Calloria neglecta (pos. stupid) question

[Ditiola]

The other main problem with 'Dennis' other than being well out of date is that it is arranged in taxonomic order with the keys to each family and tribe at the start of each relevant section. There are no keys to species so you have to read through the descriptions of all the species to decide what you have got. This all makes it quite difficult to work with unless you already have a good knowledge of the taxonomic groups. For instance Tarzetta is in the tribe Otidae which is found in the Family Pezizacae. It is however, a very useful back-up reference works to get more information on a species you have identified with another key.

Microfungi of Land Plants (Ellis & Ellis) is arranged in order of Host organism and then the substrate. This is an excellent idea as quite a lot of micro fungi are host specific. This can narrow the search considerably. If you find a fungus on an acorn you look up Quercus and then acorns and you have all the fungi that are acorn specialists. My main criticism is that There are no page heading so you have to go back several pages to see what the host is (I do not no if this has been addressed on recent editions). I have pencilled my own headings in through the book to make it usable.

The companion book 'Microfungi of miscellaneous substrates’ is arranged in substrate order and is very useful. There is a third book by Ellis & Ellis 'Fungi without gills' this covers the Hymenomycetes and Gasteromycetes and in this book all the the genera are arranged in alphabetical order.

Nordic macromycetes Vol 1 (Ascomycetes) has usable keys throughout and much easier to use than 'Dennis' and when I do not no the host this it is my first port of call, and my second if I have not got nowhere with Ellis & Ellis.

Peter

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by jaybie

OK why doesn't this appear in Phillips/Collins? Have I missed something obvious somewhere.



I took the above shot yesterday and tried to find it in the two books I have but there was no reference to it. A quick google pointed me in the right direction and it appears that this is common. Funnily enough google led me to WAB and a picture by FungiJohn.

I realise that it is difficult to cover everything in a book but it did leave me wondering.

JohnB

why do you think it's called neglecta???

btw you have the imperfect (anamorphic) "Callorina fusarioides" stage there

keep posting the photo's on WAB and the (happy) few of us who look at (and sometimes even prefer) these things will do our best; (I'm even prepared to look at the odd specimen if it is in good condition, well dried, and reasonably interesting )

cheers

Chris

[jaybie]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

why do you think it's called neglecta???

That bit hadn't occurred to me

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

btw you have the imperfect (anamorphic) "Callorina fusarioides" stage there

Thanks Chris - two for the price of one - I would never have known.

JohnB

[mollisia]

Hello,

Originally Posted by Ditiola

Microfungi of Land Plants (Ellis & Ellis) is arranged in order of Host organism and then the substrate. This is an excellent idea as quite a lot of micro fungi are host specific. This can narrow the search considerably. If you find a fungus on an acorn you look up Quercus and then acorns and you have all the fungi that are acorn specialists.

this is exactly the statement why I would wish that ELLIS and ELLIS would have never been issued. It is a serious mistake to believe, that determination of fungi - especially of microfungi - should be that easy. Neither the list of possible species on a certain host is near to complete, nor on the other hand the species mentioned there are host specific in many cases. There are only few species that are reliably host specific. E.g. Lachnellula occidentalis on Larix is such an exception. But already Mollisia rosae I have once found on pine cones (they were lying under a rose bush).
ELLIS and ELLIS is a good book, no doubt, for those who are already in that state of knowledge, that they don't belive all what it written. But it has thrown back taxonomy of those small fungi to a certain extent. My personal opinion, which has not to be parted of course. This book, as good as it is, would have been perfect when the authors would stated more precisely, more clearly, that it is only a selection without any chance to be complete and that it is not to be used as a determination book based on substrate! It may be used as a first quick start, from which you then can use more literature for verification, but never ever for a determination based on host!

Hard words, I know, and may be not everyone is the same opinion of course. But from discussions with other specialists in those tiny fungi (inoperculate ascomycetes usually) I know that I'm not the only one with this opinion.

best regards,
Andreas

P.S.: When re-reading my text, I realized that it could may be seen as an offent against Peter. This is in no way my intention. I don't want to say with my statement above, that I think Peter is determining fungi only be looking at the host or something like that. But I had people in my courses that were exactly thinking that one could determine those fungi like that!

[FungiJohn]

Hard words but important to know before one buys! So good advice Andreas.

Re 'more literature for verification' Can you expand here in terms of any suitable publications?

John

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Hard words but important to know before one buys! So good advice Andreas.

Re 'more literature for verification' Can you expand here in terms of any suitable publications?

John

Hello John,

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean. You ask for suitable publications for determiantion of those fungi?

If so, first I want to stress, that those publications like ELLIS and ELLIS, DENNIS, FUNGI of SWITZERLAND are all very good books. But all have their limits, as is only logical. Adn those limits have to be known by the user, so he can use the book in an adaequate way.

For inoperculate ascomycetes - as for many groups of small fungi - there is no "complete" guide as e.g. for Agaricales or Aphyllophorales. You can only get a foot into the door by using those above mentioned books. You soon get a feeling for genera and surely will know quite a lot of the more characteristic species. Let your determinations be verified by collegues who are one step further if you are not completely certain. And the most important is: Get in contact with others who do the same fungi, exchange knowledge and literature (means scattered publications in various journals) and be open for discussions of your findings and determinations.

best regards,
Andreas

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hello John,

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean. You ask for suitable publications for determiantion of those fungi?

If so, first I want to stress, that those publications like ELLIS and ELLIS, DENNIS, FUNGI of SWITZERLAND are all very good books. But all have their limits, as is only logical. Adn those limits have to be known by the user, so he can use the book in an adaequate way.

For inoperculate ascomycetes - as for many groups of small fungi - there is no "complete" guide as e.g. for Agaricales or Aphyllophorales. You can only get a foot into the door by using those above mentioned books. You soon get a feeling for genera and surely will know quite a lot of the more characteristic species. Let your determinations be verified by collegues who are one step further if you are not completely certain. And the most important is: Get in contact with others who do the same fungi, exchange knowledge and literature (means scattered publications in various journals) and be open for discussions of your findings and determinations.

best regards,
Andreas

Hello Andreas

You've answered my question perfectly. I have the books you mention and was just wondering if there were other books with more information.

Yes, knowing their limits is as important as the books themselves!

Many thanks

John

[Ditiola]

P.S.: When re-reading my text, I realized that it could may be seen as an offent against Peter. This is in no way my intention. I don't want to say with my statement above, that I think Peter is determining fungi only be looking at the host or something like that. But I had people in my courses that were exactly thinking that one could determine those fungi like that![/quote]

Andreas
No offence taken, and I respect your views, and yes your are probably quite right in what you say. I always use several books when I am working with unfamiliar genera, and I also have a look at the BMS database to see how many species are recorded in the UK in case there are others that have escaped my attention.

Peter

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hello,


this is exactly the statement why I would wish that ELLIS and ELLIS would have never been issued. It is a serious mistake to believe, that determination of fungi - especially of microfungi - should be that easy. . . . . it has thrown back taxonomy of those small fungi to a certain extent. My personal opinion, which has not to be parted of course. This book, as good as it is, would have been perfect when the authors would stated more precisely, more clearly, that it is only a selection without any chance to be complete and that it is not to be used as a determination book based on substrate! It may be used as a first quick start, from which you then can use more literature for verification, but never ever for a determination based on host!

Hard words, I know, and may be not everyone is the same opinion of course.

hello Andreas

harsh words - way too harsh I feel

perhaps from the somewhat narrow viewpoint of how inoperculate ascomycetes are treated you have a point, but remember there are many other groups dealt with in there

even if one is reduced to 'looking at pictures' the 'dematiaceous hyphomycetes' (a group in which Martin Ellis knew as much as anyone on the planet) are dealt with superbly as are the plant parasites in genera such as Ramularia and its allies (more fully covered later by Uwe Braun of course)

Ellis and Ellis volume I has been for me the single most useful fungus book I have ever owned (volume II is less successful, and I think volume III was probably a mistake, urged on by the publishers) . . . of course you need to then be able to check original descriptions, but that is true of almost every popular book - how many dodgy records of Galerina species can be found in county lists thanks to the way they are covered in Roger Phillips' book??

even with regard to the operculates, the Ellises were good friends with Douglas Graddon and Malcolm Clark - field mycologists of enormous skill and knowledge (it was a joy to be collecting in the field with Malcolm - again I learned so much) and their input was important in E & E I

I think you are being very unfair and far too dismissive (although I understand where your underlying dissatisfaction comes from)

but if one person on WAB has been discouraged from buying that book because of your comments I would be very disappointed

I am a bit biassed because I knew Malcolm and Pam and they were very helpful to me as a newcomer stumbling around in the arcane world of the micro-fungi, and I hope you take my criticism of your comments in good part as I do not wish for this to get anywhere near personal

phew!

Chris

[mollisia]

Hello Chris,

you are perfectly right in stating a) that my posting was too harsh and b) that it comes from the limited sight of the inoperculate discomycetes.
My statement, "that I wished the book was never published" wasn't thought to be meant seriouse like it is written, and I didn't thought that it would be taken literaly. it just a kind of sigh sometimes, when I come across determinationations based on arguments like "but there is only one Hymenoscyphus on willow in ELLIS & ELLIS".

By the way, in other postings I have several times stated, that I think the book to be good and worth having:

"I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean. You ask for suitable publications for determiantion of those fungi?
If so, first I want to stress, that those publications like ELLIS and ELLIS, DENNIS, FUNGI of SWITZERLAND are all very good books. But all have their limits, as is only logical. Adn those limits have to be known by the user, so he can use the book in an adaequate way."

But yes, again, I admit that the words come over far too harsh and I didn't intend to make the peoples not to use ELLIS & ELLIS. I wanted to stress, that the concept of the book, sorting the fungi after hosts, is not to be seen as key character. At least not in inoperculate discos. It surely is a different situation in phytoparasites, and you are also correct in stating that you don't find that much information on hyphomycetes elsewhere.

best regards,
Andreas