Mycelio said:

But then BuckeyeOysters' strain would neither be Aloha A nor B.

---

Terry M said:

I don't understand. BuckeyeOysters said he got his from Aloha.

---

Quote:

Yes it is aloha strain that I got on a trade.  Not sure which specific one though.

---

Quote:

I don't know how micrographs showing clamp connections are done

---

All the clamp connection photos I have seen have been electron micrographs. That is not to say that there are no optical scopes that could do it, but maybe they are very powerful and few. The limitation with optical scopes tends to be supplying enough light to see a very small area without cooking it thoroughly out of existence.

Perhaps I will add even more mud in the soup.  My understanding is that from multispore culture, usually anyway, mycelium from two different germinated spores have to meet and form clamp connections to make a genetically homogeneous fruitable mycelial mass. This can be most easily isolated in  a fruit body.

Two spores from the same parent mushroom may do this, but not necessarily any two spores.  So it would seem more than possible that two different spores from the same mushroom might, for reasons of incompatibility, form zones of aversion.

Mainly, people hereabouts trade cultures in mycelial form, but it also seems very  possible that, understanding the genetic variabilities (or not), people here might also have started new cultures from spore, and (incorrectly) considered them the same strain as the parent strain.  A multispore culture like this could have literally dozens of different mycelia derived from dozens of spores.  Each of these many combined mycelia would have an opportunity to "object" to any strain that is met, making a zone of aversion. These cultures are also likely to be "making the rounds".

More about all this here.

What I'm saying, I guess, is without elaborate DNA tests, and the knowledge to interpret them, we can learn very little from mycelial cultures, but we could still do them for fun!

I think that Terry M is right on the money when he suggests that fruit bodies and spores are the areas for focus.

I am very much in favour of having all of this stuff sorted out, and, once done having it put "on deposit" at another culture bank, (and perhaps bemushroomed).

I am certainly not the foremost here in my knowledge, but I know enough to know when I am out of my depth... and I am.

Jeff

Jef said:

All the clamp connection photos I have seen have been electron micrographs.

---

Terry M said:

I just looked at the mycelium under the microscope. They're damn thin! Even at 1000x, they are still pretty thin.

---

Jef said:

Perhaps I will add even more mud in the soup.  My understanding is that from multispore culture, usually anyway, mycelium from two different germinated spores have to meet and form clamp connections to make a genetically homogeneous fruitable mycelial mass. This can be most easily isolated in  a fruit body.

Two spores from the same parent mushroom may do this, but not necessarily any two spores.  So it would seem more than possible that two different spores from the same mushroom might, for reasons of incompatibility, form zones of aversion.

Mainly, people hereabouts trade cultures in mycelial form, but it also seems very  possible that, understanding the genetic variabilities (or not), people here might also have started new cultures from spore, and (incorrectly) considered them the same strain as the parent strain.  A multispore culture like this could have literally dozens of different mycelia derived from dozens of spores.  Each of these many combined mycelia would have an opportunity to "object" to any strain that is met, making a zone of aversion.

Jeff

---

Quote:

Jeff...on this topic of genetic diversity, or lack thereof, can I muddy the topical waters further and discuss the 'age' of the genes (P or whatever you want to call it).

---

Quote:

If we were to continue a strain straight from tissue culture then it's 'age' would ever increase? correct?  But if we do it from spores have we in effect 'reset' the age of a culture?

---

Quote:

I remember hearing somewhere about shiitake in Japan, where the thinking was something along the lines of 'if the fruit is grown out on wood and a tissue culture taken then this is considered age zero'. 

---

They can consider what they like, but I don't believe this is so.

Jef

Oh and Javadog, thanks for being so good about what may be the biggest tread-jack ever.

CH HELL said:

NSF-  That scope will be fine for looking at spores.  Be sure to look at the objective sizes as that scope has 40-100 which is common,  only the eye pieces are different 10X and 20X.  I personally wouldn't use a 20x eye piece for anything.  Also IMO 400X is all you need for microscopy.  If you can find a 400x stereo scope you will be much happier as you can do most anything myco related with it.

---

Jef said:

I don't know what P is, but a culture can grow old (senescent)when it runs out of substrate and is then prevented from fruiting for too long.

---

Quote:

Yes, that's usually true to our experience. We are not really able to support unbridled and continuous growth in our cultures. It is more like a stop and start affair, that may be the cause of senescence.  There are thousands of years old single armillaria spanning many acres and weighing thousands of tons.  IT has not begun making copying mistakes in its DNA.  (Google: world's largest organism) This may be an anomaly, or perhaps it just shows the potential that fungi have given limitless food and the opportunity.

---

Terry M said:

...
I just looked at the mycelium under the microscope. They're damn thin! Even at 1000x, they are still pretty thin. And a clamp connection is small compared to a mycelium diameter. I don't know how micrographs showing clamp connections are done. Is there a mushroom species with really thick mycellium, the mycological equivalent of Drosophila genes?

It wouldn't have worked anyway, because the tangle of mycelia is too disorganized. No way to trace any back.

---

Terry M said:

...
So I think that there will be two indisputable tests for this project: macroscopic and microscopic.

1. Hypsizygus gills are adnexed or adnate. Oysters are decurrent (is this true for all Pleurotus?).

2. Hypsizygus spores are globose or subglobose. Oysters spores are cylindrical.

---

solarity said:

Terry M said:

I don't understand. BuckeyeOysters said he got his from Aloha.

---

Actually he said

Quote:

Yes it is aloha strain that I got on a trade.  Not sure which specific one though.

---

So it may be Shroomery Pl.Ulm after all.

---

Jef said:

Quote:

I don't know how micrographs showing clamp connections are done

---

All the clamp connection photos I have seen have been electron micrographs. That is not to say that there are no optical scopes that could do it, but maybe they are very powerful and few. The limitation with optical scopes tends to be supplying enough light to see a very small area without cooking it thoroughly out of existence.

Jeff

---

Terry M said:

Carsten: I tried the scratch and sniff test with a scalpel while the dish was open. Unfortunately, I couldn't smell anything. I'll be sure to do it whenever I have available fruits.
...

---

Terry M said:

Carsten: I tried the scratch and sniff test with a scalpel while the dish was open. Unfortunately, I couldn't smell anything. I'll be sure to do it whenever I have available fruits.

I'm currently fruiting some "H. ulmarius" I'd bought directly from The Mushroom Patch (www.themushroompatch.com). Mushrooms are still tiny, but the decurrent gills are unmistakable. Anybody want to bet on the spore shape? I'll give odds!

---

NSF said:

CH HELL said:

NSF-  That scope will be fine for looking at spores.  Be sure to look at the objective sizes as that scope has 40-100 which is common,  only the eye pieces are different 10X and 20X.  I personally wouldn't use a 20x eye piece for anything.  Also IMO 400X is all you need for microscopy.  If you can find a 400x stereo scope you will be much happier as you can do most anything myco related with it.

---

Huh?!  What?!  I think I might have to go away and read the wiki on microscopes and how they work. 

Is it pretty much a mathematical thing where the eye piece multiplied by the objective sizes?  So 10*40 = 400x, 10*100 = 1000x, 20*100=2000x?

And why do I only need 400x?  Sorry, I was just talking to a fungi fan on the weekend who said they needed to go to 1000x to be able to see...damn, now i forget.  Spore identification at 400x but I can't remember what it was at 1000x with oil immersion. 

---