16-07-2025 17:34
Bernard Declercq
Hello,I have trouble distinguishing above mention
14-07-2025 11:20
Michel Hairaud
Bonjour, Voici une espèce de (?) Hyaloscyphace
16-01-2023 21:31
Riet van Oosten
Hello, Nearby the find of Calycina claroflava on
14-07-2025 17:55
Yanick BOULANGERBonjourAutre dossier laissé en suspendJe viens de
14-07-2025 11:17
Yanick BOULANGERBonjourJ'ai un dossier Jackrogersella qui est rest
14-07-2025 15:52
Gernot FriebesHi,I wanted to share this collection on Rubus idae
14-07-2025 13:37
Gernot FriebesHi,do you think this collection could be R. ulmari
Scutellinia minor?
Chris Johnson,
06-06-2014 14:20
Found in moisture-retentive calcareous soil.
Apothecia up to 8mm across.
Hairs brown at the rim, yellow to hyaline tipped lower down. 330-625 x 26-40 microns, mostly 3-4 septate. Predominantly simple rooted.
Spores from spore-drop: 19.2-20.9 x 18.5-20.1 microns, tubercules approximately 1 micron tall, in cotton blue (small sample)
Asci 276-288 x 29-37 microns
Paraphyses 320-330 x 4-6, clavate apices 10-12 microns across, several bifurcated near the apex.
This keys out to Scutellinia minor with Schumacher, but it's rare in Britain.
Any thoughts or other suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Chris
hannie wijers,
06-06-2014 19:15
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Chris, can it als be the Scutellinia legaliae? I had a couple of them overhere
Hannie
Chris Johnson,
06-06-2014 20:53
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Hello Hannie
Thank you for considering this for me.
According to Schumacher, S. Legaliae has 3-5 µm long spines which far exceed my measurements.
Chris
Thank you for considering this for me.
According to Schumacher, S. Legaliae has 3-5 µm long spines which far exceed my measurements.
Chris
Nicolas VAN VOOREN,
07-06-2014 08:48
Re : Scutellinia minor?
I don't recognize spore ornamentation of S. minor. In this species, warts are more heterogeneous and less dense.
S. barlae and S. hyperborea have hairs < 400 µm.
What is the height of warts?
S. barlae and S. hyperborea have hairs < 400 µm.
What is the height of warts?
Chris Johnson,
07-06-2014 09:50
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Hello Nicolas
The warts average 1 µm in height (I called them tubercules in my original message).
The Schumacher key also took me to S. hyperborea but it's currently unknown in Britain.
Regards,
Chris
The warts average 1 µm in height (I called them tubercules in my original message).
The Schumacher key also took me to S. hyperborea but it's currently unknown in Britain.
Regards,
Chris
Malcolm Greaves,
07-06-2014 22:20
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Chris
I can't add much other than to say it has not got the same spores as this S legaliae example. It seems to fit in all physical aspects of S hyperborea and it is only the habitat that is (partly) wrong.
Just because it has not been found before in the UK does not mean it is not here.
Mal
I can't add much other than to say it has not got the same spores as this S legaliae example. It seems to fit in all physical aspects of S hyperborea and it is only the habitat that is (partly) wrong.
Just because it has not been found before in the UK does not mean it is not here.
Mal
Chris Johnson,
08-06-2014 08:53
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Mal
Thanks for your thoughts.
I had eliminated S. legaliae on the basis that the spores were wrong, and the shorter hairs and habitat really exclude S. barlae.
This leaves S. minor and S. hyperborea and Nicolas's experience with S. minor suggests the tubercules are not correct.
Chris
Thanks for your thoughts.
I had eliminated S. legaliae on the basis that the spores were wrong, and the shorter hairs and habitat really exclude S. barlae.
This leaves S. minor and S. hyperborea and Nicolas's experience with S. minor suggests the tubercules are not correct.
Chris
Chris Johnson,
09-06-2014 12:35
Re : Scutellinia minor?
Just a minor update on this specimen.
I have taken a larger range of measurements of the hairs and am unable to replicate the 625 µm in the last series, which must be regarded as exceptional.
The new series: 240-496 x 19-30 µm. Me + 388 x 26 µm.
I don't think this alters the position we are at.
Chris
I have taken a larger range of measurements of the hairs and am unable to replicate the 625 µm in the last series, which must be regarded as exceptional.
The new series: 240-496 x 19-30 µm. Me + 388 x 26 µm.
I don't think this alters the position we are at.
Chris