|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||20.86||4||(Claude Kaufholtz-Couture,Alan Rockefeller,pinknailsgirl,...)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||9.67||2||(bloodworm,Byrain)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
At the end I found to have the NaCl 0,9% at home. I will essay it one of these days.
The concentration of the NaCl is 0,9 % isotonique. It is the same serum as we receive at the hospital. If you do not find, I can give you a recipe to make him you even, it is very simple.
For the measure of spores, it is always necessary to take spores side views. The appendix hilaire is on the side and not in the center.
It is always possible to take spores seen frontal in measure, but we have to mention it in the description, because the width will be very difference of the side view.
With what equipment do you work?
Thanks for clarifying the question about the reagents. Only after your last message I realise that you proposed NaCl for the mounting and not NaOH as I first wrongly understood. This means that the common salt is used for the mounting. I will contact a pharmacy to ask for the appropriate concentration.
The other question concerns the photos I presented for the spores, where as you said most are displayed in frontal view. the reason is that is very difficult to get those photos with my equipment, because there is a lack of power in the lighting.
…….I’m not even going to address that bullshit, please let me know when you are serious about resolving the issues raised in this observation.
If think my old observations could be better off under another name, feel free to change them or you can wait for me to find them and do so myself.
P.S., my votes don’t indicate what I think this is, only that you have reported details for your observation that do not match the C. micaceus description and I prefer to not assume you reported erroneous details like Alan and let you figure that out yourself.
Watch out! The water also is a reinflating. It is important of measures of spores side views and not frontal. In your last assembly, I see especially spores seen frontal. Always study spores in the 100×. The NaCl can be bought in pharmacy for 1,00 $ you have it for 2 years!
I took into consideration the question raised by Claude, concerning the dimensions of the spores and the influence of the mouting. This time I observed the spores in water with magnifications of 400 and 1000. In each case I obtained smaller values than previously using ammonia. I uploaded two photos which include the dimensions now obtained for the spores.
(it was already answered) and sound like a provocation, made after someone agree with what you are unable to see, I feel obliged to reply with some other questions, but first I make some considerations.
I was looking to your MO observations on the genus Coprinellus (13 in total, 6 of which devoted to one species) and particularly those of the Section Micacei (I found 4 of them). Looking inside I was expecting to see them full of photos from the microscopy and the corresponding dicussion of the problems considered at this observation. But, not a single photo from the microscopy. So are you used to observe these mushrooms under the microscope? Can you ever locate precisely every structure observed?
Maybe, I´m a bit unfair and you published papers and books about the subject. Can you send me a list of them?
I like very much to learn things about fungi, but only with people that know more than me, otherwise it is a waste of time.
Are there pleurocystidia?
some of them were completely surrounded by basidia and gill trama.
Cheilocystidia then, a preparation where the gill edge was removed might be helpful.
Good point about the key. As I told before the pleurocystidia I found were in the same preparation (the only one I did) of the gill edge.
Ofc we classify mushrooms on the existing tools, what are we doing now? It doesn’t mean we ignore the problems with the description just because we can’t find a better answer in an old unfinished key.
the mushrooms observed with the existing tools, not with those that will be available in the future.
Whether the literature needs to be corrected, if this is a new taxon or if your preparation was flawed still needs to be explored…
It’d be cool if you didn’t resist your promising observation from being better, please accurately document your collections and save them for DNA analysis, especially when you have come so far already. Kees Uljé’s keys are good, but they’re not perfect by a long shot, it sucks they were never properly finished…
Edit: Also its clearly there, please don’t complain to me about how you didn’t read the literature you claimed to have done your homework on…
“1. Stipe pruinose, caulocystidia present; spores ovoid or mitriform.
3. , oblong; spores ovoid C. pallidissimus
3. or very scarce and then only near lamellae-edge; spores ovoid or (sub)mitriform.
4. Veil dark pinkish brown; spores ovoid or submitriform C. rufopruinatus
4. Veil pale, whitish, cream or ochre; spores distinctly mitriform C. micaceus
Ther is no other species with these features, besides Coprinellus micaceus.
The question about the pleurocystidia is a false one. I have done just one preparation which includes the gill edge and a piece of the gill. There I observed cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia.
Is besides the point… I think the better question is why you are reporting pleurocystidia for a species that is described to largely lack it except maybe near the gill edges? Have you saved them for DNA analysis?
Yes, but here, I speak only that spores!
But C. angulatus has a macro appearance completely diferent (it is dark coloured), does not present veil remants, has some lageniform cystidia and doesn’t have these type of caulocystidia, just to mention some differences.
Unfortunately, I am not skill to be exactly answered this question. I have no recent work on the subject.
I can simply say that in Quebec, I know that Coprinellus angulatus and Corprinellus micaceus with mitriformes spores.
Thanks, Claude, for clarifying the question about the reagents.
I would like to know what species of Coprinellus even non-european, besides C. micaceus, can have mitiform spores, broad cystidia, globose veil remants and big caulocystidia, like these?
This sodium chloride solution (9 %) is isotonic, like the glucose solution (5 %) that I use. I also use NaCl to see the spores’ natural color, but also to avoid turgidity. It is important to proceed with the observation by using an isotonic solution, otherwise the spore could increase (turgidity). However, I observe osmose when using the NaCl solution.
Thanks for your comments and questions.
I don’t think that the spores are so that big as mentioned by Claude and maybe they were a bit inflated by ammnonia (10%). I also look to mushroom expert and the dimensions given there are 7-11 × 4-7 µm. By the way, I don´t know what is NaCl isotonique 0,9 %; More precisely, what means “isotonique” here.
I already uploaded a new set of photos with caulocystidia, which was another doubt of Claude.
Concerning the pleurocystidia, I think they were more abundant near the gill edge, but I didn’t make any counting.
Was the pleurocystidia abundant or only near the gill edge?
I find the too long spore for Coprinellus micaceus!
The ammonia is a reinflating; observe more in the NaCl isotonique 0,9 %
But ammonia 2 % it is correct.
For Coprinellus micaceus the presence of caulocystides is very essential.
Some of the cystidia in the photos labelled as Cyistidia-1 and Cystidia-2 are Pleurocystidia (they were completely surrounded by basisia).
Its part of the European key, which even with just spores and macro seems to at least suggest C. micaceus, it also seems more convincing than NA collections I have compared with the literature. It would be cool to not only scope many of these C. sect. Micacea collections, but to save them and than eventually do DNA analysis. Maybe then we can start to learn how the key could be improved and what features are actually useful.
what would that even prove?
there are many “groups” of fungi that cannot be separated on microscopic evidence alone.
to made the microscopy before left home, I could only observed the spores. Maybe, I can go back it in the near future.
Thanks for scoping these. You didn’t happen to check the abundance or absence of pleurocystidia too? And if you are going to scope these, you should probably save them too. :)
because all my votes were and always will be public.
anonymous voting on this site is ridiculous.
i mean, i know who is voting…but, that really isn’t the point.
Created: 2014-12-30 10:39:05 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2016-08-24 15:17:00 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 369 times, last viewed: 2017-01-06 16:30:12 PST (-0800)