Forest Imp

Hello Tony, how's ya doing mate ? I would agree with you that the Oak Poly seems to like very dry wood, but overall, at least from my experience, I would say it seems to prefer a bit of a micro climate especially when growing on detached fallen branches which are hidden by bracken. Certainly this appears to be the favoured substrate in The Thicks part of Staverton although I have recorded OP 12 feet high in standing Oaks in the Thicks (At Windsor, I believe Martyn A has recorded it at 12 meters high - when it can easily be mistaken for Beef Steak fungus) Oak Poly's do not appear to have a very strong attachment to the wood and can easily fall off. They are also very fleshy, so are quite attractive to deer and maybe squirrels, but they can re-grow in the same short season - but not always. If they haven't been eaten or fallen off by the end of the season, they can sometimes mummify and stay attached for maybe another 6 months. I disagree about them growing slowly as their season is very short so they need to come to maturity as quickly as possible but they do have a protective 'layer' over the pore surface which does seem to take quite a long time to break away. I believe they are rare simply because of mans tidiness and only seem to grow on exposed heartwood on Oaks not less than 200 years old. Keep an eye open for the next issue of Field Mycology when a photo should be appearing of an OP growing on an Oak beam inside a castle up in Yorkshire. This was spotted by a young lad of 15 from the Norfolk group - so hopefully a new mycologist in the making. A stick was used to knock it off (slapped wrist - but he needed to find out what it was !) and Martyn at Kew says this is the only record of it being found on wood in the building industry. Neil. PS. In a previous post, were you talking about Lynne's body or Lynne Boddy ! (She's a lovely lass)

I recently bought a new motorcycle and it came with a Datatag system already installed. Hope it is OK to include this link: Datatag ID Limited Motorcycle System Check out the video. It involves having an invisible code (only visible in UV light) etched onto the tank, microdots painted* randomly on the frame and covers and 2 tiny glass transponders inserted into the wiring harness plus tamper-proof labels to stick on. It should be simple enough to use this system on biggish Chainsaws. Regarding my own chainsaws (Stihl's) I used a soldering iron to melt my initials quite plainly on the handle and all other plastic parts, then used black marking ink to make the initials stand out. On the metal parts I used a cold chisel to scratch my initials. Should they get stolen, I plan to discretely check out every chainsaw operator in the neighbourhood in the hope of being able to get close enough to see if any of their gear shows signs of having been tampered with. But having now read this entire thread I can see that getting close enough will not be as simple as I thought, although now 65 years old, I'm sure I can wait for work to stop and then get into a conversation about 'the good old days' and innocently mentioning how equipment is so different now (whilst giving their gear a good look) All operators will be suspicious for different reasons, but if any item looks deffo dodgy then I'd mention it to the police - yes, you're right ... ... I don't have many friends ! But I'm hoping my obvious initials will deter thieves as being too much agro to bother with. *Each paint stroke would probably transfer at least 10 microdots from the bottle to the appliance.

Just a few things to add - Phellinus robustus is now called Fomitiporia robusta, it certainly is rare, and I cannot see how anybody could mistake it for a Ganoderma spp. as this has a white pore surface whilst F.robusta has a yellow pore surface, although it is possible old FB's could be mistaken. I agree with Tony that the recent photo does look like F.robusta, but best not to jump the gun and wait for Kew to confirm. Martyn Ainsworth has done a lot of work at Windsor which has turned out to be a stronghold for this species. In Suffolk, Ted Green suspected he had found this on an ancient Oak in the East of the County, but this has failed to produce any fertile cells for the last 7 years of my checking and I fear will come to nothing. The good news, I found a very young bracket on an ancient Oak last month 10 miles away and Martyn agrees this will almost certainly turn out to be F.robusta - I will be returning later this year to test another tiny sample, but F.robusta seems a tricky bracket to confirm under the microscope as the distinctive setae are rarely present and instead one has to search for 'ventricose cystidioles with elongated slender apices' (cells which look a little like tadpoles) For the record, F.robusta has been found on Arbutus, Aesculus, Castanea, Citrus, Corylus, Cratageus, Eucalyptus, Fagus, Ficus, Fraxineus, Laurus, Ostrya, Pistacea, Platanus, Populus, Robinia, Salix, Syringa, Tamarix and Ulmus ... but prefers Quercus !

I used a soldering iron to melt my initials into all the plastic parts and handle of both my Stihl saws, then went over in black marker pen to stand out more. It will only be a deterrent at the most, but I never leave them lying about when I have a tea break. A determined thief would take no notice though as he knows nobody is going to go directly up to him and challenge him and look over his gear, especially if he's with the so called 'new age travellers'.

I guess T.foliacea on Stereum hirsutum must be quite common where you are Tony, where I live (Suffolk) I count myself lucky to see the more likely Tremella aurantia on S.hirsutum, but the presence of Stereum does not guarantee the presence of Tremella parasitising it. I think what you were trying to say is to be on the look out for T.foliacea when Stereum hirsutum is seen or is known to be, on old Hazel coppice.

I was always under the impression Ash was far superior to Oak, so shouldn't that fetch a higher price ? Or is Ash preferred because it is easier to cut, split and stack ? My former boss wouldn't have anything else, which suited me fine.

I should add Leratiomyces ceres is an alien and was first noticed in the UK in the early 1990's and seems to prefer wood chips, but there looks to be sufficient wood debris in the photo to make Leratiomyces a possibility.

I've a feeling the small red fungi in Rob's post No1225 is Leratiomyces ceres (formerly known as Stropharia aurantiaca) One needs to see the underside to be certain, but in the last photo you can clearly see the stalk is reddish at the base.

I agree, these are brill shots, and I'm envious ! More so, because I use a Canon G10 (G9's replacement - which itself has now been replaced by G11) and also a Nikon D90 with Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 ED VR lens. Obviously you have the patience to familiarise yourself with the camera properly and use its full potential, whereas simpleton me has only read the basic set-up instructions (then I fall asleep ! - old age, sigh) and I just do not have room to take a tripod with me. My D90 body stays attached to the Olympus BX50 microscope most of the time and disgracefully, my highly praised macro lens has become a bit of a white elephant. Note for people planning to buy a high end macro: Be prepared for very small depth of field and the weight of the thing !

Shame you didn't take a sample to dry and send to Lynne Boddy at Cardiff Uni. This would have been the first record of Oak Poly to grow on bark instead of heartwood on an Oak which may not be at least 250 years old. Still, there's always next July.

Nice shot of V.bombycina Tony, but where is the shot of the Oak Polypore ? All I can see is a possible Oxyporus populinus Do you have a good microscope ? If so take a tiny sample and look for plenty of hyphal clamps, on the other hand, if it is still there and looks the same, you will know immediately it cannot be the Oak Poly.

As mentioned earlier, a shot showing the underside is STILL needed. The colour of the gills is most important, also the way they are attached to the stem - a good quality close up is needed for this. For me, this is a type of Cortinarius, a very difficult genera, that even Kew would struggle with. If I am right, then you would need to collect several young specimens as well as mature specimens to better show the early colours before they fade and before any 'cobweb' (known as the 'cortina') disappears. Hope this is of help. By the way, I'm not sure how fungi, complimenting the beauty of a tree, can be considered 'unsightly'. You can confidently tell the owner, if the fungi ARE mycorrhizal with the fir, then the fir is most certainly benefiting from it.

Can you tell me where you have quoted/copied this from ? (I'm well aware of what I have not underlined) Sounds like your authoritative book is due out soon - I look forward to reviewing it.

The Ganoderma could be G.australe or applanatum (the name 'adspersum' is now australe.) Apart from breaking part of the bracket off, the only other way of telling which from what is by measuring the spore length under a scope with a 100x oil imersion objective. The tiny 'parasol' is a species of Mycena, and the white brackets are Trametes gibbosa. Later, these white brackets will develop a green algal growth on the upper surface.

And the unidentified tall Psathyrella in another of Dave's posts (No 82) was P.conopilus.

Just a quick mention whilst Chanterelle's are having another plug, - the 'Chanterelle's' in Dave's post (No 66) are actually False Chanterelle's, as real gills are showing, not 'folds' as in real Chanterelles. Um ....... do you follow that ?

I'm only 60% confident this is M.giganteus, with 40% of me feeling this is a pale, large, Trametes sp. that I've never been able to nail down. If the pores or outer lip do not slowly blacken when bruised, then this ain't no Meripilus. But as Hama points out, the Ganoderma is slowly killing the tree so for this reason alone, it will be wise to fell. Not being a tree 'doctor', I've no idea how many tube layers a Ganoderma must have before it is considered to have done sufficient damage for the tree to come down, but certainly 2 years growth (or 2 layers of pores/tubes) is no reason to panic.

So do all innocent fungi have to suffer this fate at your hands, sorry, feet ? It is fungi and the vital role they play in our ecosystem that keeps you in work.

I.hispidus on Tilia would be very rare as there is only one record on the Fungal Records Database of Britain & Ireland - 'On fallen, dead Tilia trunk, 26/10/2002, Shropshire'. I am currently observing I.hispidus growing on a dead Ulmus stump, and on another Ulmus stump next to it, is Meripilus giganteus - both new hosts for me.

Totally agree with "Collins Complete Guide ...." - easy to read, most up to date with name changes (which are happening all the time), overflowing with info not just on fungi, but slime moulds, some lichens, and yer rusts and smuts. Only small criticism is lack of gill/pore shots, but where vital to an ID they are included. Not quite sure what Hama means when he says "Some of us are trying to get this changed" Are you after a 'Bumper Book' of fungi ? It ain't gonna happen as it would be way out of date by the time it is published. I have been a member of the BMS for quite a while and if you need to keep up to date with the latest changes then I recommend you join or if you already are an associate member, you are not reading thoroughly the excellent articles/papers they produce.

Hi there, Yes definitely some Russula's, but definitely not the Sickener, R.emetica, as I'm sure Hama realises, these only grow with Conifers. There is the possibility they are the Beechwood Sickener, R.nobilis, but other red capped Russula's could be possible. As for "Freckled Dapperling" (yuk - these silly invented names !) or rather Lepiota aspera - hmmmm, it could be anything quite honestly. The first 3 shots are probably all B.edulis, but don't rule out B.aereus. Finally in the last but one shot, those are Hebeloma fungi, but as to which species, you would need a microscope and an up to date authoritative book which does not exist yet.

Hello there, May I 'butt' in please ? This little fellow seems more like Pholiota adiposa than squarosa and this would be a typical place for it to pop out. EDIT: Looking more closely, I must say I'm now unsure (how do insert an embarrassed face !) - the cap doesn't look sticky and those 'squamules' stand too tall, so yes, it must be squarosa.

Hello Everyone, This seem most likely to be old fruitbodies of Clouded Agaric - Clitocybe nebularis. I believe these are mycorrhizal, rather than parasitic.

Hi to Y'all, My first post as a retired occasional Arbi. I agree with Hama' but I'd go further and say Hypholoma lateritium, although the caps are not showing the 'brick red' colour too well.