17-09-2025 19:43
Philippe PELLICIERSur branche morte de Mélèze. Les ascospores sphÃ
17-09-2025 10:50
Heather MerryleesHi there!I am hoping for any advice on the identif
11-09-2025 16:57
Jason Karakehian
Our revision of Marthamycetales (Leotiomycetes) is
16-09-2025 12:53
Philippe PELLICIERPézizes de 1-4 mm, brun grisâtres, sur les capsu
03-09-2025 12:44
Enrique Rubio
Hi to somebody.I would like to know your opinion o
15-09-2025 14:40
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Hello.I'm searching for a digital copy of the seco
14-09-2025 22:16
Philippe PELLICIERApothécies petites jusquà 3 mm, oranges, avec de
13-09-2025 14:01
Thomas Flammerdark brown apothecia, splitIKI-Spores biguttulate
10-09-2025 17:18
Blasco Rafael
Hola, encontre este estiercol de vaca estos apotec
Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Luc Bailly,
29-06-2011 23:06
Bihain toujours, massif de massettes, sur gaines pourries.Apoth. pulvinées, sessiles, "charnues", minuscules (1/4 mm), complètement furfuracées, cendrées par la translucidité, apparemment hyalines, à marge émoussée à peine visible. Pas très mûr.
Asques 8-sp., sp. bisériées; IKI BB
Sp. mesurées dans l'asque (spécimens pas assez mûrs) 9-10.5 x 2.5-3 µ, hyalines, huile = 0; quelques inclusions sont visibles une fois les sp. hors de l'asque.
Paraphyses cylindriques, un peu renflées au sommet, ne dépassant pas les asques, hyalines, avec quelques inclusions, x 1.5-2 µ.
Exc. ectal de texture pseudoparenchymateuse; pas de poils.
Une idée?
Amitiés - LUC.
Hans-Otto Baral,
30-06-2011 07:54
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Hi Luc
that belongs perhaps in the group of "Helotium" microspis. I cannto tell at present if there are several species which might deserve that name, and which is the correct one.
In England we ha d an abundant collection, but spores were longer and narrower there: *8.3-12.7 x 2-2.7 µm?.
Zotto
that belongs perhaps in the group of "Helotium" microspis. I cannto tell at present if there are several species which might deserve that name, and which is the correct one.
In England we ha d an abundant collection, but spores were longer and narrower there: *8.3-12.7 x 2-2.7 µm?.
Zotto
Hans-Otto Baral,
30-06-2011 08:02
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
here another photo. How is it possible to add several photos at once?
Alain GARDIENNET,
30-06-2011 09:50
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Hi Zotto, it's easy : when you join a photo, you click on "Nouvelle photo" (or perhaps "new photo" for the english users).
Alain
Alain
Luc Bailly,
30-06-2011 10:59
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Thank you, Zotto.
If needed, I know the place quite well, I can check and see if I find further specimens if needed.
Cheers - LUC.
If needed, I know the place quite well, I can check and see if I find further specimens if needed.
Cheers - LUC.
Hans-Otto Baral,
30-06-2011 12:26
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Alain: I clicked nouvelle photo after adding the first, but then the first was replaced by the second.
Here I add a macro of the English find on Juncus
Here I add a macro of the English find on Juncus
Hans-Otto Baral,
30-06-2011 12:30
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Luc, your collection might perhaps better fit to the present one (Mecklenburg, on Glyceria), because of the spores. But this has striking VBs in the paraphyses and marginal cells, which I did not see in the one from England. Maybe your specimen was not alive enough. So if you find it again, please have a look for these inclusions.
Now I try to attach two images....
Zotto
Now I try to attach two images....
Zotto
Hans-Otto Baral,
30-06-2011 12:32
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Doesn't work. I attached a drawing by Stip, with the same VBs in the paraphyses, so probably the same species. Here the Glyceria-find:
Luc Bailly,
30-06-2011 14:14
Re : Pulviné, s/ Typha latifolia
Hi Zotto,
This is very similar, indeed. Okay, I'll check for better samples the next time I visit that bog.
It was very close to the water surface indeed, at the point I'm not surprised it could be an aquatic species.
Cheers - LUC.
This is very similar, indeed. Okay, I'll check for better samples the next time I visit that bog.
It was very close to the water surface indeed, at the point I'm not surprised it could be an aquatic species.
Cheers - LUC.