| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 29 | 30 |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
| |
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
| |
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
| |
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
| |
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
| 1 | 2 |  » Stats |
Members: 50,142
Threads: 82,311
Posts: 853,029
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069)
| | Welcome to our newest member, Posbyonechop | |  | 
21-07-2011, 09:35 PM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 409
| | | Chlorophyllum
An article in the July 2011 issue of Field Mycology prompts me to say that finds of Chlorophyllum (syn. Macrolepiota) in the UK could be any of three species: C. rachodes, C. brunneum or C. olivieri.
The above image is probably actually C. olivieri, given the greyish colours, lack of contrast between scales and background colour of the cap cuticle and coniferous woodland habitat, although spore size would be an important character for definitive identification.
The following link provides some further information... Chlorophyllum olivieri | Wild About Britain
... although I wonder if the specimens in these images were all confirmed microscopically. 
Ken |
21-07-2011, 10:03 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 3,648
| | | Re: Chlorophyllum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Burgess  . . . . . spore size would be an important character for definitive identification. . . . .
Ken | hi Ken  Funga Nordica gives spore sizes as:
8-11 x 5.5-7 µm for C. olivieri
9-12.5 x 5.5-8 µm for C. rachodes
pretty critical then
long live microfungi is all I can say 
cheers
Chris
__________________
"You must know it's right - The spore is on the wind tonight"
--Steely Dan, "Rose Darling" |
21-07-2011, 10:57 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: York
Posts: 3,314
| | | Re: Chlorophyllum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Burgess
An article in the July 2011 issue of Field Mycology prompts me to say that finds of Chlorophyllum (syn. Macrolepiota) in the UK could be any of three species: C. rachodes, C. brunneum or C. olivieri.
The above image is probably actually C. olivieri, given the greyish colours, lack of contrast between scales and background colour of the cap cuticle and coniferous woodland habitat, although spore size would be an important character for definitive identification.
The following link provides some further information... Chlorophyllum olivieri | Wild About Britain
... although I wonder if the specimens in these images were all confirmed microscopically.
Ken | The last one was Ken.
Mal |
22-07-2011, 07:18 AM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 409
| | | Re: Chlorophyllum
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaxton The last one was Ken.
Mal | It's the middle picture that I would question, Mal, because of the dark coloured scales and pale background, giving quite a contrast.
Ken |
22-07-2011, 07:26 AM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 409
| | | Re: Chlorophyllum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Yeates hi Ken Funga Nordica gives spore sizes as:
8-11 x 5.5-7 µm for C. olivieri
9-12.5 x 5.5-8 µm for C. rachodes
pretty critical then
long live microfungi is all I can say | Unfortunately, there aren't always clear cut answers, even in the world of microfungi. Take Tarzetta for example, (if that's what the genus is still called these days... I lose track). In my experience, the spore sizes for T. catinus and T. cupularis vary widely, in different references, leaving no clear distinction.
As for Chlorophyllum, the new key in Field Mycology gives spore sizes as follows: C. olivieri: 8.5-10 x 5.8-6.6 C. rachodes: 9.4-11.2 x 6-7.4
Still some overlap. So you just have to measure a lot of spores and see if the average puts you clearly into one end of the range or the other.
Ken
Last edited by Ken Burgess; 22-07-2011 at 07:28 AM.
|
22-07-2011, 08:54 AM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 409
| | | Re: Chlorophyllum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Burgess Unfortunately, there aren't always clear cut answers, even in the world of microfungi. | Meant to say, even in the world of non-agarics. Tarzetta obviously isn't a microfungus!
Ken | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
| | | 0 members and 188 guests | | No Members online | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | |  Spammers! Yesterday 08:00 AM 5 Replies, 99 Views | | | | | |
