Species ID Help

[Ken Burgess]

Originally Posted by Brocakat

I'll gladly ask you to spell out how the interpetation ( directly quoting, as I did) differs from the photographs , please.

The explanation has already been given. But let me put it even more plainly. The photos in this thread do not show a woolly cap, neither on top nor at the edges. The photos do not show a pink-coloured cap.

Your interpretation of the cap texture and colour shows that you are not familiar with the species you are discussing or the terminology as it applies to fungi.

The best way to gain the experience necessary to make valid comments is to go out and look at fungi with people who do have experience and can help to clarify how to tell species apart.

Otherwise you are just being argumentative for the sake of it, which is hardly constructive.

Ken

[Chris Yeates]

dearie me what a lot of fuss on this thread I have just happened upon - I am tempted to shout (in the words of an Essex girl teetering on her stilettos outside a Basildon pub) - "leave it Brocakat - 'e's not wurf it!!"

Originally Posted by Brocakat

. . . . .

( [ My very 1st Fungi book ] - the Observers book of Common Fungi )

I matched the written description with what I glean from the 2 photographs.
The same as everyone else can do - and no more. . . . . .

but before I go off and do some more actual mycology I must point out the error in the above statement: there is a lot more that one can do other than match the written description in a book which will contain a tiny part of the possible fungi one might come across - do you mean you have to cram what you find into the relatively few descriptions to hand?

"what more" one can do is spend decades looking at the fungi in the field, talking with and learning from the people who are experts in the field (and who often have written the books - though Elsie Wakefield sadly died a long time ago); one can back up that fieldwork with careful work at home - often involving microscopy - one can use a wide range of specialist literature - including the Fungi of Northern Europe monograph on Lactarius which includes all the European species (how many are in the Observer's book?) - and btw that is no Lactarius . . . . .

he would be too modest to point it out but all these things Ken has done - I would value his opinion, frankly and not just counter with - "but my book says this and no one can do more"

As I say - back to some real mycology

Chris

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by Brocakat

The photograher does say , quote, "milky substance on the stem". The author of my book does say, quote, "Usually this milk is white, but it is sometimes grey, red or yellow, and may show colour changes after a time . " (possibly a 4th reasonable [IMO] point ?)


.

I think this quote about the variable milk colour is talking about the genus Lactarius rather than L torminosus.

Mal

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Brocakat

I'll gladly ask you to spell out how the interpetation ( directly quoting, as I did) differs from the photographs , please.

Then I would respectfully repeat this:-

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If you were to do an internet search for images of L.torminosus (and even allowing for the fact that some of those images may have been erroneously named), you will see that almost without exception, those images show a substantially different fungus to what we have here.

Look at those images, and then look again at the book's description and see which photo(s) are the better match - those found by the internet search, or the ones here.

Can you honestly say that you have looked at images of genuine L.torminosus, and yet still think that those shown in the OP are the same?

The "direct quote" from the book most definitely relates to images of the genuine article.
But, as has already been demonstrated by others, your interpretation of that direct quote is flawed.

The only way to learn how to "see" the various features on a photograph (or quite often even on the real thing), and relate them to descriptions in books, is to put the time in looking at fungi. Even better if you can do so in the company of knowledgeable fungi folk.

I've been looking at fungi in earnest for the last three years or so, and consider myself still very much on the first rungs of the ladder. - But I'm learning, and I'm always willing to accept constructive criticism, or to be put right by those with more experience.

If you can accept the fact that you got it wrong this time, and take on board the reasons & explanations given, then you will have learned something which will be of benefit next time you happen upon either of these two species. But if you doggedly refuse to accept that your interpretation was faulty, you will have learned nothing.

Regards,
Mike.

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by Ken Burgess

" The explanation has already been given. But let me put it even more plainly. The photos in this thread do not show a woolly cap, neither on top nor at the edges. The photos do not show a pink-coloured cap. "

My response.

I maintain the photo shows a wooly or shaggy edge.

I maintain the photo shows a pinkish colour, which is more pronounced towards the centre of the cap.

Please - I 'd like to read your description of its colour.


" Your interpretation of the cap texture and colour shows that you are not familiar with the species you are discussing or the terminology as it applies to fungi."



My response.

I am using the same terminology as the author.
I have not read your terminology of its features as it differs from the authors'.




"The best way to gain the experience necessary to make valid comments is to go out and look at fungi with people who do have experience and can help to clarify how to tell species apart. "


My response.
I have yet to read anyones elses analysis & their best 'guesstimations' .
Looking forward to reading one - eventually ?

" Otherwise you are just being argumentative for the sake of it, which is hardly constructive. "

My response.
It takes at least 2 to make an arguement - so I repeat again - I've not read (yet) - yours or anyone elses response, in whatever terminology- whether in the same terminology of the authors' or anyone elses.

....

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by flaxton

I think this quote about the variable milk colour is talking about the genus Lactarius rather than L torminosus.

Mal

That right. And the o.p. states that it is simply a " Milky substance, without actually saying what colour it is. L.torminosus milk colour IS white.

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

" Then I would respectfully repeat this:- Can you honestly say that you have looked at images of genuine L.torminosus, and yet still think that those shown in the OP are the same?"


Response.
Agree, the images are variable. I also think that the author would believe that the species is also variable, and that that is why he wrote "pinkish colour" - which covers a wide variability of shades of pink.




" The "direct quote" from the book most definitely relates to images of the genuine article. But, as has already been demonstrated by others, your interpretation of that direct quote is flawed."

Response.
As I've directly quoted - I have not offered an interpretation.




" The only way to learn how to "see" the various features on a photograph (or quite often even on the real thing), and relate them to descriptions in books, is to put the time in looking at fungi. Even better if you can do so in the company of knowledgeable fungi folk. "


Response.
I'd suggest that suggestions of species can only ever go so far , and to make positive i.d's one has to move on from simply looking, ( at photos? ) by then smelling & tasting & then start analysing , by examining the flesh for texture & colour, using 1st a Hand Lens and then a microscope; and then examining the gills & taking a spore print . Agreed. It's all anyone can do - from 2 photos.

But one could in some circumstances eliminate some / certain species from 'one's enquires' from the photos .

"Because of......a/b/c ---it cannot be that " . Now that's what I want to read !



" I've been looking at fungi in earnest for the last three years or so, and consider myself still very much on the first rungs of the ladder. - But I'm learning, and I'm always willing to accept constructive criticism, or to be put right by those with more experience. "

Response.
Those with infinately more experience on here have not actually put forward
as to why my directly quoted ( & not interpreted ) text decriptions are incorrect - but only po-pooed them.
If others who having "more to go on " are simply more ( & some of those may be unsupported ) photographs, then I remain unconvinced by that,- (well it's not really any reasonable)counter-arguement ----in my mind.




" If you can accept the fact that you got it wrong this time, and take on board the reasons & explanations given, then you will have learned something which will be of benefit next time you happen upon either of these two species. But if you doggedly refuse to accept that your interpretation was faulty, you will have learned nothing. "

Response.

We have 2 photographs. We cannot see the surface of the cap in that photograph to determine its texture, and only see the edge of the cap. So in relation to the determination of its species ----- by its surface texture--- that isn't in the equation. A superior photograph might have positively helped. Which we don't have. I'd like to read as to how-by observing the 2 photographs - that it is not such a L. species .
Of course, that doesn't tell us what it might be - but it should tell us why it cannot be, to eliminate it from its possibility. I'm waiting for anyone to offer, on the photgraphic evidence to hand - that its definately not such a species - for reasons a,b, & c for example.

And it still looks pink to me.


It would be best to eliminate it by means OTHER than comparing the photos above with photos from ones library of photos.
Which it seems it not happening.

Photos can only go so far. After that - it's out in the field & then the lab/etc.
Educated guesses only go so far. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

[Ken Burgess]

I think this thread could usefully be closed because it is not achieving anything constructive.

However, as a last effort at achieving some sort of sanity in the process. Here are two images side by side.



The cap on the left is smooth, both on the top and on the sides. The edges are ribbed but the cuticle is smooth. The cap on the right has a woolly texture, which is particularly noticeable at the margin. This is not just an interpretation. It is a fact based on direct experience of looking at the structure of real cap cuticles under the microscope and understanding what these look like macroscopically and when photographed.

The colour of the cap on the left is cream around the outer edges ranging to, let's say, pinkish beige towards the middle. The pink colour of the cap to the right is quite different and the colour ranges do not overlap. The fungus to the right is Lactarius torminosus. The one to the left is not because it is different in terms of its cap cuticle structure, colour, zonation and shape.

And you are quite wrong to say you are not applying any interpretation of the description in your book. You have clearly stated your interpretation that the description of Lactarius torminosus would encompass the features of the specimen on the left. To anyone with any experience of fungi, it does not. To use a description you have to understand how terms are interpreted by experienced mycologists. You clearly don't and you are at such an early stage in your acquisition of knowledge about fungi that your stage of learning would be described by some, technically, as 'unconscious incompetence'. In layman's terms, this means that you are unaware of how poor you are at understanding how to identify fungi and it is clear that you have not learned anything from the discussion so far in this thread.

Ken

[FungiJohn]

Thanks Ken and a good point to close the thread

John