Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters.
    #7909122 - 01/21/08 10:57 AM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Why are the size and shape of spores, basidia, and cystidia so important taxonomically?

Most would not split collections of similar mushrooms into two species merely because one fruit body was a little bit bigger than the other, or because one had a short thick stem and another a long skinny stem. But species level splits are frequently justified by a few microns difference in spore size. Why is spore size so important?

Likewise, nobody would assert that three men were of different species simply because one has thin blond hair, another thick black hair, and a third no hair at all. Yet species level splits are frequently justified by morphological differences in cystidia, which appear to serve no physiological function. Why are the presence, absence, and form of sterile cells important taxonomically?


A further question concerns species concepts. What species concept are you guys working with?


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 34 minutes, 35 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7909337 - 01/21/08 12:01 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

If I invented the whole thing, I would set it up so the macroscopic characteristics get you to the species, then you could use microscopic characteristics to find out which subspecies you have.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinexmush
Professor ofDoom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #7909421 - 01/21/08 12:23 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Another reason is that spore sizes are consistent within a species. There is not that much of a difference between the spore sizes of different individuals within a species. Macroscopic characteristics are not so consistent. Your three different looking men would produce sperm cells that are indistinguishable from each other with regards to size etc.

That being said, I think mushroom taxonomy is a huge clusterfuck.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEvets
Stranger
Male
Registered: 01/05/08
Posts: 197
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: xmush]
    #7909547 - 01/21/08 01:06 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

keep in mind that your hypothetical is flawed.
You say species.. but.... hair...can be grouped by class and more so by family...i.e. mammals in this situation. So mammals in a sense aren't defined by hair. Surely a cow w/ black hair is different then a human w/ black hair.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 46 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7909689 - 01/21/08 01:45 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

xmush is right, that spore size is pretty consistent with a species. I know that in a seminar I did with Bryce Kendrick on molds we identified everything based on the conidia (even without the mold itself).

Alan, I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'm not sure everything could be told apart macroscopically. The vast majority of things could be, but I'm sure you can think of a few examples of species that cannot be distinguished without a microscope.

Happy mushrooming!


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #7910094 - 01/21/08 03:28 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
If I invented the whole thing, I would set it up so the macroscopic characteristics get you to the species, then you could use microscopic characteristics to find out which subspecies you have.



That goes directly against phylogenetic cladistics.....


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 34 minutes, 35 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: CureCat]
    #7912148 - 01/21/08 09:06 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

> That goes directly against phylogenetic cladistics.....

I don't think it would go against that very often.

It mostly goes against people who are abusing phylogenetic cladistics as an excuse to split when they should be lumping.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStrophariaceae
mycologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #7912894 - 01/21/08 11:11 PM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Read this as "we should prioritize macro characters, because that's what us regular mushroom collectors use for identification".

Yeah, whatever.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGGreatOne234
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 8,946
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #7913176 - 01/22/08 12:04 AM (16 years, 11 days ago)

I do not have a Phd in Mycology and I did not invent Taxonomy or find every species of mushroom in my area. I did not invent the microscope either. I probably could not tell a person why a orange is the color orange, or say that I invented orange trees. Advocado trees... no I did not invent those either, unfortunately, someone else discovered how to grow them before me (and i was pissed). The Theory of Relativity.. no, I think someone else might have thought that one up besides me. I guess everyone is not that elite of a scientist as Albert Einstein. Then again, there is the shroomery... where many brilliant professors are single handedly changing the way professionals and doctors classify every known bit of information in the universe and beyond. Because up to this point, none of the research was valid until i read this topic. Now I understand the new theories that are encompassing the minds of doctors in Mycology today. I do not drink anymore but.. I think that a glass of champagne is in order, we now have the code for identifying every living organism on the planet down to subspecies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #7913185 - 01/22/08 12:06 AM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Alan, that would be a very odd species concept. I don't think it would be very functional, what with species variation. How would you draw the line with macroscopic variations, to distinguish one "species" from another??

And as you know, just because it looks the same, doesn't mean they share the same evolutionary heritage. Convergent evolution and all. And then there are some odd-ball species which just don't look like they fit in their genus, until you look at them under the 'scope.


>It mostly goes against people who are abusing phylogenetic
>cladistics as an excuse to split when they should be lumping.

I really disagree. I think it is in stark contrast with the concept of phylogenetics- not just those who "abuse" it. I'm definitely not a splitter, and I don't think I'd be called a lumper either, and I have some real reservations in granting precedence to macroscopic features over microscropic features.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 46 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #7913189 - 01/22/08 12:08 AM (16 years, 11 days ago)

Something that's being left out of this discussion is ecological information (greatly underused by almost everybody these days). I think as mycological taxonomy progresses that ecological associations will become much more important for accurate identification.

Happy mushrooming!


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinexmush
Professor ofDoom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: GGreatOne234]
    #7913556 - 01/22/08 02:00 AM (16 years, 10 days ago)

:rofl::lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: xmush]
    #7913672 - 01/22/08 03:38 AM (16 years, 10 days ago)

^^^
GGO... I have no idea what you're talking about, hehe.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 34 minutes, 35 seconds
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: CureCat]
    #7914118 - 01/22/08 10:44 AM (16 years, 10 days ago)

> I really disagree. I think it is in stark contrast with the concept of phylogenetics- not just those who "abuse" it. I'm definitely not a splitter, and I don't think I'd be called a lumper either, and I have some real reservations in granting precedence to macroscopic features over microscropic features.

I guess its about time for you to get a microscope so you can finally figure out what all the mushrooms you find really are.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnastomosisJihad
Hominid
Male


Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7914151 - 01/22/08 10:52 AM (16 years, 10 days ago)

This is all very interesting, and I would love to have a conversation about the inadequacies of phylogenetics, but my question remains unanswered.

Why are the presence or absence / shape and size of cystidia taxonomically important.


I know some microscopic features are very important for determining lineages (cell wall construction for instance), and that two fruit bodies can look very similar macroscopically, but under a microscope one can see they are put together in very different ways. Certainly, some micro-morphological characters reveal an organism's evolutionary strategies and help trace descent.

Cystidia, however, appear to serve no function at all, and therefore should be immune to natural selection. Why consider them as more taxonomically significant than hair color?

As for spore size: to say that spore size is consistent within a species, and then to make a species level split based solely on difference in spore size is just begging the question. How do we know that spore size is consistent within a species and not variable by population, like many other features?


--------------------
come together


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #7914721 - 01/22/08 01:36 PM (16 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
I guess its about time for you to get a microscope so you can finally figure out what all the mushrooms you find really are.



Working on it.  I like to make informed decisions about these things.  Hopefully in the next month or two.

Certainly, there are plenty of times I've come to a cross roads and gone "Fuck....  okay, I'll just put Ramaria sp. 'cause there's no way in hell I'm gonna be able to key it out macroscopically, and with any certainty".  I'd usually rather leave the species unknown, than take a blind stab. 
I know at places like Fungus Fairs, most people tend to put their best guess and figure "Eh, it's close enough, no one will care... and if they do, they can change it".

So yeah, I've gotten my feet wet and am quite eager to jump in.  Just got to get some basic materials and figure out what the hell i'm gonna get.
Thanks for letting me tool around on yours.  :wink:
It certainly has some cool features, and is pretty comfortable design (though the chairs are always too short or the tables too high and i have to sit on my feet to reach the oculars, heh).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7914794 - 01/22/08 01:57 PM (16 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

AnastomosisJihad said:
As for spore size: to say that spore size is consistent within a species, and then to make a species level split based solely on difference in spore size is just begging the question. How do we know that spore size is consistent within a species and not variable by population, like many other features?



Good question.  I think it has a lot to do with your species concept.  It's kinda tricky.  I am still not sure how i would define species, so I try and follow the leads of the pros, and ask questions and listen to each argument for or against a split, to decide which seems sensible based on what I already know.

Another method used to compare with microscopic variation is sequencing of course, and comparing base pairs with suspected relatives.  Then there are actual mating tests which can be done, but I think a lot of mycologists shy away from this due to the hands on nature (rather than using a device of some sort), the length of time invested, and the number of different strain cultures required.  Then interpreting the results is a whole other mess.
There are other methods, those are the ones that are coming to mind at the moment.

So, based on consistencies seen among different methods, you can begin to sort one species or population from another.  Lets say the results are mixed- some results suggest a separate species, while others conflict that conclusion.  Then the taxonomists and geneticists get to duke it out, and argue their points.  :wink:

My explanation is lacking detail, but perhaps you get the idea.  I think I do.  :crazy:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGGreatOne234
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 8,946
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7915294 - 01/22/08 03:49 PM (16 years, 10 days ago)

AnastomosisJihad,

From the book How To Identify Mushrooms To Genus III: Microscopic Features, page 2:

"Every macroscopic feature used to describe a basidiocarp has a set of microscopic features which can be correlated with it; for example, the pileus surface of a viscid to glutinous species of Cortinarius is represented by a particular kind of pileipellis called an ixotrichodermium; or the dark brownish color of certain Naucoria species is because of a pigment which incrusts the hyphal wall; or the marginate gill-edge of Leptonia serrulata is the macroscopic expression of the cheilocystidia being filled with a vacuolar pigment. When such correlations are made and understood, the student interested in the study of the fleshy fungi will have acquired the basic, fundamental knowledge prerequisite to all other studies in this fascinating field.".

does that kind of answer your question or have you already read that book?

I personally think that David Largent, David Johnson and Roy Watling did a good job with the book, but it seems clearly obvious that a shroomerite is going to soon be re-writing the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature in such a way that zero riddles or problems will ever arise again in identifying anything. Until then I would trust the actual professionals who followed and branched off in the footsteps of people like Elias Fries.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGGreatOne234
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 8,946
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: GGreatOne234]
    #7915339 - 01/22/08 03:58 PM (16 years, 10 days ago)

also, i bet that Elias was not a jerk.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 3 hours, 46 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters. [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
    #7915458 - 01/22/08 04:23 PM (16 years, 10 days ago)

Cystidia of course do perform functions in the mushrooms, otherwise they wouldn't be there. One example I know of is that in many species of Coprinus there are cystidia to hold the gills apart far enough so that spores being ejected from their basidia don't just run into the opposite gill face and stick there.

There are lots of cystidia out there that we have no idea what function they may serve, but our lack of knowledge is hardly reason to suspect that they serve no function.

Happy mushrooming!


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Some Microscopes used by MJ for identification and SEM Work mjshroomer 6,376 19 07/31/06 06:22 AM
by Zen Peddler
* Calibrating Microscope
( 1 2 3 all )
ehtdaedlufetarg 6,204 45 02/21/11 10:18 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* My Tick Story -- Negative, and Microscope! tangoking 749 6 11/27/09 06:29 PM
by dicky21
* Question about Microscopes and IDing
( 1 2 all )
cheesenoonions 5,287 23 11/17/02 07:47 PM
by ToxicMan
* investing in a microscope herb420 1,351 17 03/02/10 04:47 AM
by santaclausmush
* Is microscope right for me? thewall14 807 6 06/06/09 11:19 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Positive ID with a Microscope sublimished 2,171 5 03/23/04 06:54 PM
by Anonymous
* Official Fall 2006 Winter 2007 San Francisco, Bay Area Thread. Post your finds here!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 43 44 )
tahoe 78,587 869 10/19/07 12:59 AM
by CureCat

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
5,162 topic views. 3 members, 44 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.