Some Mushrooms That Need ID'ing

[Geoff Dann]

Hi Kai

Geoff, i'm impressed by the credentials mate, but i have to say i agree with Martin on this one. I'm perfectly willing to trust your word that you are who you say you are, and that you have the expertiese needed to get the job done right. This however isnt the issue. The issue is that this is, like it or not, the internet. Just like i dont automatically trust the information on an archaeological dig that i find on the internet, even if it is correct. I'm no fungi expert, but as far as i know there are one hell of a lot of variables involved in identifying them, and as i said, its not that i dont trust your knowledge, but EVERYONE should always seek the opinion of an expert in person, with the sample.

That is sound general advice. A great many fungi can only be reliably identified in the flesh. An obvious example of this came up a couple of days ago with some possible wood blewits. This species looks a lot like several cortinarius species of unknown/suspect edibility and the only way I can ever be really certain with this species is to smell them. On the other hand, there are quite a few fungi that can be reliably/safely identified from a photo.

It may sound needlessly complex, but last year in canberra some university students foraged some mushrooms then asked for advice on the forum that the uni has set up for students specifically studying fungi. The pictures were good, but they still misidentified and sent 2 students to the hospital.

Sorry, but either the pictures weren't good enough, or the species (like a wood blewit) is too tricky to depend on such an ID, or the person doing the identification wasn't good enough. You don't just have to know the mushrooms you are identifying - you also need to know everything poisonous/unknown that they could conceivably be mixed up with.

When they examined the actual specimines, they found them to be a toxic variety. The pictures they had examined previously were taken with a very expensive digital SLR, and yet there were still issues.

I guess what i'm saying is that everyone, including the experts, should be VERY careful about identifying edible plants and fungi from pictures on the internet. Its probably not worth it to make a small mistake, which we are all capable of making

Yes, VERY careful.

My advice is most certainly to get some experience by going out with an expert. The existence of the internet makes things easier than they were for me when I was starting, 25 years ago, but they are no substitute for "real life" experience.

Geoff

[KaiTheIronHound]

Well, the ID was done by a PHD student studying local varieties of edible mushroom. Unfortunately the inedible one looked, with a lot of the identifying features destroyed by rain, to be an edible species that i'm also familiar with. I guess thats something else you have to watch out for, as some ID features can be dissolved in a heavy downpour.

[Geoff Dann]

Well, the ID was done by a PHD student studying local varieties of edible mushroom. Unfortunately the inedible one looked, with a lot of the identifying features destroyed by rain, to be an edible species that i'm also familiar with. I guess thats something else you have to watch out for, as some ID features can be dissolved in a heavy downpour.

I'd be interested to know which pair of species were involved. Usually the problem of identification-critical features being washed off by the rain involves Amanitas, many of which have veil remnants left on the cap (e.g. fly agaric, false death-cap). But quite frankly if a PhD student studying edible fungi managed to mis-identify one of the two most poisonous, notorious and well-known fungi on the planet, I do hope that person failed their PhD, because they did not deserve to pass.

I stand by what I've said. It all depends on the fungi involved, which is why you need to know what you are doing. Nobody should ever eat false death caps, even though they are edible, because it's too dangerous. Nobody should ever trust the ID of a wood blewit from a picture, even by an expert; you need to smell it. But if the fungus in question is a shaggy inkcap or a parasol mushroom, then you don't even need the expert. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can go out and identify those for themselves. The critical piece of information is this: "shaggy inkcaps and parasol mushrooms are easy; there is nothing dangerous (in the UK) you can confuse them with." That's all you need the expert for.

[Tony1948]

Well I picked some the other day,I hope there alright becouse I'v already eaten them

[_Matt_]

I personally think it's the responsibility of the person asking, not the person making the suggestions. It's probably a good idea to remember that if you have to ask, then it might not be worth taking the risk (of relying on an online ID. Or otherwise potentially wrong ID).

[twosmokeforever]

Hi Matt

It is possible but it would be a bit of a rarity as Boletus illudens is only really predominantly found in North America.

This is the fun part of fungi collecting, I've spent many hours pulling my hair out (that explains why in bald!!) trying to nail down a definitive identification of various shrooms. Lol

Ade

so mushrooms are why my hair is leaving me?

[_Matt_]

I have a new one. Some kind of puffball but which one? The ones that it does resemble seem to have a different base where this is just round. Ground on the edge of a cow field near trees. About the size of my fist. Has quite a strong smell, very much like shaggy parasols (to me at least). It seems to have discoloured slightly yellow on cutting. It looks most to me like a giant puffball but is the wrong colour and they don't discolour i think?


Note: The pics are not from the habitat where it was growing.

[Geoff Dann]

Probably a mosaic puffball.

[_Matt_]

Probably a mosaic puffball.

Definately seems to fit the description well, the only reason i might think otherwise is because they generally seem to be more pear-shaped where this one is just round but I'm guessing the shape can be quite variable.