Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Location
    Outaouais/Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3,540 profile views

Calvert's Achievements

Morchella Senior Member

Morchella Senior Member (3/5)

  1. They're Leucoagaricus leucothites, aka White Dapperling. Keep in mind that while they're edible, they're very similar to the white deadly Amanitas, and definitely aren't recommended for eating. Also, you should be 100% of your ID before consuming a wild mushrooms, and you weren't 100% if you're asking here. I'm just mentioning this in case you look them up and read that they are edible (but without the precaution mentioned).
  2. I agree that they don't look like M. oreades. The gills aren't enough well spaced and they lack the umbonate cap. I'm always hesitant to offer suggestions for Florida, as the fungal flora there is so different than what I'm familiar with.
  3. I've always been curious to eat them. I don't mind a little bit of bitter, and enjoy tonic water and arugula for example. But these are way too bitter! I wonder if cooking them lessens the bitter taste.
  4. The gleba of C. cyathifrormis would be purplish at this stage of maturity. Compare it instead to Calvatia craniiformis, which has a yellowish/olive, to brownish gleba when mature. Also, C. cyathiformis doesn't seem to be ever this small, while the range of sizes for C. craniiformis includes smaller fruiting bodies like the one you found. Although it's on the extreme small end of it's range. I wonder if there are any other small species that this could be?
  5. I don't think so. C. torvus is distinguished by a partial veil that is borderline membraneous (rather than web-like as most Corts are). The specimen pictured seems to have a cortina that is very web-like, judging from the remnants on the stipe (edit: this means "stem") and the cap margin. Also, C. torvus is supposed to have very well spaced gills, which doesn't quite match. Another feature of C. torvus that you might check is the flesh is supposed to be whitish, but marbled with violet at the top of the stem. Do a cross section and check. There are a LOT of species in Cortinarius. I rarely try to ID them unless they appear unique in some way (which I always discover is actually not that unique after all, because there are just so damn many species), or unless I have a lot of time on my hands.
  6. I've eaten it once, and don't have fond memories. Interestingly, it's listed as non edible on mycoquebec.org. Perhaps it's just a case of it being such a poor edible that they don't recommend it? I'm not sure, as they don't expound on it in the comments.
  7. Regarding the initial question, I've never used the "identification apps". Although I did download a few to test last winter (Shroomify Mushroom ID, INaturalist), I kind of forgot about testing them until now. Perhaps I'll try next time I'm out. I agree with the others that they'll probably work well with easy to ID species. The one app I do use a lot is La Fonge, which was made by Champignons de Quebec (mycoquebec.org). However it isn't an identifier app where you snap a picture and it IDs it. It's more like a field guide app where you can look up the descriptions. It's only useful if you already have a good idea of what it is, say a Pholiota, and want to determine exactly which Pholiota it is. They have 2800 species, so not quite as many as the website. I'm also terrible at remembering names, so it's handy for looking up a latin name quickly. My only criticism with it is that you can't zoom into the photos (which likely aren't good enough resolution to zoom into anyways). However, it's in French, which would be a problem for many people. However, like with the website, you can select sections and open it up in Google translate. A bit cumbersome. Luckily I do read French, but there's still often words I don't know (I learned the language as an adult). I just got the app last year (it was $20), but it has proved very useful having a comprehensive list of descriptions on my phone with me in the field.
  8. Interesting. I can identify most conifer species by the bark (to the genus), but have a terrible time with hardwoods. I worked as a forestry technician but that was in the north where most deciduous species were absent. So yeah, come to think of it, I was able to recognize the common species (Spruce, Fir, Pine, Birch, Aspen, Alder, Cherry) by the bark during that time. But now that I live more south with more diversity, it's much harder. Ash are pretty easy to recognize, and Beech too of course, but I constantly have a problem differentiating between maple and oak until I look at the leaves.
  9. I disagree about the Audubon. The descriptions are excellent. However, the pictures are ass and it's horribly organised. The only reason it continues to be so popular, despite so many better and more up-to-date guides, is ...I don't know why. Probably some deal that meant it was in every book store. Collusion between the bookstores and the publishers. I did like the waterproof cover. That was great. But it's hard to work with (and I realize this was mostly out of the authors control). The index was messed up, and rather than giving the page number, it gave the "species number". (The descriptions were numbered chronology). And it had a visual key based on shapes that wasn't great either (although perhaps a little more friendly towards a new user compared to a dichotomous key). It's a disservice to the field that such a terrible guide was the most common one for so many years (and still might be). Plus, it was published in 86 or something? There's been a litany of better field guides published since then! As you can see, this is a sore point with me . Haha. Don't get me started about inventing common names for every species (another thing that publishers forced Lincoff to do).
  10. One of the few Boletes that isn't mycorrhizal. It's pretty interesting that it's formed a symbiotic relationship but also involved an animal in the mix, where mycorrhizal relationships are normally just between plant and fungi. And you get a mutualistic relationship between fungi and animal, combined with a parasitic relationship between the animal and plant. They might have the most gorgeous pores among all the Boletes as well.
  11. My immediate thought went to Laccaria as well. I'm a complete newbie when it comes to microscopy. I'd be very curious to know what it is if you manage to ID it, Bobby B!
  12. Identifying a tree by its bark is like identifying an Amanita with only a picture of the cap.
  13. Yeah, it's a Tyromyces. I have a hard enough time time trying to distinguish them in real life, that I hesitate to do so based on a photo. Edit: but Dave's guess is a good one.
  14. Whoops. I think you messed up while writing or possibly editing your comment. It comes across like you're saying that Angel Wings are Pleurotus. I know that you know the difference, and you even stated as much earlier in your post.
  15. Yes, they're Marasmius rotula. They're very unique because they have a little "flange" around the stem that the gills are attached to, rather than attaching to the stem itself.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.