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 | 4.28 | 1 | ||||||
| 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) |
2.43 | 81.06% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
The overall colors and stature really look remind one of R. violeipes, per Irene’s suggestion. All my Russula sources agree — this is a peculiar species.
Disclaimer: I have never collected, nor inspected R. violeipes, so this opinion is based on comparing picures only and is limited.
Vesna, with Russula please pay attentiton to the odor and taste, just as a beginning… Then there are 10 other things you can do to help the id effort.
For sure these two collection represent different species and ought to be split.
D.
Vesna, in the very similar habitat in Bulgaria, Russula foetens is the most common species. Distinct sweetish to unpleasant odor and very hot!! Here is a link to my collections:
http://mushroomhobby.com/Gallery/Russula/index.htm#Russula_foetens
Russula laurocerasi is a name that is frequently speculated with, but I can only accept that name after seeing a good spore shot — the spores there are rather strongly and uniquely ornamented.
Lijep ti dan želim!
D.
I beleive the first picture shows Russula violeipes.
The second might be R. laurocerasi (grata), but without knowing what the smell is like, it’s hard to tell for sure..
Created: 2008-06-27 04:12:15 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2008-06-27 04:12:15 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 74 times, last viewed: 2018-08-14 01:58:39 PDT (-0700)
This one did not have any bad smell.