Help needed

[TeresaW]

Hi, I'm going to be a nuisance, but I don't yet have too much in the way of reference, being new to fungi, and searching through thousands of photos on here doesn't help much at the moment. I have some to identify or confirm for you please.


The first two, I managed to get the underside too. It was on an old rotting oak trunk.




The next I just need to confirm this is a Hare's Foot Inkcap. It was a single sample hidden in grass and nettles alongside a footpath running along the River Wensum in Norwich.



And the last, I'm not certain at all. It was in clusters in open grass, surrounding an old bench which may have gone round an old tree at one time. Could it be Ochre Brittlegill, or am I miles away?




Thanks for your help

[fairplay]

Hi Teresa,

I must admit, I had to look up in the index of Phillips to see what these with the new 'English' names are.
Anyway, I think your No1 can only be Daedalia quercina, trouble is the pores do not look very 'maze' like, leading one to think maybe Daedaliopsis confragrosa (they can fade like this) but this is very unlikely on Quercus.

No2. This would probably need microscopy at this late stage of it's life.

No3. Most likely to be Hypholoma fasciculare - Sulphur Tuft.

Neil.
P.S. Did you know about the Norfolk Fungus Study Group ? they are doing several forays in your area this year, but because of this prolonged dry spell, double check as some may have to be cancelled. Just Google them to make contact.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by TeresaW

And the last, I'm not certain at all. It was in clusters in open grass, surrounding an old bench which may have gone round an old tree at one time. Could it be Ochre Brittlegill, or am I miles away?

Looks like Sulphur Tuft - Hypholoma fasciculare. But as a matter of principle, if you think something might be a Brittlegill, then you really will have to take a photo of the gills! That applies to any fungus, but the irony of trying to identify something as a brittlegill with no shot of the gills should be obvious.

[TeresaW]

Oops sorry, I forgot to add the latin names.

Thanks for that. I did look at sulphur tuft but it didn't seem quite the same. Yes no1 was very likely past it's best, but I was hoping the shots underneath would help.

No 2. Hmmm, I don't have access to microscopy sadly, so I'll have to leave it as a possible/probable. (looking at some of the pics on here, it's very much the same)

Thanks for the tip, I will google it now.

[TeresaW]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

Looks like Sulphur Tuft - Hypholoma fasciculare. But as a matter of principle, if you think something might be a Brittlegill, then you really will have to take a photo of the gills! That applies to any fungus, but the irony of trying to identify something as a brittlegill with no shot of the gills should be obvious.

Bear with me, I'm a beginner, though I should have thought of it really.

One quick question. With wildflowers it is better to leave them undisturbed, but is it ok to disturb a fungi? If it is, then next time I will remember to pick one to get shots of the gills too.

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by TeresaW

Bear with me, I'm a beginner, though I should have thought of it really.

One quick question. With wildflowers it is better to leave them undisturbed, but is it ok to disturb a fungi? If it is, then next time I will remember to pick one to get shots of the gills too.

no problem - picking what is after all the 'fruit' of the fungus (and perhaps taking one or more home for a spore-print etc) is fine

you are picking an apple - not the tree

and I know that Latin names are a bit of a chore, but if you're going to learn one or the other the scientific names will prove much more useful in the long run (trust me!)

Chris

[fairplay]

I'm afraid with fungi it is inevitable that you will have to disturb the specimens at some time.
You could consider placing a mirror underneath but that is not really practical and I don't know of anyone who goes to this trouble.

You do no harm what-so-ever by removing the fungus except maybe depriving the next person to come along of seeing a beautiful natural structure.
So yes, if it is the only one, and you want it identified, take some shots of it standing first, then put a knife or similar shaped implement under the base of the stem, and lever it out, rather than risk breaking the stem, just in case it may be attached to buried wood or may have a tap root even.

Then take a photo showing if it has gills or pores, but with gills, sometimes it is necessary to show how the gills are attached to the stem, but this doesn't help me now as you will see from a recent post, I'm getting old and decrepit and can't tell a Clitocybe from a Melanoleuca

Neil.

[TeresaW]

Thank you. I have just been reading your advice panel, which tells me how to go about it all, and what equipment I need (knife and plastic sheet).

Which field guide would you recommend?

[fairplay]

Well I have one coming out in 10 years entitled 'Every Fungus in Britain'
All the photos are in 3D, but I'm just waiting for the economic situation to improve so that people can afford it.

Meanwhile, I would suggest you either purchase 'Mushrooms' by Phillips, and/or 'Encyclopedia of Fungi' by Jordan.

Both are too big to be field guides, but are absolutely necessary for the beginner to have.

Neil.

[TeresaW]

I've been back to the suspected Hypholoma fasciculare - Sulphur Tuft, and had a good reccy of the area they were found in too. There are several clumps, and when I shifted the grass, there were some rotting plank underneath, probably pine from an old path or platform.

So, the first is of the same clump as above, obviously damaged now, this is a few days on.



Then close-ups of one specimen showing the gills and stem.




It smelt rather nice, woody and ...well...mushroomy