David Humphries

Mmmmm, that's interesting. My understanding is that it is the other way around. Schwarze & Ferner state that "In the older parts of the fruit body, the pores (which I take as meaning the base of the tubes) of G. applanatum become filled with white mycelium, whereas those of G. adspersum (australe) remain empty" Any idea where your mycologist got their information from ? The below images are what I perceive (without microscopy) top be G. applanatum. the white bits in the tubes may be mycelium. .

Very nice work Adam, thanks for sharing and resurrecting the thread. I understand this wasn't your job/spec, but I'm curious as to why you don't know the reason for it being undertaken? Maybe I read your comment wrong? Aesthetics fair enough, but sructural issues you'd want to be aware of, no? .

We recently had the opportunity to have a closer 'look' at some of the microscopic distinquishing features between these two very similar species. Visually......... both have similar looking perennial fruitbodies. both have similar sized circular pores (although G. applanatum have average slightly more pores(4-6 per mm) as opposed to G, australe which are spaced at about 3-4 per mm They both have brown(ish) spore. They both share similar but not exclusive hosts. Tilia, Quercus, Aesculus given as shared host species. (Schwarze & Ferner) Anecdotaly, the presence of the galls from Agathomyia wankowici (yellow flat footed fly) on the underside of a bracket, is often given in (various) text as a nod toward G. applanatum although I've been told that these have been noted on G. australe also The ability to indent the upper surface (due to it being thinner) is given as a feature of G. applanatum. Thinner edged rim is noted for G. applanatum A decurrent attachment is given as indicating G. australe. When looking at a slice of a bracket G. applanatum can show distinct show bands of trama (flesh) between the layers of tubes. The above are not necessarily proof of one species from the other, however microscopically they can be seperated. The spores are larger on average with G. australe being 8.5-10(-12) x 5-7.5 µm; as opposed to the size range being 6-8.5 x 4.5-6 µm for G. applanatum. Having looked at lots of Ganoderma brackets in the field I felt the bracket in the following shot was likely to be G. applanatum based on its macroscopic features (from what I've read in Schwarze, Lonsdale, Keizer, Ryvarden & Gilbertson) interestingly it turned out so, confirmed by microscopy conducted by a local friend & field mycologist (Andy Overall). So if in doubt or keen to be sure on an identification, try and get scientific advice where you can as it is out there and available. .

You sir, should let others have a go first .

What are your thoughts.......... .

Have completed also. I think the FC coming on here offering up this interaction is a good start in getting the message out further across the industry. .

Good to read that you're making progress Andy. .

I believe it already is Jules .

Looks well layed out and comprehensive, thanks for sharing Paul. .

For me it depends on whether we are sampling the roots/lower buttresses or the basal section of the trunk. The height varies whilst undertaking trunk readings depending on the height of fruiting and/or exposed heart wood. Setting a tomograph up off the ground is such a faff ! of course it also varies depending on what your probing .

Alright Nick, hows life in TO world now that you've semi retired the harness? yes, these were the two chestnuts that you climb inspected about a year ago. We carried out a drill at all 4 cardinal points at the base of each tree. The one with the Rigidoporous read ok (in terms of residual wall strength) as seen in the first reading in the previous post. The one with the decayed buttress was fairly alarming where we drilled it through the dysfunctional section as expected, but that was literally just that one buttress and by sounding the tree appears to be compartmentalising this dysfunction. The other three readings on that tree were fine. Having had you prod it when you were up there and Michal having a good look whilst reducing it, we didn't feel that it required drilling anywhere else. .

here are the readings taken at 50cm height from where the resistograph is sited in the two images above Guy. .

After carrying out sounding and Resistograph tests we're comfortable with their ongoing management. Both have received further 2m reductions across their canopies to reduce sail whilst maintaining significant amounts of buds. .

Not sure if these two chestnuts have been posted in this thread before or not. The one on the left has Rigidoporus ulmarius and the one on the right has a significant buttress dysfunction with associated decay. They both received heavy canopy damaged during the '87 & '91 storms. They've been previously worked/reduced three times to my knowledge, at the time of the storms and again in about '02 and '10. .

Surprising lack of any fermenting odour Guy This is bacteria interacting with the sap flow and eco plugs that we inserted in this sycamore I'd o thunk .

Urban monolith creation. part vandalism part art .

it looks about the right size for a Rhea or Ostrich egg. Any zoos or large estates in the local area? .

Here's my old man on his AJS 650 back in 1957. .

Hello Canal, apologies for the tardy reply, I'm guessing your question is aimed at everybody rather than just us? From our perspective your point has got us to look at the component parts of the system and whether they are fit for purpose. Now that potential opens a large can of loler wigglies. The lines of useage of equipment should not be blurred but a little common sense, experience & regular kit inspection could be applied in my opinion. In our set up, were we to utilise the system again we would employ a second line as a back up as suggested earlier in the thread. We will also only use the Hobbs as a tensioner instead of a base anchor. .

Sean has asked me to convey his deep gratitude to everybody for their kind words which is helping him keep a positive frame of mind in the circumstances. It's still very early days, when he can he will come back on and give us an update on his progress and prognosis. .

I would think it's a Phellinus species. Without additional info on flesh and tubes I can't be very specific. Perhaps Phellinus pomaceus. Have a look at the gallery in the directory .

Fairly sure it's not, as its in a fenced garden where the owners have a doberman. .

What are they on? .

Slime flux on sycamore. Different yeasts bubbling and oozing away. .

Looks like Coriolous versicolor .