Stats |
Members: 50,142
Threads: 82,311
Posts: 853,029
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069) | | Welcome to our newest member, Posbyonechop | |  | | 
23-09-2009, 10:43 AM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Bakewell, Derbyshire.
Posts: 3,289
| | | Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Hi all,
Found a couple of species that are new to me (I think!) and would appreciate ID's.
1. (apologies for the above pic's rubbish quality....but I was in a very dark wood at the time!
2.
Thanks in advance,
Tracey
__________________ **Happiness is only a smile away** | 
23-09-2009, 11:29 AM
|  | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Red Rose County
Posts: 5,205
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Hi sunnydale,
You've got Glistening Inkcap - Coprinellus micaceus = ( Coprinus micaceus), and Fairy Inkcap - Coprinellus disseminatus = ( Coprinus disseminatus).
Regards,
Mike. EDIT - Just seen Mal's reply below, and he's probably correct. It was the lack of mica-like scales on the caps on the second pic. that led me towards C.disseminatus, but I admit they do look large for those.
Last edited by Lancashire Lad; 23-09-2009 at 11:35 AM.
| 
23-09-2009, 11:29 AM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: York
Posts: 3,314
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Hi Tracey
No need for "pretty please" on here most of this lot love to get the opportunity to give identifications.
The first one growing on wood with the light tan cap covered in granular veil remnants is Coprinellus (Coprinus) micaceus.
The second group is I think just the same again but a bit more mature. Quick edit having seen Mikes reply I think it is too big for disseminatus.
Mal | 
23-09-2009, 11:45 AM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Bakewell, Derbyshire.
Posts: 3,289
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Thanks to you both
I would never have thought they were the same species <<looks surprised>>
Would the lack of light in the wood account for the immaturity of the first one then?
T.
__________________ **Happiness is only a smile away** | 
23-09-2009, 12:02 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: York
Posts: 3,314
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Tracey
If they are the same  (they don't have a cross your fingers Smiley) if you go back in a few days the first group will look more like the second. The fungi all go through the same maturing process and the timing may be affected in part by the lack of sunshine. With the ink caps this may mean that they rot away completely like the Lawyers Wig or less so as in C. plicatillis.
Mal | 
23-09-2009, 03:31 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 75
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong  , but fungi are not plants and do not use photosynthesis to grow. Therefore the light levels won't effect their growth rate. Although the difference in temperature probably would. | 
23-09-2009, 05:02 PM
| | Wild Member | | Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 226
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Quote:
Originally Posted by mushruman I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong  , but fungi are not plants and do not use photosynthesis to grow. Therefore the light levels won't effect their growth rate. Although the difference in temperature probably would. | You are obviously correct that fungi are not plants and do not photosynthesise.
However, to infer that light levels won't affect their growth rate is another matter. If you google "effect of light on growth of basidiomycetes" you should find articles suggesting that, at the very least, "fruitbody" formation can be influenced by the presence or absence of light. So the answer is that it depends.
Consider for example Flammulina velutipes, the "fruitbodies" of which, when produced commercially, look completely different from the wild phenotype. Light is definitely one of the factors that affects the development of the basidiomata and light is therefore carefully controlled to ensure optimum cropping. Other environmental factors may also play an important role, temperature being one, as you suggest, and availability of water being another. | 
23-09-2009, 05:51 PM
| | Wild Member | | Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 226
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) P.S. I should also point out that what we are referring to here is actually the development of the spore producing body, rather than a growth rate for the mycelium. The comparison with the effect of sunlight on the rate of photosynthesis and the growth rate of a plant is not therefore relevant. Much of the rate of development of a "mushroom" comes down to how quickly preformed hyphal cells are inflated with water.
Last edited by ManwithNoname; 23-09-2009 at 05:53 PM.
| 
23-09-2009, 05:53 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Bakewell, Derbyshire.
Posts: 3,289
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Quote:
Originally Posted by ManwithNoname You are obviously correct that fungi are not plants and do not photosynthesise.
However, to infer that light levels won't affect their growth rate is another matter. If you google "effect of light on growth of basidiomycetes" you should find articles suggesting that, at the very least, "fruitbody" formation can be influenced by the presence or absence of light. So the answer is that it depends.
Consider for example Flammulina velutipes, the "fruitbodies" of which, when produced commercially, look completely different from the wild phenotype. Light is definitely one of the factors that affects the development of the basidiomata and light is therefore carefully controlled to ensure optimum cropping. Other environmental factors may also play an important role, temperature being one, as you suggest, and availability of water being another. | Very interesting info, thanks
__________________ **Happiness is only a smile away** | 
23-09-2009, 08:28 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 75
| | | Re: Two for ID, pretty please! :-) Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnydale Very interesting info, thanks  | Indeed, I'm glad I brought it up. I'm always willing to learn something new about mycology. Thanks ManwithNoname. |  | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | | | 0 members and 203 guests | | No Members online | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | Spammers! Yesterday 08:00 AM 5 Replies, 99 Views | | | | | |