tryptonite said:

i'm really happy to hear that! both of them subbs?

---

Quote:

I wouldn't know about the microscopy, ferret was kind enough to do it for me.

---

tryptonite said:

#1: 12.0-14.0 x 7.9-8.0 , E=1.50-1.78 (1.74)
#2: 10.8-12.1 x 7.9-8.7 , E=1.31-1.45 (1.37)

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

tryptonite said:

#1: 12.0-14.0 x 7.9-8.0 , E=1.50-1.78 (1.74)
#2: 10.8-12.1 x 7.9-8.7 , E=1.31-1.45 (1.37)

---

One strain has smaller spores, but I think they are the same species.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

How did you measure the spores and get the Q ratio?  And why do you call it E?

Great microscopy, you should post this on mushroomobserver.org as well if you haven't already.

The depth of field is small at this magnification and your micrographs could benefit from depth of field stacking.  Combine ZP is the best one and it is free.

---

cheers alan i'll look into that program, looks very useful.

the measurements are from measuring the pixels between a distance on the reticle with GIMP image editor. by E I mean length x width and i called it that because ive just been reading a paper in Australasian Mycologist that used it in that context- it seems Q would be more accepted though.

heres a couple more from the "subb" specimen at 1000x

tryptonite said:

isn't #2 more similair in spore size to fimicola (10.8 — 14.2um)?
how else can you differentiate it microscopically?

---

ferret said:

the measurements are from measuring the pixels between a distance on the reticle with GIMP image editor.

---

inski said:

Nice work.

Once the Q values are obtained from one sample the average can be worked out and is referred to as E.

---