Observation 82640: Laccaria laccata group
When: 2011-11-11
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Under White Pine. Basal fuzz consistently white. gill attachment has been variable among recent collections of Laccaria. Also, gill color has ranged from almost white to the fleshy/pinkish color seen in this collection.

Proposed Names

76% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Made another collection.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-11-20 12:36:52 EST (-0500)

I think the micro photos found in the linked obs show a couple cystidia.

http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/show_observation/82845

Okay.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-11-16 08:01:26 EST (-0500)

Actually, I have successfully done this once or twice. I’ll see if there’s any more of the Laccaria fruiting.

I know the scope sucks. But sometimes I still get some good info by using it.

Laccaria laccata
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-15 23:09:03 EST (-0500)

No I meant a 100x oil immersion objective, which gives 1000 or 1600x magnification when coupled with a 10 or 16x eyepiece.

It just seems to me that you scope enough interesting collections that you shouldn’t be wasting your time with a toy microscope. You always post great observations and I want to see the microscopic features but your micrographs don’t usually answer the questions I have.

Cheilocystidia is pretty easy to see in 400x, they are much larger than spores. You can carefully cut out one gill and lay it flat on a slide. The edge that was facing down will be full of cheilocystidia and you can get good pictures of the upper 2/3rds of them that way.

The reason I have ruled out bicolor
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2011-11-15 21:43:07 EST (-0500)

is that the basal mycelium on the type seen here is consistently white, as opposed to lavender. I get to see quite a few of these, as they routinely grow along a path on my property. I’m not sure that a better scope would even allow one to differentiate between bicolor and laccata, as the spore sizes are similar, as well as the length of spines on the spores. (Do you mean 1000x, Alan?)

I posted the spore pic to see if the spines may be seen when using the zoom in feature. Actually, there’s at least one spore for which I believe I can see the spines. When I factor in that my old scope micrometer underestimates by about 15% at 400x (max mag), then I estimate these spors to be in the 6.5-8 length range, with r about 1.

No, I did not look for cheilocystidia… don’t know the procedure. If there’s a way to do so with my junky old 400x scope, then maybe I’ll try in the future. We’ve got a minor warmup going on; so there may be yet another fruiting.

You are going to need a scope with a 100x oil immersion objective
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-11-15 21:16:09 EST (-0500)

How large are the spores? Does it have cheilocystidia?

Maybe something around L. bicolor…

Created: 2011-11-15 20:58:45 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2011-11-20 13:18:14 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 76 times, last viewed: 2016-03-31 09:40:11 EDT (-0400)
Show Log