make an identifier work for us non experts

[john little]

you would think the computer would be ideal for recognition charts but they all seem to suffer from the same problem
either they divide the pics into species
or they let the photographer put them all prettilly in a nice pattern
All us amatuers need is ,for all the ones that look simillar ,to be grouped together :so that we can see whether the one we have is different enough from the nearest other type to be fairly sure ,or if there are lots of ones that are a bit simillar we can look for points of difference .
In some cases it will be impossible for us to be even fairly sure but we can never even have a hope if you wont show us the ones that we are likely to confuse it with, adjacent to the one we think it might be

[ohgreatstew]

Fair comment John, I am also new to this and have found that this hobby I have taken up is a great deal more scientific than I thought it would be.... Your idea is a good one, but I also thought that it would be helpful for me to have things catagorised by where they grow as a key rather than how they look and compare, but as I am finding already there seems to be so much variation in direct comparisons or habitats that these uneducated attempts of ours to strive towards a way of being able to identify specimens quickly and easily simply does not appear to exist, and at some point, we have to spend the time to learn the generas and understand the specific characturistics of each specimen within that genera... A pictorial guide can often be misleading depending on the age, size, colour not to mention how weather beaten it may be, I now have 5 books to help me and often I find that the pictures of the same argaric can be quite different in each one, plus I am also finding now that certain generas such as Cortinarius are very difficult to identify without microscopy.
The devil is most certainly in the detail.

[SheffieldLass]

If only it were that easy ....

What you need to start with is a general key looking at gills/pores etc. Then with the gilled/pored fungi note spore print colours, veil presence or absence, presence or lack of volva, gill attachments etc which will then narrow it down to a few genera, provided the specimen is in good enough condition for these features to be picked up. From there use more detailed keys to narrow down to the genus. And then by specific keys for the genus (and yes you may need to use more than one) get it to which species, which can be a battle and a half, and there is no guarantee of winning . With the simple easy to identify ones, and there are some , not a lot though , you may get to the species just by macroscopic features. For example a good condition Amanita muscaria is straightforward. But a weathered washed out one may not be so easy ....

Melanie

[fairplay]

I'll have a word with Nick Cantle and see if he will go out with his camera tomorrow, find a toadstool beginning with 'A', take a shot, then take a shot of all the look-a-likes, then move on to 'B' and so on.

No sweat.

Neil.

[Ditiola]

Hi John
I fully understand your point of view. When faced with and unknown fungus I often combine both the use of keys and the comparison of photographs to get to the correct ID. If I know where to start I will normally use keys and then confirm with photographs, but sometimes when I am really stuck I will compare photographs to get close, then use a key, followed by checking the microscopic details then finally checking with photographs at the end of the process.

To help the process I have made a collection of digital photos of fungi currently around 8,000 photos from a variety of sources including my own photos. These are all copied into two files: One folder is sorted alphabetically, and the other into stature types: For example I have a folder for Mycenoid fungi (all the ones with thin stems and bell shaped caps) and this is then split into white spored and brown spored species. So when I find a Mycena lookalike I can compare all the similar looking fungi. And for another example: for the cup fungi I have separated then into stipitoid (with stem) and none stipitoid and the non stipitoid ones into the colours of the fruit body. So if I find a yellow non stipitoid cup fungus I can match the specimen with all my photos of yellow non stipitoid cup fungi, and then check out the microscopical features with the keys.

I also have constructed a data base (with comprehensive synonym references) of all the fungi photos and illustrations in the books and periodicals on my bookshelf. This tells me the book, volume and page number. This currently has just under 20,000 photos of fungi, and has the advantage of providing fast access to several images of the same species for comparison, often at different stages of development or slightly different forms.

Amazingly I am still finding fungi for which I do not have any photographs or illustrations.

Peter


Peter

[ohgreatstew]

Peter that is remakable, you should write a book.......

John, I thouroughly recommend the River Cottage Handbook No.1 'Mushrooms' by John Wright, it is a great book for the beginner, it contains less than 100 species and clealry defines the most common and provides excellent details about what to look out for to narrow down your finds...... I still find it a great companion which is not too mind numbing......

[yorkshireTrev]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

If only it were that easy ....

What you need to start with is a general key looking at gills/pores etc. Then with the gilled/pored fungi note spore print colours, veil presence or absence, presence or lack of volva, gill attachments etc which will then narrow it down to a few genera, provided the specimen is in good enough condition for these features to be picked up. From there use more detailed keys to narrow down to the genus. And then by specific keys for the genus (and yes you may need to use more than one) get it to which species, which can be a battle and a half, and there is no guarantee of winning . With the simple easy to identify ones, and there are some , not a lot though , you may get to the species just by macroscopic features. For example a good condition Amanita muscaria is straightforward. But a weathered washed out one may not be so easy ....

Melanie

This advice combined with a few good books is your way forward

[Ditiola]

Hi
I forget to say

I am planning to make a third file of all my fungi photos, separated into host plant associations, and then substrate, not unlike the organisation of the Ellis & Ellis Microfungi book. Although there will be large files for the fungi that are not fussy about what they grow on. There will be other useful files on specific hosts. For instance if I find a fungus on a pine cone, I will then be able to go straight to the file for all fungi specific to pine cones. There will have to be some duplication where species have more than one specific hosts and also difficult decisions to make as to what point a fungus with lots of specific hosts is then put in the multi host file only. However the main problem is it will take a lot of time to organise! or perhaps I could just try getting a life! (away from fungi!!)

Perhaps one day someone will produce a fungi book organised in plant association and substrate order, but until then anyone can organise their digital photos in whatever order they find most useful, and then refer to books for descriptions and confirmation illustrations.

Unfortunately some of the best books for beginers that I have seen are now out of print

Peter

[flaxton]

I would be surprised if Cybershot doesn't come in soon on this but I will say it for him. CATE does allow substrate to be one of the criteria when using the search facility so this is going at least part of the way to what you want.

Mal

[Ditiola]

Sound good. I can see myself signing up soon

Peter