Notes: This species is larger in size. Found near observation 97958.
Images
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 12.14 | 2 | (Alan Rockefeller,jason) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.92 | 30.80% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 12.14 | 2 | (Alan Rockefeller,jason) | |||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
2.77 | 92.39% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
The working distance of my 10x objective is 3/4ths of an inch, which is enough to let plenty of light in. It doesn’t make much difference how far the objective is from the eyepiece. They are lined up vertically, but not too precisely. Try more objectives and more eyepieces. I got some cheap ones off ebay for this purpose. The objective I am using is a Boreal 720/80 10x / .025. Doesn’t appear to be a common one, but many 10x objectives work. There are some good looking 10x objectives on ebay for $10.
I am using a WF10X eyepiece.
I’m not getting this to work at all. It shouldn’t make a difference how far apart the objective and eyepiece are, right? Maybe they have to be precisely lined-up vertically? I have trouble with shadowing even with a 20x handlens. I’m amazed you can gather enough light with 100x to see anything. I’m impressed.
100x is just about the limit of what you can have in a handheld device. I have made them with 20x and 40x objectives, but they aren’t very usable because the working distance is so small that you cast a shadow on the object unless you hold it in the sun at just the right angle. I have included a picture of it. It’s a great thing, everyone should have one. To try it out just remove the 10x objective from your scope and the eyepiece and hold them together.
I also added a pic of the branched confluent rhizines.
Do you mount this contraption on a stand or something? Can you possibly hold your hands still enough to use 100x optics without mounting it somehow??
But thanks for checking the tomentum. I think we have a positive ID. Superb. I’ve always wanted to see this species. :)
The upper surface is completely smooth – I just checked with a homemade 100x hand lens. (a 10x objective taped to a 10x eyepiece)
It definitely has richly branched confluent rhizines.
Especially check near the tips of growing lobes. It’s hard to tell from photo when it’s wet. If not, I’d suggest P. austroamericana. It is supposed to have veins like this (unlike all the other hairless Peltigera). It is also supposed to have richly branched confluent rhizines.
Created: 2012-06-22 12:34:31 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2012-06-22 21:03:29 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 58 times, last viewed: 2016-05-17 06:23:21 CEST (+0200)
Show Log
Okay, my microscope has like a 1 mm working distance! :) Yeah, I think I might need to try buying another objective and maybe eyepiece.