Observation 144460: Chlorociboria Seaver ex C.S. Ramamurthi, Korf & L.R. Batra
When: 2013-08-31
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Spores at 400X difficult to see because they are so thin.

Proposed Names

43% (3)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: Check spore size. For the amount of time you spend in front of the scope, I strongly recommend that you get a Amscope B-100ms for $200 (with either a reticle or use software measuring) so your micrographs will be helpful for ID purposes. Your blurry pics of spores do not really help because I already know vaguely what the spores will look like when I see the pics. Pics of spores with a 100x oil objective and scale bar would be extremely useful!!!

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Okay, Danny. I read you comment…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-06-27 16:15:18 PDT (-0700)

on another of these Chlorociboria posts; lots of new possibilities for the species. Nice janitorial work :-) It takes time to make all these changes to people’s posts.

Alan, the 1000x oil-immersion feature on my scope doesn’t seem to work all that well. I have been told the light coming from below is insufficient to illuminate for this type of viewing. Consequently, I haven’t acquired any oil-mount skills.

Hey Alan…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-05-13 18:57:07 PDT (-0700)

Newly posted photo shows my new acquisition.

Here’s my first attempt at using it.
http://mushroomobserver.org/165180?q=1xlhK

I also have the micrometer. I’ll have someone familiar with these things attach it next month.

Okay, thanks for the suggestions.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-09-02 19:23:03 PDT (-0700)

I think it’s time to consider an upgrade, if not immediately, at least for next year. (I am currently looking at a sizeable expense… converting our home to solar.) I think that a scope which allowed for easily photographing stuff would be something I’d really enjoy.

Yes, Russula spores look good under that scope
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2013-09-02 18:53:18 PDT (-0700)

The image quality is basically the same as all the other under $500 scopes. Also look at the omax scopes, they work fine as well. Since you seem to like photography, spending a few dollars more on a trinocular scope might be a good idea, especially if you have a plan on how to use the third port (digital eyepiece?)

I visited a friends house a few years ago and used his Amscope B-100ms to do the microscopy in this thread: https://mycotopia.net/...

I could have made much better images if I had not been holding a camera up to the eyepiece. Doing that works to a degree but you are converting the image unnecessarily and less lenses in the way will give better images.

I believe…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-09-02 17:19:03 PDT (-0700)

I see what you mean about resolution. If my micro photos were sharper, then the zoom feature on MO would likely bring out significant detail in spore ornamentation etc. $200 is not that much to spend. Do you think the Amscope B-100ms would provide enough magnification/clarity for examining, say, ornamentation on Russula spores? This is just one of several areas where my scope is seriously inadequate.

Micrographs
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2013-09-02 16:34:21 PDT (-0700)

look a bit smaller than what I would consider 400x, they look more like 100x or 200x pics to me. Those magnification numbers are not all that meaningful, resolution and image quality matters more. In any case, it is hard to see spore detail when they all look like tiny beans. The Amscope B-100ms costs $200 and works well for mycology. I guess the cheapest way to take pictures is a USB eyepeice, though since I already had a DSLR I got a DSLR microscope adaptor. Regarding immersion oil, it is only a couple seconds more work than just mounting the specimen. Most of the work is in finding the mushrooms and cutting the sections, putting a drop of oil in the cover slip will not slow you down much in the grand scheme of things. All of this effort is somewhat wasted if there is no scale bar. I add mine digitally, by taking a picture of a stage micrometer and calculating how many pixels per micrometer the image is. The other way to do it is to get an eyepiece reticle and shoot pictures through that. How well that works depends on the eyepiece and the camera, and is kind of difficult to predict how well a given camera will work.

I didn’t know…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-09-02 15:45:28 PDT (-0700)

there was more than one type of these little blue cups. These were found on wood of a deciduous tree, probably oak.

Alan, as for the microscope thing, you have identified my two main relevant concerns… time and money. I am hesitant to spend $1000 on an oil immersion scope that’s a lot more time consuming to use. One nice thing about my old beat up 400X scope (and I do sometimes obtain useful info from it) is that it’s really easy to use. I can mount/examine about 10 materials in maybe half an hour. It’s my understanding that oil immersion requires a fair amount of work. As I am sure you can tell, I like to bring home lots of fungi to examine. But I’ll consider your suggestion, Amscope B-100ms. Software measurement…? I have no idea how this works. How much additional time/money would this entail?

Thanks for the input!

Created: 2013-09-02 10:44:13 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-06-27 12:11:03 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 117 times, last viewed: 2016-11-27 12:48:11 PST (-0800)
Show Log