A couple More For ID

[GerryNick2]

A couple found this week that have got me beaten, both were growing on or amongst conifer debris under a thick carpet of moss.

A pointer to possible Genus would be more than welcome.

Gerry

Growing on conifer debris.
Group.
Cap dia.6cm
Stem ht.5cm dia.8mm
Flesh pinkish tinge.



Growing on conifer debris.
Cap dia.>4cm
Stem ht.6cm dia.5mm
Flesh tan.

[GerryNick2]

Wondered if the fungi in the first photo could be Flowery Blewit - Lepista irina, seems to match the description, not having seen it in the flesh before as they say I can't be sure. Anyone familiar with this one or like to comment?

Gerry

[Angelo_Xanthi]

Hi

The first should be a Lepista, but I find the L. irina possibility rather unlikely, as its colour is whitish. I'd rather go for L. nuda in one of its various colour forms (I don't know how the colours actually came out in the photo, either).

The second one is, in my opinion, a Galerina sp., but I have no suggestion as to the actual species.

[GerryNick2]

Hi Angelo

I agree everything points to a Lepista. for the first one. The colours in the photograph are a good likeness, the cap was what I would describe as a pinkish brown, everything else including the gills had a pinkish tinge. L.irina seems to vary a bit in description and not too well documented. Rogers describes it as having clay-pink to reddish-brown cap, gills flesh colour, stem dirty white to pallid, covered in long fibres and often ochraceous near base. Images on the web. seem to vary as well, some match the Rogers description and this example others are near white as you say. Another mystery! Pretty certain it is not L.nuda which is quite common in the area and found on the same foray on more than one occasion.

I thought initially the second one could be a galerina sp. but generally felt the stem was a bit too thick and the cap dia. on the mature specimen again too big. With further examination and input from those more knowledable than I the general concensus of opinion is that it is most likely Tubaria furfuracea, again another one that can vary quite a bit particularly in cap colour and gill arrangement.

Gerry

[Angelo_Xanthi]

Hi Gerry

Your remarks are quite plausible. I must say that I have no field experience with either L. irina or T. furfuracea, so all I get to know comes from my books. Therefore, I could very well be wrong in my id suggestions, given also the great difficulty one has to contend with when trying one's luck at id-ing from a photo.

[GerryNick2]

Hi Angelo

Every now and again I come across a fungi in our local forests unfamiliar to me and the biggest hurdle is always trying to ID it, on the less common fungi, the descriptions and photographs seem to vary quite considerably from one publication to another (the more books you have the more confusing it gets). With software like photoshop becoming very popular it is all too easy to increase the tonal qualities and contrast and in the process lose the true representation of the subject matter which makes cross referencing difficult. I tend to strive to maintain the natural tones and colours observed at the time to aid ID and place less emphasis on creating an eye catching picture.

On examples like these two I don't think it is possible to be 100% certain without microscopic examination. However, it is always pleasing to have further input from others to ensure I am not way off the mark.

Thanks for your input.

Gerry

[GerryNick2]

Hi All

Just thought I would update you on the first fungi in this post.

Managed to get some input from a very knowledgeable individual in the fungi world and the diagnosis is that the photograph looks like the fairly common, late-season species that mycologists have generally been calling Clitocybe metachroa. There is some argument as to which fungus is the true "C. metachroa", and it may be that the correct name for this common one is "C. decembris", but the new British checklist calls it metachroa and that seems the best name to use.

Having been pointed in the right direction I have been able to find some images on the net which compare favourably for peace of mind. Unfortunately the Rogers photograph in his book does not do the fungi justice and I must have passed over it a number of times without a second glance.

Gerry