|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.71||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Christian, my criteria is simple and I believe universally accepted —
what qualifies as a good shot of anything scientific is just being
able to make out what it is. As you suggested, the way cystidia is
described is based on its shape in “profile”. It doesn’t have to be
artistic, or even pretty, but it must be purely diagnostic.
Dimi, what criteria do you use in judging the microscopic shot of cheilcystidia? Perhaps because they are not in “profile” view?
Richard, thank you for the clarification. If the odor was not that of
the notorious L. cristata then it probably isn’t castaneidisca,
despite the spurred spores. I’ll wait to hear from Joshua what that
I apologize for underestimating your observation skills!D.
The reason I didn’t mention the odor as strange or distinctive is that it wasn’t! I had read about the distinctive smell and actively sniffed for it. I found some more of what it looks like the same thing yesterday in Tilden Park, same story. I have kept these specimens and will forward them to Joshua as per his request. I have a fairly good sense of smell in general. We need “smellovision” to compare.
Richard, I know the id is correct. I have seen these in Joaquin
Miller too (particularly common there). The micsrocopy of the
spores is good, the cheilcostysdia shot, not good.
But where you need to pay attention to is the odor — you
correctly mentioned strong — but not mushroomy. This species has
one of the most distinct, strange and hard to describe odors out
there. Do never skip on that critical diagnostic info — you can
say “odor strong, strange, hard to describe” — that’s far better
than just calling it just mushroomy.
Anyway, good jobD. www.mushroomhobby.com
Nice shot of the cheilocystidia!
Created: 2009-03-12 15:21:34 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2009-03-12 15:21:34 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 78 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 13:42:27 PDT (-0700)