Observation 31363: Arachnopeziza Fuckel

When: 2010-01-02

Collection location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [Click for map]

Who: Jonathan M

No specimen available

grow’t indoor on wood

very small around 0,2-0,3 mm.

Species Lists



Proposed Names

-9% (2)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
26% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Jonathan M
2010-01-03 06:44:15 PST (-0800)

The date is real
In late falls I go search wood in forest and put it in a box and humidify it a bit. after time some asco , basidio or myxo may grows!

I don’t understand the rest of the comment?

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2010-01-02 19:01:47 PST (-0800)

I doubt this was really observed in Algonquin Park in January. My guess based on your other recent Algonquin posts would be late September 2000, but I’d like confirmation of that.

Thanks for the info! very appreciated!
By: Jonathan M
2010-01-02 15:36:21 PST (-0800)

So these are way to small for a beginner (0,2-0,3MM).

By: Andreas Gminder (mollisia)
2010-01-02 14:53:05 PST (-0800)

not easy with those small ones. best would be, to make a median section. I don’t know how small they are, but with apothecia of appr. 1mm it is fairly easy, especially when you can work under a binocular. If that doesnt work, just take one complete half of an apothecium (or just one if they are even too small to cut in half), mount it in a drop of tap water and put on the cover-glas WITHOUT pressure. Then watch in 10x and then in 40x magnification. You will usually see areas where much air is. That is usually the margin, because in the protruding hairs air bubbles were captured. May be you can already now see what the hairs look like. If not, go back to the 10x objective and put a little pressure on the cover-slip (with a blunt disecting needle e.g.). Best is, when you watch at the same time through the microscope while you are pressing, so that you can see when it is enough and were the different parts of the apothecium are floating to. Then you should see how the hairs look like. This is very important for determination of the genus. Afterwards you need a lot of other details, as spore size, spore content (are there oil drops in and if so how many?), ascus size, ascus pore reaction with Lugols solution, ascus base (with croziers or without), shape and size of the parapyses, content of the paraphyses. All this can be done in simple squash mount. But the hairs are often not seen in squash mount when they are not very conspiciouse. Sometimes it is not easy to see differences between paraphyses and hairs. So for the hairs it is important to be sure that they are what they should be and this is best made with a section of the apothecium.
If you have a digicam you can try to make a picture through the eye piece of the microscope. Often this gives fiarly good pictures.

By: Jonathan M
2010-01-02 14:05:42 PST (-0800)

I have a microscope now but I don’t know what exactly and where I will find important thing on that small peziza.

no Mollisia
By: Andreas Gminder (mollisia)
2010-01-02 13:43:55 PST (-0800)

too white for a Mollisia, which should have a brown ectale Excipulum. Also the prutrudings look like real hairs, which are (usually) not present in Mollisia. It think this is a Hyaloscyphaceae, but without microscopical data it is no chance to say even a genus only.

Created: 2010-01-02 13:33:13 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2010-01-02 13:33:13 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 152 times, last viewed: 2018-07-28 22:36:11 PDT (-0700)
Show Log