Collection location: Rowan Co., North Carolina, USA [Click for map]
Rowan Co., NC
Found alone, growing from well decayed hardwood, in predominantly hardwood forest, near swampy/creek overflow area.
3.5cm broad, campanulate to convex, smooth with sparse patches or tufts of tiny hairs, brown
Flesh is white and soft
Free, creamy white with faint pinkish hues, close to crowded
4.75cm long, .5cm thick, white, smooth with some dark hairs more so near the base, equal, solid
No distinct smell (although my sinuses were giving me trouble)
Reminds me of Cocoa powder
So, a lighter shade of Brown
Subglobose to globose
Horned Pleurocystidia present
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
|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||0.00||0|
|Could Be||1.0||10.94||2||(Shermanii,Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||38.60||8||(Johann Harnisch,AmatoxinApocalypse,Shermanii,...,...,...,...,...)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I tried “tracing” the spores again and got slightly larger results.
So the previous measurements should be ignored.
I think I’m just going to wait until I get a reticle before I try measuring spores.
I placed the paper’s edge on top of the slide at the same level as the cover slip. The part I drew on, however, was slightly lower and on the stage of the microscope. So the part I drew on was at the slide level.
Did I do this correctly or no?
I used books stacked on top of one another, until level with the stage, to rest my wrist while I “traced” the spores because my hand is not that steady.
But the measurements of the “traced” spores did come out pretty close in range to one another.
To get to 2000x magnification, I used a 100x oil immersion objective and a 20x WF eyepiece.
I will retry this method soon when I have the chance and will post my results to see if the measurements are similar to the first set of results.
It looks a bit too small for any Pluteus I know (and I was almost certain about cervinus here). Did you place the paper at the same level as the slide, not higher?
I’m also wondering – if your best magnification is 80x with the objective, are you then using an extra eyepiece with 25x to get the magnification of 2000x?
I beleive it’s a good choice, but didn’t even know that such strong eyepieces existed until I checked now on the web…
It takes a bit of training, both to see the object and to see where you’re drawing at the same time. But I have checked and compared with the scale several times and always getting equal results.
Okay, I gave your spore measurement method a shot and this is what I came up with:
I “traced” five spores at 2000x magnification (or at least I attempted to, as it was fairly difficult for me to do this.)
Width x Length in centimeters (measured from drawing)
.7 × .8
.6 × .8
.7 × .8
.7 × .9
.6 × .9
Width x Length in micrometres (Width and Length in centimeters were divided by 2000 then converted to micrometres)
3.5 × 4
3 × 4
3.5 × 4
3.5 × 4.5
3 × 4.5
3.3 × 4.2 µm
(I don’t know if measuring only five spores is good enough to get the average spore size or not.)
Please correct me if the math is wrong.
Thanks for the magnification info and the link, Irene!
I you have a camera with high resolution, you might even see small details better in the photos using lower magnification in the microscope, but to see them directly in the microscope, I think you need at least 800×.
Here’s an example that shows clamps in Pluteus pouzarianus:
I’ll give this a try soon.
and I will let you know if I have anymore questions. Thanks!
What I have found helpfull is to take a small thin piece of cap cuticle and place it on the slide adding a drop of KOH or water or a dye or whatever you have to soften it (especially if i tis dried) and then place the cover slip on top and press it down lightly yet firmly at the same time that try to slide it in one direction (be care full not to break the cover slip, I usually press down with one finger being sure of course that the slide is on a flat solid surface, you may want to cover your finger with a cloth to keep from smudging the slide) Have fun! :D
ps. let me know if you have any more questions…
Thank you for your input, Irene.
So, around what magnification would be necessary to view these “clamps”?
You said “The hyphae are not enough separated”…
How would I go about separating them?
The pictures are useful to show the right kind of cap cuticle for this section of Pluteus – a cutis, consisting of long, parallell hyphae lying down.
But the hyphae are not enough separated and magnified to show if they have clamps or not. Those are sometimes very hard to find (bumps with the size about 2 microns beside the septa).
Added photos of the cap cuticle…at least I think so…
I’m not sure if these pictures are helpful or not.
If the photos are no good, please let me know and I’ll remove them.
I’m kinda doing this blindly…I don’t really know what I’m looking for…
Thanks for the compliment!
The habitat on hardwood is a good reason to settle with cervinus :-)
P. pouzarianus I know is supposed to grow on conifers,
And yes I am unusual in that I find Pluteus sp interesting lol
awesome work Matt!
FYI Johannes: Most of us won’t care to dive deeper than this into the Pluteus complex, but if you do, you also have P. pouzarianus and P. subcervinus (with clamps in the cap cuticle).
Recent studies have shown that there are also at least two different lineages of cervinus that hardly are told apart without checking their DNA…
Thanks. I agree that it must be P. cervinus.
And yes, the pleurocystidium with the face is pretty crazy looking!
This was my first time viewing pleurocystidia…very cool!
Check ’em out if you like…
Thanks for all of the input guys. It really helps!
I’ll try to get this one under the scope soon.
they’re really easy to find in a Pluteus, especially a cervinus-like one, the gill surfaces are covered with them, not only the edges, you don’t need super-thin slices or dyes to have a good look at them, actually just putting a gill piece under the cover slip and pressing slightly will do the trick. The problem is that P. cervinus isn’t the only one with bottle-shaped, thick-walled cystidia with apical projections (“horns”) :D So ideally a slice of the cap cuticle would really help, too.
And I agree that the spores look a bit too round for P. cervinus. I’ve just finished microscoping my little Pluteus collection and specimens which I’d identified as P. cervinus had narrower spores (I’ll post some microphotographs soon). As for the color, imho it’s just because this particular spore print is pretty thick!
Anyway, visually your fungus is identical to my notion of P. cervinus, so I agree with the proposed ID so far.
The first things to look for are cystidia on the gills and structure of the cap cuticle.
Spore size and shape is not very useful, at least not to start with.
Pluteus cervinus is one of the species that have thickwalled cystidia with hooks.
there’s still a way to check the size of the spores too :-)
Take a piece of white paper or thin cardboard and place it beside the slide – at the same level as the object, that’s important! Look in the eyepiece with one eye and on the paper with the other. Very soon you will see a projection of the object on the paper. Relax and keep it steady (that’s the part that takes a bit of training), and draw the contours with a pencil.
Divide the size on the paper with the magnification, and there you have it.
Thanks for explaining that, guys.
I’m a real tard when it comes to math, which sucks considering the majority of my family is pretty good at math. My Great Great Grandfather on my mothers side was head of Mathematics at UNC Chapel Hill (Archibald Henderson 1877-1963). A brilliant mathematician…I guess his genes must have skipped right over me! lol!
All I did to get the average Q value was to measure 15 spores, work out the Q of each, add them up then divide by 15.
the quotient is just the ratio of length to width
say a spore is 10mm x 8mm on my screen, the quotient would be 1.25 for that spore
no micron measurement takes place, just relation
Is there a link to a description on how to measure the spores with a ruler on the screen or did you just figure out how to do this on your own?
Ellipsoid to broadly ellipsoid, on average they are broadly ellipsoid, a few are subglobose but are quite small compared to the majority shown and are probably immature.
Thanks for checking into that Michael W.
I was using my field guides spore shape examples to determine what shape the spores were.
I guess I got my shapes wrong.
So these spores are considered broadly elliptic?
Your spores there are broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid, one or two are subglobose but are probably immature.
Even though you don’t have a scale in your micrographs the spores can be measured with a ruler on the screen and a Quotient can be worked out, I measured 15 spores from your second micrograph and the average quotient was 1.21 which suggests that on average the spores are broadly ellipsoid.
The National Audubon Society by Gary Lincoff lists P. Cervinus as having elliptic shaped spores.
So I think I’m willing to say it’s not P. Cervinus…
but hey, I could still be wrong
I could be wrong but…
According to Kuo they are supposed to be elliptic.
Also Dr. O.K. Miller lists the spore color as “salmon to pink” and the shape as “elliptic” in his “North American Mushrooms” field guide.
He lists P. plautus as having “subglobose to globose” spores with a “pinkish brown” print color.
The spores aren’t elliptic….
Doesn’t this rule out P. cervinus?
Also the print color is more on the brown side, not really pink at all…
Check ’em out if you like…
Created: 2010-11-11 23:13:37 0300)
Last modified: 2012-01-16 17:46:51 0300)
Viewed: 900 times, last viewed: 2018-05-09 04:36:24 0300)