
I have a number of reasons why I decided to study the genus Inocybe: Year after year I find mushrooms which I can’t ID, and using Arora, I never will. A few months into my study I at least knew some of these were Inocybes. The driving reason that gave me my original impetus came from a class on career devel-pment. The instructor simply said: “If you want to be valued within your field, be an expert at something.” The last reason really came after I started the study: The many mushrooms in the genus have repetitive features, both macro and microscopic. Paying attention to your observations gives you a great deal of insight into the whole genus.
Some of you are coming back from San Francisco State’s mushroom microscopy class. Chances are, you were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information. I’m still overwhelmed, despite a second class and a visit last summer. If you study a genus, your information becomes focused, and becomes a great deal more understandable. We need people that understand the various genera. We need them at the Fair. We need them at the ID table on forays. There is too much information for any one person to know it all.
Many of the people in the club are good generalists. Some of us have learned to use the monographs in the Agaricales of California, but to my best knowledge, we have the following monographs that no one uses: Mycena, Psathyrella, veiled Hebelomas, Pholiota, Pholiotina, Gymnopilus, Thelephora. If you want a challenge, do Psathyrella. We have lots of them. If you’ve mastered one monograph and would like to try another, you could try the veiled Hebelomas. I have no idea what Thelephora entails, which itself points to the need for someone versed in this genus. We also have books on Suillus and Boletes.
John Brown, Science Advisor
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)