Multiple Id - Forest Delittering

[Weajiin]

I do not know if it is okay to ask for multiple ids in one post. I went on a walk and sometimes I really wish I could just have a guide with me to walk me through it.

I live in northwest Indiana, we have just had two decent rainstorms in the last week. The temperature is about 65 degress.

I know there is a lot here, I guess I just want a basic overview of what i've found, not looking for accuracy to the species just a nutshell.

Here are the different that I will seperate based on the picture numbers.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5VXpPSW8occdWpkM2lmbEs0Rlk&usp=sharing

48-54 LBM 1

55-60 Bolete

62-69 + 75 Shagnum Moss Galerina?

72-74 Turkey-tail?

78-82

83-84 Silver Parchment?

85-88 LBM 2

89-91

96-00

[Dave W]

I'll number the photos according to the order in which they appear in the attachment. The gilled mushrooms are all Entolomas. Not sure about species names. Often, the early springtime Entolomas are classified under the name Entoloma vernum. But it is suspected there are several species lumped under this heading. The first three pics --small gilled mushroom-- may be a different species than the others. But I'm fairly certain of the genus Entoloma.

No Galerinas here. The Sphagnum Moss Galerinas (several difficult to distinguish species) are very small fragile mushrooms, usually with lined cap margins. Spore prints for Galerinas are almost all rusty brown. The Entolomas seen here will have deep salmon-pink spore prints. The small moss-inhabiting Galerinas usually appear a few weeks after morel season has finished.

Photos:

1-3 Entoloma

4-7 an old polypore --with the thin stalk-- is probably a Polyporus brumalis that fruited last fall and persisted through the winter.

8-12 Entoloma

13-15 old white polypore. Probably a species of Trametes.

16 Entoloma

17 (18, 19 same?) Looks like Lenzites betulina, the Gilled Polypore. Old specimens.

20, 21 maybe Trametes? Maybe Stereum? Easier to ID when younger. Need to see the undersides.

22-25 Entoloma

26-28 Lenzites betulina

29-32 old puffball. Lycoperdon? Bovista? Calvatia? Tough to tell in this state.

[Weajiin]

Thank you very much, I look forward to your replies. I must ask how you've become so well versed in the fungi, have you studied them for a very long time as a hobby or an academic?

[Dave W]

I'm an amateur. But I have collected and studied wild mushrooms to varying degrees for the past 30 years. After having used multiple field guides for over 20 years, my identification knowledge had plateaued. Also, there wasn't a mushroom club in my area; I was relying mainly on my own interpretations of information from the guides. So along with the knowledge I had accumulated, there were also some misconceptions. After I started using internet sources--mushroom indexes, discussion boards-- and a digital camera about 8 years ago, the learning curve turned back upward for me.

I use a microscope --400X magnification-- to look at spores, cystidia, and occasionally I try to examine other micro traits. I take spore prints, even with material that I feel I already know how to ID. I use chemicals like KOH, ammonia, and FeSO4. I wish I could get my hands on soem Meltzer's!

Most importantly, every chance I get I'm out in the woods making observations and collections to examine back at home.

This is a fascinating hobby at many different levels. There's a lifetime of stuff to learn.

[Weajiin]

Which microscope do you use, I'm really interested in seeing the nitty gritty. Also which field guide, I have the National Audobon Society and I don't know if i like it

[Dave W]

Audubon field guide documents lots of species, but it's not easy for a beginner to use. Mushrooms are grouped according to physical features, and attempts are made to put photos of look-alikes near each other. The photos are grouped this way, but the descriptions are arranged according to genus. So one tends to do a lot of flipping through the pages. Variability in observable macro-traits is where the difficulty comes in. A mushroom representing a species that generally has a ring on the stalk may lose its ring. Gills that start out attached to a stalk may pull away and appear to be free of the stalk. So it's easy to end up searching through a section of this guide that does not apply to your mushroom at hand.

A problem with recommending a field guide is matching up with a person's level of existing knowledge.

Here in Pennsylvania I encourage a beginner to get a copy of Bill Russell's "Wild Mushrooms of Pennsylvania." I imagine there are similar beginner's guides that apply to Midwestern areas.

For someone who lives east of the Rockies (but not in the deep south on North America) and is a bit more advanced than a beginner, I recommend William Roody's "Mushrooms of West Virginia and the Appalachian Region."

For an advanced amateur "Mushrooms of Northeastern North America" by Bessette, Bessette, Fischer is useful because it documents lots of species. Mushrooms are grouped by genus. "Mushrooms of North America" by Orson K. Miller is good. "Mushrooms of North America" by Roger Phillips is also recommended.

Despite my previous comments about the Audubon guide, I think this is an indispensable source for the serious amateur. Anyone who is learning the various types of mushrooms should use several different field guides, and do a lot of cross-referencing. Perhaps when one is first learning, Audubon seems difficult. But if you think you are on the right track with a given collection then Audubon can often help you get closer to the truth.

I don't do much reading while in the field. I put separate collections into separate bags and include some quick notes about habitat or anything else that seems useful. The ID work is done at home. My favorite online sources are MushroomExpert.Com, Rogers Mushrooms, Mushroom Observer, and although I do not speak French, Champignons du Quebec is an excellent source because it well-documents so many different species. Online French-to-English translation website often fails to convert the technical words accurately. So one needs to have a good working knowledge in order to understand the English-translated text.

Finally, the Latin names of mushrooms are currently in a state of rapid flux. Many North American species have been re-named because molecular evidence says the old European names do not apply. Also, genera are being split into smaller groupings. For instance, many mushrooms formerly placed into genus Lepiota (in the field guides) are now placed into other genera... Marcolepiota, Chlorophyyum, Leucoagaricus, Leucocoprinus. If you're really serious about IDing a mushroom according to it's current classification, then Index Fungorum may be used to match old names (synonyms) with current names. Search by genus. Link provided directly below.

http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Names/fundic.asp?RecordID=Fungi&Type=K

I use an AmScope microscope. It's okay at the 400x mag level, but the illumination (light bulb) is not really sufficient to view most material at 1000x. I anticipate an eventual upgrade. I think it's best to first learn at the 400x level using a relatively simple scope.