Fungi on wood chips

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Can you explain to the rest of us what this means

Mal

I refuse to accept that that is hard to understand . . . . you constantly hear the complaint that "they" keep changing the names - this is an explanation of why some name changes are necessary

Chris seems to have discovered a vast mine of erudite material with which to baffle us lesser mortals!

it's just an update to the Basidiomycotina Checklist for heaven's sake . . . . erudite?

I'll get mi coat then

Chris

[flaxton]

Does this mean that all the Stropharia aurantiaca records will be (eventually) shipped across to Leratiomyces ceres?

Mal

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Does this mean that all the Stropharia aurantiaca records will be (eventually) shipped across to Leratiomyces ceres?

Mal

a very good question, Mal

at the risk of being labelled "erudite" the problem lies in the fact that Stropharia aurantiaca is a perfectly good species; however previous mycologists have not recognised that there is another fungus - now called Leratiomyces ceres which a number of previous workers/authorities (called in multilingual "taxonomy speak" auct. mult. - remember not all naturalists speak English, nor should we expect them to) have thought is the same as Stropharia aurantiaca

the only way you can tell what the fungus someone called Stropharia aurantiaca actually was is if there is a voucher specimen to check - all else is supposition and guesswork . . . if on woodchip the likelihood is that the record should be assigned to Leratiomyces ceres but we can't be 100% sure

as a county mycological recorder I (I should say 'we' Mal) need to work out the best way of dealing with this and other issues; this is not airy-fairy whimsy (or unnecessary erudition!) - it is fundamental to the foundations on which the subject we love - mycology - has to be based

cheers

Chris

[flaxton]

Chris
So when people come to you with finds of what they are calling Stropharia aurantiaca how do you record it?

Mal

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Chris
So when people come to you with finds of what they are calling Stropharia aurantiaca how do you record it?

Mal

It depends - most people submitting records are competent mycologists, well aware of the situation; if one doesn't know them a few questions are in order; if people are a bit uncertain of their ID's you simply don't include them - I learned that when I was a bird recorder many years ago

fundamental is that you have a field for the name the collector used so if the record is of Stropharia aurantiaca on woodchip it is now treated as Loratiomyces ceres but Stropharia aurantiaca goes down in an "Original Name" field - that way you lose no information

it is also useful to know what book someone was using; there was a time (1950s - 1970s) when the best work for the serious mycologist was Kühner and Romagnesi's Flore Analytique des Champignons Supérieurs; now in the Preface to that book they state:

". . . nous avons, d'un commun accord, décidé de nous conformer dans cette Flore aux Règles suivantes :
i°) Adopter comme point de départ pour la nomenclature générique l'Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici (1836-1838) de Fries, et non pas le Systema Mycologicum (1821), qui n'est qu'un travail de débutant."

however Article 13.1 part (b) of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states:

"(Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups is treated as beginning at the following dates: . . . )
FUNGI (including slime moulds and lichen-forming fungi), 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1). Names in the Uredinales, Ustilaginales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted by Persoon (Synopsis methodica fungorum, 31 December 1801) and names of other fungi (excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries (Systema mycologicum, vol. 1 (1 January 1821) to 3, with additional Index (1832), and Elenchus fungorum, vol. 1-2), are sanctioned (see Art. 15). For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens apply to their fungal component."

Note the discrepancy in the dates and sanctioning works

Now I suspect by this time you may have fallen asleep - as Andreas has pointed out on another thread this seems dry and boring and isn't as much fun as being in the field or sat at your microscope puzzling out what you have found; but it is crucially important - if you are going to drive in a foreign country the first thing you check is which side of the road they drive on - Kühner and Romagnesi are kind of saying "well we're using our own Highway Code not yours and we'll drive how we like where we like". So it's as well to know if someone was using that book because a number of the species they recorded will be correctly identified but incorrectly named (the two are not the same thing at all); one classic example is with Mycena vitilis and Mycena filopes - in K&R those species are the exact opposite of what everyone else in Europe was calling them - you need to know these things

it's a doddle being a recorder if you take it seriously

(and if you got this far)

cheers

Chris

[flaxton]

Still awake and a little better informed.
Thanks Chris

Mal

[fairplay]

Chris

In a garden I work in there are several large Eucalyptus trees (amongst too many ornamental conifers !) but in the grass around one of these Eucalyptus trees is a half ring (following the tree canopy above) of what I presume are L.ceres. There are no woodchips whatsoever, but being Eucalyptus, bark peels away and is left on the ground where it falls and is left until I come along with the ride on mower about once a month and sweep up as I cut.

Because the 'ring' seems to be formed where the tree root system seems to terminate (in line with the canopy above) I have a suspicion these are mycorrhizal with the Eucalyptus. I never put any under the scope as I have seen 'Stropharia aurantiaca' many times before in woodchips and these look no different.

So, should I be calling these by their old name of S.auriantaca or are conditions so unusual that when they come up again I should ship some out to Kew ?

There is no mention in B & K Vol.4, but there was a big write up in Field Mycology some years back and I cannot find it.

Another point of interest - there is a medium sized Ganoderma australe growing on the trunk of this Eucalyptus and looking up Eucalyptus as host species on the FRDBI, no Ganoderma's get a mention as being associated with this tree, but if 'australe' is a reference to Australia, perhaps G.australe is common on Eucalyptus down there ?

I also have down in my book that Leratiomyces ceres is an alien from Australia (as is Eucalyptus) and was first recorded in Britain from Somerset in 1957.

Neil.

[Chris Yeates]

from Mycotaxon (2008) Vol.103 - "Stropharia aurantiaca, which unfortunately lacks type material and is represented only by a painting (reproduced in Fortey 2004), has a similar orange cap but is a slender agaric as illustrated and described by Cooke (1887, as Agaricus squamosus f . aurantiacus). This may also occur on woodchips but can be identified with S. thrausta (= S. squamosa var. thrausta), a scarce taxon which, based on morphology and DNA analysis, has been shown by Jahnke (1984) to be no more than a colour form of S. squamosa. This taxon, morphologically identical with S. squamosa, lacks chrysocystidia whereas the species in question has abundant chrysocystidia and is quite distinct (Fortey 2004). It continues to be reported worldwide and is now known throughout much of Europe (Noordeloos 1999), North America (Arora 1986), Australia (Daams 1991) and New Zealand (Taylor 1981). In Britain, it was first recognised in 1957, being reported from sawdust in Somerset by Orton (1960) who noted the abundant chrysocystidia. Reid (1966) described and illustrated a subsequent collection from Surrey in November 1957. It is now a regular and often abundant coloniser of woodchip mulch, occasionally also found away from woodchip in natural habitats." (my underlining)

The Fortey (2004) article cited above is "Psilocybe aurantiaca and a case of mistaken identity." Field Mycology 5, 77-80; and yes that is the same Richard Fortey, palaeontologist and author of the magnificent Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution - and if you haven't read that yet why not? Borrow it from your local library while you still have one . . . .

this is Cooke's illustration of "Stropharia thrausta var. aurantiaca" from volume 4 of his Illustrations of British Fungi
sorry the quality isn't brilliant - but you can clearly see this isn't our woodchip agaric . . . and if you check for chrysocystidia you can be 100% certain


hope that helps

Chris

[fairplay]

Thanks for looking that up Chris (and typing it all out - would have taken me ages with my single finger !)

Yes, that was the FM article I was referring to, and in turn Richard refers to an article or illustration in Mycologist 7(2): 94. - unfortunately, my collection begins at Vol.8 Oh well.
(Lovely chap Richard, I had lunch with him and his wife and his good friend Stuart Skeates, back in 2009 when the BMS were getting ready to come to Suffolk)

I notice at the end of his article Richard writes "Thanks to Alick Henrici for filling in some of the taxonomic details in what turned out to be a slightly complicated story"
So if Richard thinks it complicated, where does that leave us mere mortals ?

Cheers Chris,

Neil.

[poschiavanus]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

It is now a regular and often abundant coloniser of woodchip mulch, occasionally also found away from woodchip in natural habitats.[/color]" (my underlining)

Here are a couple of examples from Clumber Park, one at least growing on the large fallen Beech trunk in Leaping Bar Wood.



Perhaps time for a bit of re-labelling in the WAB Gallery .

Richard Fortey, palaeontologist and author of the magnificent Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution - and if you haven't read that yet why not? Borrow it from your local library while you still have one . . . .

Not forgetting his Life : an Unauthorised Biography and Earth : an Intimate History. I've not read Dry Store No 1., but think there's a mistake right at the start concerning the Diplodocus skeleton.

The Thames Valley FG webpage seems to be no more, but they must be a formidable group to foray with (Fortey, Storey & others).