Clustered Cherry

[rbenn]

Just found these today near the stump of a wild black cherry. Remind me of a honey.

 

 

[Dave W]

I *think* I see some of the little scales on the cap like what I'd expect to see with most species of Armillaria. Resolution fades as the photo is enlarged, so I'm not certain of this. 

Maybe Armillaria mushrooms that froze in-situ? If so, then some aspects will have been altered. So, I'm not confident about this ID proposal. If you can get a spore print form these, that would be helpful. 

[rbenn]

Spore print is white.

Spore size 4.5-5.2 x 6.6-8 micron.

Yes, there appears to be yellow scales on the top.

Everything seems to be pointing to Armillaria ... But which one im not sure of.. Maybe gallica or calvescens.

[Dave W]

Armillaria gallica makes sense to me. Champignons du Quebec mentions the "prominent hilar appendage" (apiculus) on a given spore (as seen here in the photo). ME says A. calvescens is nearly identical. As mentioned previously, these look like they've persisted through some cold/wet weather. Some sources advise against eating Armillaria mushrooms that have been subjected to frost. 

It appears that the software connected to your scope gives spore dimensions by estimating the perimeter as an ellipse (excluding the apiculi) and then measuring the length and width of the ellipse. This is reasonable when the spores are very close to ellipsoid. But when a spore perimeter deviates from elliptic, then this can be misleading. I have seen an application where two circles are used, one for which the diameter estimates the length and another the width; like what is seen in the photo of my drawing (the red figures are supposed to be circles). 

.    

[rbenn]

I think I see what you're saying. The spore width on a curved spore would be misleading. If the spore is perfectly symmetrical then this method would be accurate. I don't have a great understanding of the measurement methods as this isn't really documented in any sources I've read.

 

I can also use two lines to estimate the width and length as well.  It can be a little difficult to make sure the lines are exactly perpendicular though or through the shortest distance. Some spore shapes can be especially difficult to measure.

 

Surprising these have held up so well in our weather. I'm not going to bother with eating them. Honeys are a little rubbery for me anyways. 

[Dave W]

I have seen online illustrations generated by software that produces the "two line" rendition of L and W. I don't use a scope that makes such stuff possible.

Here's what I do. I mount a spore sample (preferably from a drop) in one of KOH (pigmented spores), Congo red (inamyloid pale spores from a basidiomycete), Melzers (amyloid or dextrinoid spores), cotton blue (spores from an ascomycete). I use my old monocular scope to get a photo of spores. There's sometimes a fair amount of difficulty getting the camera to focus. I go back and forth between two different macro settings. I may turn the camera off to let it reset. Sometimes I get lucky and get a real nice photo on the first attempt. But, usually it takes 5-10 shots before I have one that is acceptable. Also --especially if I don't see more than 10 spores in a photo-- I'll move the stage and find another group of spores to photograph. I put my photos onto my laptop and save/label the ones that are useful. I enlarge a photo to where an edge on one of the two paper polygons matches the dimension I wish to assess. Then I hold the edge against the ruler (400x so one unit = 2.5 microns). I don't claim this method produces highly accurate measurements. But, when assessing spores from mushrooms of which I am certain of the ID, my results have consistently compared favorably to what is seen in sources. It should be mentioned that spore dimensions reported in different sources are often identical, presumably because any given author is apt to copy what the author of the species recorded. So, small variations from the record are not unlikely. Spore dimensions seen on Mushroom Expert are frequently a little different than what is seen on other sources. Apparently, Michael Kuo has recorded his own measurements (in at least many instances). I round my estimates to the nearest 0.5 micron. The photos below show the sequence of events leading to the length of a spore dropped by an Amanita rooseveltensis mushroom being recorded as ~12.5 microns. These inamyloid spores were mounted in Congo red. My old scope does not pick up the red color very well, but it does show darkening. 

[rbenn]

This is similar to how I was measuring mine before I got a microscope camera. I highly recommend one as it works very well in my opinion. 

When you say you mount your spore sample, preferably from a drop, what do you mean?

I also only mount in KOH normally. What benefits do you see using the other mounting agents (besides melzers)?

[Dave W]

"From a drop" means the spores that are scoped dropped out of the mushroom; ie. from a spore print. The advantages are... no clutter to sort through (gill material etc.); the spores that drop are mature. A disadvantage is sometimes on account of the print being very thick. An overabundance of spores can clog the view. Also the spores may set up "flows" in the mounting liquid, ie. they move through the liquid as if in a river. 

I use stains like Congo red for white or very pale spores. Sometimes white spores --especially ones that are hyaline (nearly transparent)-- are difficult to see when mounted in KOH or H2O. 

[rbenn]

Okay, that makes sense. I always spore drop directly onto the slide with good success.  I also feel it makes color identification easier as you can compare with different backgrounds.

I have some congo red but haven't used it yet due to it's cancerous peoperties. But I have had some hard to see spores which makes sense to try congo on.  Thanks for sharing your insights!