Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorociboria aeruginascens

Chlorociboria aeruginascens

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 22:29:54 (UTC)

Reason: Good EV and quality. The wonders of nature.
Articles in which this image appears: Chlorociboria aeruginascens
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi
Creator: Holleday

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual and interesting color for a mushroom, adding to the photo's EV in my opinion. Photo quality isn't outstanding but it's good enough. Pine^✉ 11:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I usually don't go for mushrooms, but this one sure is interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe the species in this picture is incorrectly identified. Here's the problem: there are two very similar species, C. aeruginascens and C. aeruginosa. Although microscopy is required to definitively distinguish between the two, in general, the latter species has a lighter-colored center and a more or less roundish shape (as seen in this image), while the former is darker and more ear-shaped. It's an easy mistake to make, as many field guides only mention C. aeruginascens, and both species have a cosmopolitan distribution. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put this photo into the infobox for its genus. --Avenue (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Sasata, thank you very much for your comment and sorry for my late answer but I´m only few days in the week in Wiki. Let me tell some words to the determination: My messurement of the spores showed a size of 6 to 10 ym. Then I looked for the geographic distribution of both species (Die Pilzflora des Ulmer Raumes, Manfred Enderle, ISBN: 3-88294-336-X) and I found that C. aeruginascens very often found in the area of Ulm. But if you are shure about the species I will change the species. Kind regards Holger -- Holleday (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Holger, I'm not sure either way. Please have a look at p. 856 of Ramamurth et al., where they discuss the two species. If you look at the key on the next page, your spore range of 6–10 μm is suggestive of aeruginascens (4.2-)5–8(-9.8) μm, but does not definitively exclude aeruginosa (7-)9–12(-15.4) μm. (Should also mention that this key is from measurements of North American, not European, specimens, so there may be differences). Macroscopically, the image suggests aeruginosa ("nearly circular in outline"), unfortunately, there aren't any stipe attachments viewable in the picture for us to see if the attachment was lateral or central (perhaps you have another image that shows this?). According to this source, a more definitive microscopic characteristic is the presence of roughened (aeruginosa) vs. smooth (aeruginascens) hyphae comprising the tomentum. Do your microscopy notes indicate this? To me, this case is ambiguous, and without more information I can't support an image that macroscopically resembles a similar species. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasata, thank you very much for the interesting link. According this informations it seems that this fungus is a mix between the two species :-). The characteristics of C. aeruginascens: Smooth hyphea: I´m not sure; laterally attached: some exemplars (please see left side and in the background); often greater 5 mm: Many exemplars (please see beech leaf); spores 5-8 ym: 6 - 10 ym; stipe: Greater 3 mm: I think no. C. aeruginosa: Strongly roughened hyphea: I´m not sure; centrally attached: only some exemplares; circular: some exemplars; less than 4 mm: Only some smaller exemplars; spores 9 - 13 ym: 6 - 10 ym; stipe less than 3 mm: yes. Personally I think the species nearer to C. aeruginascens but I will change the name to Chlorociboria sp.. Next september I will collect some fungi and will show them to some experts of our mycological working groups. I´m very excited about the results. Best regards--Holleday (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]