My activity
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Stipe surface - enlarged":
@Malcolm Storey: I did look at the full set of bioimages and based on that info I don't know for sure that it is or isn't Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. That's why I marked it as "incorrect/misleading" not "misidentified". I recognized that Retiboletus ornatipes has not been recorded in the UK and I'm not suggesting that would be a better id. Given the state of the Boletaceae in general right now, I prefer to take a very conservative approach to applying names. I would be very interested to see where a sequence from this specimen lands in a phylogenetic tree.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Fruitbody - in situ - top view":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The pileus color in this shot is atypical. Looks more like Retiboletus ornatipes.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Cap surface - enlarged":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The pileus color in this shot is atypical. Looks more like Retiboletus ornatipes.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Pores":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The pores in this shot are atypical.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Fruitbody - LS":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The pores in this shot are atypical.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Pores - enlarged":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The pores in this shot are atypical.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Stipe surface - enlarged":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The ornamentation on stipe in this shot are atypical. Looks more like Retiboletus ornatipes, but the stipes isn't quite ornamented enough for that species.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Fruitbody - side view":
This does not seem typical of Xerocomus (=Boletus) subtomentosus. The ornamentation on stipe and the pores in this shot are atypical. Looks more like Retiboletus ornatipes, but the stipes isn't quite ornamented enough for that species.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Image of Coprinopsis atramentaria":
Given the size and the color this seems more likely to be Coprinellus micaceus or a close relative.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Image of Coprinopsis atramentaria":
Given the size and the color this seems more likely to be Coprinellus micaceus or a close relative.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Image of Psilocybe coprophila":
This looks like a _Coprinopsis_ or a _Parasola_, not a _Psilocybe_. Also the habitat is wrong for _P. coprophila_.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on an older version of Mycena sp. (aff. M. leaiana):
Might be a relative of M. leaiana, but I very much doubt it is that species due to the color and the locality.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on an older version of n490_w1150:
Presumably the name Amanita phalloides is being applied to the illustration in the upper left corner. However, the distinctly bulbous base and the patchy veil material on the cap are not consistent with this identification.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on an older version of Biology:
This is not a brief summary for this organism.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Coprinellus micaceus":
Based on additional discussion and photos on iSpot, C. micaceus is reasonable.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Coprinellus micaceus":
Based on additional discussion and photos on iSpot, C. micaceus is reasonable.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Coprinellus micaceus":
Based on additional discussion and photos on iSpot, C. micaceus is reasonable.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on "Coprinellus micaceus":
@Donald Hobern: Hi Donald, Given the new images on the iSpot observation it is definitely a Coprinellus. I forget the technical terms, but Coprinopsis essentially has stringy stuff on the cap and Coprinellus has powdery stuff. Unusually large size of the fruiting body happens fairly often so I wouldn't get hung up on that. Coprinellus micaceus is plausible, but personally I'd leave it at Coprinellus since C. micaceus can be cryptic with C. truncorum (and probably some other species). The difference between those two species is supposed to be presence of caulocystidia which appear to be present supporting C. micaceus, but see http://www.mushroomexpert.com/coprinellus_micaceus.html for more discussion including some references to genetic analysis.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on an older version of Coprinopsis atramentaria:
The gills in this image are not densely packed enough for C. atramentaria. I'm not sure what to propose as an alternative name. It seems likely that it isn't even a Coprinopsis, but rather a Coprinellus or even some sort of Psathyrella.
-
Nathan Wilson commented on an older version of Coprinopsis atramentaria:
This is a very unusual color for C. atramentaria (normally it has more gray). It's also more 'gregarious' rather than truly 'clustered'. The striations on the caps also seem unusual. Finally the gills in the related image are not densely packed enough. I'm not sure what to propose as an alternative name. It seems likely that it isn't even a Coprinopsis, but rather a Coprinellus or even some sort of Psathyrella.
