Neither my books nor a Web search helps. We have a Peziza (almost
certainly) growing in our drive, probably on conifers, with a
shining white interior and a buff exterior. Also, it cracks open,
irregularly, and is 1.5"-2.5" across.

Any ideas? I doubt that a photograph would help, not least as it
is very hard to get a good one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 01/03/2014 17:04, Nick Maclaren wrote:
Neither my books nor a Web search helps. We have a Peziza (almost
certainly) growing in our drive, probably on conifers, with a
shining white interior and a buff exterior. Also, it cracks open,
irregularly, and is 1.5"-2.5" across.

Any ideas? I doubt that a photograph would help, not least as it
is very hard to get a good one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.





Found this on Google Image. It's not the only species, but it's the one
I clicked on. Any help?

http://www.mushroomexpert.com/peziza_domiciliana.html

--
Spider.
On high ground in SE London
gardening on heavy clay

In article ,
Spider wrote:
Neither my books nor a Web search helps. We have a Peziza (almost
certainly) growing in our drive, probably on conifers, with a
shining white interior and a buff exterior. Also, it cracks open,
irregularly, and is 1.5"-2.5" across.

Any ideas? I doubt that a photograph would help, not least as it
is very hard to get a good one.

Found this on Google Image. It's not the only species, but it's the one
I clicked on. Any help?

http://www.mushroomexpert.com/peziza_domiciliana.html

No, I am afraid not. Thanks, anyway. It's far more this shape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pe..._Lindsey_1.jpg

But it cracks open almost like a Geastrum, and it is the the
inside (upper) surface that is white, the other way round from
Peziza domiciliana.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

Neither my books nor a Web search helps. We have a Peziza (almost
certainly) growing in our drive, probably on conifers, with a
shining white interior and a buff exterior. Also, it cracks open,
irregularly, and is 1.5"-2.5" across.

Any ideas? I doubt that a photograph would help, not least as it
is very hard to get a good one.

I presume you've seen this, but without getting an answer.
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/key.asp?KeyID=8

Yes. Like almost all semi-professional mycological texts, you
have to START by using a microsocope. While I have one, I have
never taught myself how to use it. Actually, that page is even
worse, and the very first key is:

Spores smooth or finely longitudinally striate under light
microscope; guttules usually absent, rarely present
Spores ornamented with fine (oil immersion!) to coarse warts or
reticulum under light microscope; guttules usually present, rarely
absent


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I notice that concerning another Peziza, he writes "Brown cup fungi like Peziza ammophila are notoriously difficult to identify with certainty"

This key consciously delays using microscope until you have to.
Cup Fungi (MushroomExpert.Com)

But it is a north American key, is incomplete, and since Pezizas are notoriously difficult to separate....

On 01/03/14 18:13, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Spider wrote:
Neither my books nor a Web search helps. We have a Peziza (almost
certainly) growing in our drive, probably on conifers, with a
shining white interior and a buff exterior. Also, it cracks open,
irregularly, and is 1.5"-2.5" across.

Any ideas? I doubt that a photograph would help, not least as it
is very hard to get a good one.

Found this on Google Image. It's not the only species, but it's the one
I clicked on. Any help?

http://www.mushroomexpert.com/peziza_domiciliana.html

No, I am afraid not. Thanks, anyway. It's far more this shape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pe..._Lindsey_1.jpg

But it cracks open almost like a Geastrum, and it is the the
inside (upper) surface that is white, the other way round from
Peziza domiciliana.

I'll get back to you next week - I can only use the intertubes when I
take the notebook to wifi ATM.

ITYF this fungus tends to grow on old straw. Don't try to eat it raw,
but I don't know anything like it that would do you any harm when cooked

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 02/03/14 09:26, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

I presume you've seen this, but without getting an answer.
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/key.asp?KeyID=8

Yes. Like almost all semi-professional mycological texts, you
have to START by using a microsocope. While I have one, I have
never taught myself how to use it. Actually, that page is even
worse, and the very first key is:

Spores smooth or finely longitudinally striate under light
microscope; guttules usually absent, rarely present
Spores ornamented with fine (oil immersion!) to coarse warts or
reticulum under light microscope; guttules usually present, rarely
absent

If you want to send me a spore-print (or sample of spores) I could look
at them with mine.

To be useful for mycology, you need a magnification of X 1,000 (wot I have)

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

In article ,
RustyHinge wrote:
On 02/03/14 09:26, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

I presume you've seen this, but without getting an answer.
http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/key.asp?KeyID=8

Yes. Like almost all semi-professional mycological texts, you
have to START by using a microsocope. While I have one, I have
never taught myself how to use it. Actually, that page is even
worse, and the very first key is:

Spores smooth or finely longitudinally striate under light
microscope; guttules usually absent, rarely present
Spores ornamented with fine (oil immersion!) to coarse warts or
reticulum under light microscope; guttules usually present, rarely
absent

If you want to send me a spore-print (or sample of spores) I could look
at them with mine.

To be useful for mycology, you need a magnification of X 1,000 (wot I have)

Thanks very much. I am trying to collect one. My wife has access
to one (and more), but we have no experience at looking at fungal
spores.

That's a serious piece of kit. I estimated (and confirmed by a
search) than 400x was the bare minimum worth bothering with for
mycology, and that is WAY beyond my microsope (which, if I recall
is 40x).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.