07-01-2026 22:22
Danny Newman
Tatraea sp. on indet. hardwood The Swag, Great Sm
07-01-2026 17:29
Marc Detollenaere
Dear Forum,On a barkless Populus I found some smal
10-11-2021 17:33
Riet van Oosten
Add-on topic http://www.ascofrance.com/forum/7059
07-01-2026 10:24
Danny Newman
Pezicula sp. on indet. hardwood Appalachian Highl
07-01-2026 10:05
Danny Newman
cf. Chaetospermum on XylariaCosby Campground, Grea
02-01-2026 17:43
MARICEL PATINOHi there, although I couldn't see the fruitbody, I
04-01-2026 17:45
Stephen Martin Mifsud
I was happy to find these orange asmocyetes which
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