Large fungus

[charnev]

Can someone kindly advise me as to this fungus. It is approx. 19 cms across. growing in isolation at the side of a track in Alice Holt forest Hampshire. It is actually underneath some pine trees but the forest is mixed growth. I was thinking Trooping Funnel but it is all by itself. The stem seems a bit shaggy. Didn't smell it I'm afraid.

[Beamish]

Hi charnev,

large fungus? This is a large fungus:
Mexican mega-mushroom a savoury stunner - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
!!!

No, joking ;-)

Yours could be a Leucopaxilus giganteus, the Giant Funnel (without warranty...)
They grow up to 30 cm across!

Cheers,

Martin

[NickCantle]

It's entirely possible that this could also be one of the larger Clitocybe species.

[Beamish]

Absolutely Nick,

for instance older specimen of geotropa often are lacking their typical "navel" in the middle of the cap.

Regards,

Martin

[charnev]

Many thanks for those comments. The giant funnel was my other thought. Is there any other useful diagnostic to distinguish it from trooping that I could look for?
Cheers
Charnev

[charnev]

I checked this fungus again. Someone had thoughtfully kicked it over into several pieces. The diameter was almost exactly on 20cm. The stem was approx 8.5 cms and was bulbous at the base. So I don't think it can be Giant Funnel and must be a clytocybe, either Clouded or Trooping if my reading of Phillips mushrooms is correct. The margin of the cap is very flat, .not inrolled as described for Clouded, so I think it must a Trooping Funnel clitocybe geotropa. Any comments would be appreciated.

[Psathyrellaceae]

Charnev, I agree that it is a Clitocybe, definitely not a Leucopaxilus, for a couple reasons- the pileus of Leucopaxillus will always be opaque, never translucent and hygrophanous, like Clitocybe often is. As mentioned, the umbilicate shape is also common for Clitocybe, and lastly, the brittle nature- as you noted. When in doubt, take the fungi in question and give it a good throw against a tree or rock- does it splatter and moosh into a million pieces? Or does it remain more or less whole, with a firm rubbery texture?
Granted, Leucopaxilus can be broken, but only with considerable effort, and the sound will be a distinct "POP!" on impact, as if hitting a baseball.

As far as the species go... Can I ask you to use the latin names? I am getting quite confused by the common names you are using.

[fairplay]

Quote:
When in doubt, take the fungi in question and give it a good throw against a tree or rock- does it splatter and moosh into a million pieces? Or does it remain more or less whole, with a firm rubbery texture?
Granted, Leucopaxilus can be broken, but only with considerable effort, and the sound will be a distinct "POP!" on impact, as if hitting a baseball.


And of course, this helps to spread the spores.

Neil.

[charnev]

Originally Posted by Psathyrellaceae

Charnev, I agree that it is a Clitocybe, definitely not a Leucopaxilus, for a couple reasons- the pileus of Leucopaxillus will always be opaque, never translucent and hygrophanous, like Clitocybe often is. As mentioned, the umbilicate shape is also common for Clitocybe, and lastly, the brittle nature- as you noted. When in doubt, take the fungi in question and give it a good throw against a tree or rock- does it splatter and moosh into a million pieces? Or does it remain more or less whole, with a firm rubbery texture?
Granted, Leucopaxilus can be broken, but only with considerable effort, and the sound will be a distinct "POP!" on impact, as if hitting a baseball.

As far as the species go... Can I ask you to use the latin names? I am getting quite confused by the common names you are using.

Thanks for your comments. I did suggest it was a clitocybe geopetra so I'm a little puzzled about your last remark. Do you mean that it is better to always use the latin and not the common names?

[Ditiola]

Hi Charnev
The problem with Common Names is that they can vary with one part of the country to another and likewise have different names depending on the books you are using. Also we have several regular contributors to WAB who are not in Britain and our common names mean nothing to them. There are probably many others across the world who read the threads but do not contribute with replies.

Also there are lots of fungi to which no one has yet attributed a common name.

This does not mean there are not problems with Latin names. Here the problem is the names may change for various reasons such as when new associations between species are discovered, and this requires a certain amount of attention to keep abreast of the changes.

Also when a common fungus, is found (by the opinion of a taxonomists) to actually consist of several similar species, you can not longer just refer to the common name as it is then not clear which of the new species one is referring to.

One on the most useful aspects of the Latin names it they demonstrate relationships. For instance if one presented someone with no knowledge of fungi with the following list and asked them to arrange the fungi into related groups they would not be able to do this:

The Deathcap
The Deceiver
The Blusher
The Charcoal Burner
The Grisette
The Sickener

If you presented the Latin names it would be simple to do. Also if you learnt that most Amanita species were very poisonous, and that all Russula species had brittle flesh, using the Latin names is then much more useful in the identification process.

Amanita phalloides
Laccaria laccata
Amanita rubescens
Russula cyanoxantha
Amanita fulva
Russula emetica

However for anyone who still wants to use Common names for use in Britain only. It would be better if we all used the same common names. To help with this the BMS has publishes a list of approved common names of most of the common fungi in the UK. It can be downloaded as a Word File at:

Resources - British Mycological Society


Peter