There’s a seemingly endless stream of bad news in the world: the coronavirus pandemic has forced us stay inside more than we’ve ever had to in our lifetimes, and there’s the ever-impeding threat of the climate crisis. Our collective mental health is suffering, and more than ever we’re looking for anything that can provide some alleviation from this.  The government recently found that almost half of the UK’s population say they are spending more time outside than they did before the pandemic, so it’s clear that green spaces are more important than they have ever been for both our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of our planet, which really begs the question ‘why not plant more trees?’  Why is tree planting good for the environment? Forest ecosystems are one of the world’s greatest carbon sinks in existence. They hold up to 45% of all the carbon stored on land, as well as being home to 80% of the animal and plant life on land. Maintaining our forest ecosystems could be one very large step towards solving the climate crisis; and though this won’t be enough on its own, it’s definitely a good place to start. On a smaller scale, one hectare of young woodland  has the ability to lock up over 400 tonnes of carbon.   Imperial College estimates that a tree planting initiative on a worldwide scale could capture the equivalent to one decade’s worth of carbon emissions (at current rates) by the time these forests reach maturity, or up to 1/3 of all emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. How can tree planting can benefit you? Local tree planting initiatives are an excellent means of drawing a community together. Forest For Peterborough, a tree planting organisation in the UK, started in 2010 with the aim to plant 230,000 trees by 2030, and at the same time provides a space where the community can come together and learn how to make responsible and sustainable choices. In 1980 Edward O Wilson, American biologist, popularised the term biophilia to describe the innate connection people have to the natural world, and it’s true that we as humans seek and crave the comfort of the natural world, particularly in times of stress. The UK government estimates that visits to UK woodlands have saved an estimated £185 million in mental health treatment and costs. At the same time, street trees in rural areas are thought to have avoided £16 million in antidepressant costs, so why are there not more trees being planted in rural and urban areas? More local tree initiatives like Forest For Peterborough could both help save people’s mental health and help the UK government reach their target of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Planting trees can also help with our physical health. It goes without saying that having poor mental health can begin to have an impact on our physical health, and vice versa (in fact, loneliness has the same affect as smoking 15 cigarettes per day), and having green spaces near our living areas helps to improve our attention and creativity. Walking amongst trees even boosts our immune system and reduces our cortisol levels. It’s also been shown that in areas affected by tree loss, women have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (222,000 hectares of green space have been lost to urban sprawl between 2006 and 2012 in the UK) and senior citizen’s survival rate is 17% higher if their residence is within walking distance of a green space.  Planting trees can even help your wallet, too (maybe money does grow on trees!). Aside from saving the UK government millions of pounds in mental health costs and the projected costs that could come with the climate crisis in future, planting trees next to buildings can reduce the buildings’ energy consumption by up to 26%. This lowers the buildings’ internal temperature by 4 degrees in the summer and increases it by 6 degrees in the winter, so there’s less of a need for central heating and cooling systems (and of course prevents further emissions into our atmosphere). House prices rise by 9 to 15% if they’re near trees: they add to the aesthetic value of a neighbourhood, make people feel safer, and have been proven to lower crime rates. Why not plant trees? So, why plant trees? If planting trees for the sake of the planet isn’t enough of a reason, then there are plenty of ways tree planting can help you and your community. If you’re looking for tree planting opportunities there are plenty of events coming up, such as National Tree Day, which this year will be celebrated on July 31st. For the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee a tree planting initiative - The Queen’s Green Canopy- will encourages people across the UK to 'Plant a Tree for the Jubilee.’  Tree planting land for sale is available through the Woodlands website- let’s get planting!

May Fungi Focus - Campion Anther Smut  Spring is busting out all over, a time of fresh growth and new life. The past few months have seen a succession of our native woodland flora coming into their own; first woodland anemones then bluebells and primroses and now Ramsons  (wild garlic) and arums like the majestic Lords-and-Ladies or Cuckoo Pint. Amongst all this vibrant colour, it almost seems perverse to let ones thoughts wander to fungi, in most minds associated with death and decay.  Nevertheless, there are whole swathes of species that make their homes on the living tissue of plants. The rusts, for example, are particularly conspicuous at this time of year when such early bloomers begin to die back. Many are specific to one plant, or jump between different species at different stages in their own and their host’s lifecycle. Identify the plant, and most of the time you can identify the rust. Wherever you find Alexanders, for example, you are likely to find Alexanders Rust (Puccinia smyrnii). Wood anemones play host to Tranzschelia anemones, while the orange circular blotches you can see on the leaves of Lords-and-Ladies (Arum maculatum) and Ramsons (Allium ursinum) are most likely caused by Arum Rust (Puccinia sessilis). In a previous two-part post, I’ve covered Bluebell Rust (Uromyces muscari), that usually appear just before the leaves begin to die back (part one can be read here and part two here), while I’ve also written about Blackberry Leaf Rust (Phragmidium violaceum), and Dock Leaf Rust (Puccinia phragmitis), this latter an example of a species that overwinters in a different form on a different host, in this case Common Reeds. Rusts are described as parasitic and pathogenic. For certain cash crops, host-specific rusts can cause havoc in commercial monocultures. The examples I’ve outlined above, however, might be considered opportunists whose lifecycles have evolved to fit in with their specific ecosystems. Needless to say, there are many, many species of rusts, and precious few people paying attention to them. [caption id="attachment_38169" align="aligncenter" width="675"] Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Arum Rust on the underside of an Arum leaf.[/caption] This is even more the case of smuts. While some might argue that, for example, the circular arrangements of blisters of Arum Rust have a certain organic beauty, in the Haeckelian sense, few would make such a case for smuts. Rusts target the leaves or other greens part of plants, often manifesting themselves as their hosts die back. Smuts head straight for the reproduction organs – fruits, seeds and stamens. They are not called smuts for nothing. The name derives from the German for dirt, and indeed, they manifest themselves in thick coatings of dark brown to black spores (teliospores, to be specific, but there’s no need to go into the particular details here), transforming the parts of the plant they grow on into a dark sooty mass. Much of the attention focussed on them is on species that have commercial ramifications (again, like the rusts). Ustilago tritici, for example, affects the seeds of the cereals wheat and rye, and can result in serious crop losses. Unsurprising then that it should be one of the very few species detailed in the pages of Læssøe and Petersen’s Fungi of Temperate Europe. It would be a tough argument to make that smuts present much in the way of benefit to mankind, although it is worth mentioning that in Mexico, there is one species whose presence is more welcome: the Corn Smut (Ustilago maydis) transforms the kernels of maize into a delicacy known as huitlacoche. However, there are around at least hundred different smut species in the British Isles, and most are as common as the host they grow upon. This month’s Fungi Focus is on the Campion Anther Smut (Microbotryum violaceum), one of the most commonly reported and easiest to find, as Red Campion itself is in itself a very widespread native plant that pops up alongside roadsides, pathways and hedgerows to brighten up the summer months with its pink-red flowers. As should be clear from its name, this smut targets the anthers*, so can be spotted from a distance as the centre of the flowers will be a sooty brown to purplish-black colour (hence the ‘violaceum’ part of its name’) instead of the usual light pink, the stamen and anthers coated with this spore mass. [caption id="attachment_38171" align="aligncenter" width="675"] As nature intended? An un-smutty Red Campion.[/caption] While this smut adds little cosmetic appeal to the flowers, the teliospores do present a certain fascination when viewed under the microscope; spherical and ranging from 6-10microns in diameter, and covered in an intriguing pentagonal reticular pattern. The smut transfers itself to other plants by pollinating insects who would otherwise be involved in aiding the reproductive process of the campion itself. Smuts might be viewed as a sort of horticultural STD.  Nevertheless, the ubiquity of campion flowers at this time of year would suggest that this smut does not have a particularly negligible effect on the fecundity of this particular species. Indeed, from my own observations over the years, it is rarely that present even in areas rife with campion and when it does appear, it is localised to handful of plants. [caption id="attachment_38172" align="aligncenter" width="675"] The teleospores of Microbotryum violaceum, or more specifically,  M. lychnidis-dioicae.[/caption] Microbotryum violaceum is one of the more regularly recorded of the smuts that grown on the native plants of the British Isles, and as such one should consider it a native species in its own right.   In fact, more recent investigation has shown just how specialist it is. While I’m still using the old catch-all term for the sake of simplicity, it has been split up to create several more host specific ones: M. lychnidis-dioicae is the new name to describe the smut occurring on the anthers of Red and White Campion; M. coronariae appears on Ragged-Robin; M. saponariae on Soapwort; M. silenes-inflatae on Sea Campion and M. stellariae on Lesser Stitchwort. But one does have to ask oneself just how many people out there would consider a smut even worth recording. As specialist plant pathogens, individual species of smuts can be considered as rare or as common as their host plants, and with many native plants themselves under threat from habitat loss, their associated smuts suffer accordingly. Interestingly, according to a recent publication compiled by Ray Woods, Arthur Chater, Paul Smith, Nigel Stringer, and Debbie Evans entitled Smut and Allied Fungi of Wales A Guide, Red Data List and Census Catalogue (2018), “No smut species are specially protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but a single smut species (Urocystis colchici) found on Autumn Crocus (Colchicum autumnale) is listed on Section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2013 as being ‘a living organism of principal importance for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in relation to Wales’.” The same publication lists the example of Urocystis ulmariae, found only once in Wales on a single Meadowsweet plant, and placed it in the “Critically Endangered D2” category. The fascinating The Lost and Found Fungi Project, conducted by mycologists at Kew Gardens to investigate whether historically reported fungi species that have not been recorded in recent years are actually extinct or just not recorded, has also focussed on Rusts and Smuts. It is worth a look just as an example that there is some interest in smut distribution and conservation.  One might question the worth of recording, studying or conserving fungi species that so evidently hamper the reproductive abilities of their hosts. As ever, I’d argue in these posts that until the funding and human effort is put into such endeavours, we will never know. * anthers - pollen producing part of the stamens. Wild garlic

We know that insects (especially, bumblebees, bees, hover flies) are the world’s top pollinators, and we also know from many reports that many insect species are in decline.  Crops such as tomatoes, blueberries, peppers, cocoa, coffee, almonds and cherries are dependent on these pollinators.  Climate change, increasing temperatures and extreme weather events are affecting plants and animals across the world, and it seems that social insects, like bumblebees, are particularly impacted. Research with bumblebee colonies (at Stockholm University) has indicated that if the colonies are exposed to higher temperatures (than normal) then the workers in the colonies were smaller.  This decrease in body size could affect their foraging behaviour and the collection of pollen,  which would mean less food brought back to the colony and reduced pollination of plants. Studies in the United States looked at some 20,000 bees  (bumblebees, leafcutter bees, mason bees etc) along the Rocky Mountains, a region which is vulnerable to climate change.  It was found that the larger bees (particularly bumblebees) and those that built nests with combs were affected most by increases in temperature.  On the plus side, smaller (soil nesting) bees fared better.  Bumblebees would seem to have a lower heat tolerance.  The loss of bigger bees, which generally can fly and forage further may again mean reduction in long distance pollination (which promotes outbreeding in plant populations). One reason why hot or hotter weather affects bumblebees is that it influences the nectar that the bumblebees collect.  The balance of the various micro-organisms (bacteria and yeasts) in the nectar changes.  Whilst bumblebees are attracted to nectar with some microbes in it, a small change in temperature can speed up the metabolism / growth of the microbes so that they use up more of the sugar - with the result that it is less palatable / less nutritious for the bees.  Experiments conducted at the University of California have shown that bees did not ‘like’ the nectar rich in microbes, nor a sterile one - with no microbes at all. There seems to be a 'happy medium' in terms of the composition of the nectar. There seems to be a growing consensus that climate change, increasing temperatures and extreme events are pushing bumblebees (in particular) beyond their physiological limits. [caption id="attachment_38081" align="aligncenter" width="650"] Bumblebee visiting foxglove[/caption]

Certain woodland plants are found in the understory.  Plants like wood anemones, woodruff and lungwort bloom early in the year. These plants make use of a ‘window of opportunity’ when the light levels are good as the tree canopy has not developed, the leaves have not yet expanded. They use this ‘window of light ‘ to flower.   However, climate change is affecting many ecosystems - including woodlands.  With warmer temperatures, leaf buds tend to open earlier and the leaves begin to expand.  If the window for growth is reduced, how can the wood anemones and others cope ? [caption id="attachment_38093" align="aligncenter" width="700"] wood anemone[/caption] To investigate this question, scientists based the Universities of Tübingen and Frankfurt examined thousands of preserved herbarium specimens of early flowering plants, dating back over a hundred years.  The sheets not only hold specimens collected when they were flowering but also have  information on ‘when and where collected’.  Each sheet is a a moment in time from over a century ago.  Collectively, the 6000+ sheets allowed the scientists to establish historic flowering times of woodland plants over large areas of Europe. [caption id="attachment_38094" align="aligncenter" width="700"] Woodruff[/caption] The information extracted from the herbarium records revealed that plants like wild garlic and wood sorrel now bloom some six days early than at the beginning of the twentieth century.  For each 1oc rise in (Spring) temperature, their lowering has advanced by more than 3 days.  This means that they have gained time in the light - in an open canopy.  Whilst they may have gained time,  these early flowering plants are at greater risk of frosts.  It may also be that their pollinating agents may not be around - unless they too have brought forward their development / life cycle. There is some evidence that such changes are taking place.  Recent work at Wytham Wood (outside Oxford) has shown that blue tits have moved forward their egg laying to 'match' the development of the oak canopy, and the appearance of caterpillars (on which the young are fed).  Essentially, the timing of the food chain has changed..  Hopefully, such changes will occur in different ecosystems across the country.

Woodlands.co.uk is 'republishing' this blog, as contact details for the Jones family are now available and several people have expressed an interest in having a walking stick 'custom made'.  The blog originally appeared in 2014. Contact email address is pj451324(at)gmail.com Peter Jones and his sons make walking sticks on a serious scale using sticks they come across in the woods, where they do their forestry work.  They use chestnut, silver birch, oak and hazel.  But they avoid using willow, as it goes brittle once it's aged.  Apart from finding the right stick to work on they need a steamer for bending the tops of the walking sticks and a good supply of sealant and varnish for protecting the finished sticks. "Honeysuckle makes the best twist sticks" advises out Peter Jones, who comes across a lot of twisted stems in Kent and East Sussex.  As a result, he is able to trade these with fellow stick makers in more northern English areas - they give him carved tops for walking sticks in exchange for good twisted shanks.  But even among twisted sticks there is variety: the slower growing trees such as holly and oak twist more slowly whilst the fast-growing chestnut twists quickly.  Though he also corrected me pointing out that the maker of walking sticks should really be called a "stick dresser" Read more...

LASI is the Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects at the University of Sussex. It is particularly noted for its research work on bees. Recently, Dr Balfour and Professor Ratnieks have published a study on the rôle of certain 'injurious weeds'.   Five of our native wildflowers fall into this category : Ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris), Creeping or Field Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Spear or Common Thistle (Cirsium vulgar), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), and Broadleaved or Common Dock (Rumex obtusifolius).  They compared the ragwort and the thistles with plants like red clover and wild marjoram (often encouraged / sown on field edges etc).. They found that the 'injurious weeds' were particularly 'effective' at attracting pollinators, not only did they they attract greater numbers of pollinators than clover etc, but also a greater range of pollinator species.  This was ascribed to the open nature of their flowers and their generous nectar production.  This brings into question the control of species like the ragwort, as it is clearly important to pollinators (as are some 'botanical thugs' - like brambles).  Ragwort contains chemicals that are toxic to livestock, causing liver damage; it has been blamed for the deaths of horses and other animals. At the Smithsonian, Kress and Krupnick have analysed the features of some 80,000+ species of plants to see how they might fare in the Earth's changing climate (the Anthropocene).  This may seem like a large number of different plants, but represents approximately only 30% of the known species of vascular plants.  There is not enough information of the remaining species to make a reasonable guess as to how they might react to climate change;  a reflection on how little we actually known about our 'botanical resources'.  Sadly, they conclude that more plants will lose out than win.  Particularly at risk of extinction are the Cypress family (which includes the redwoods and junipers) and  the Cycads, whereas black cherry might be a winner. As was reported previously in the woodlands blog, there is a difference between the leaves of the redwoods found at the top of the tree and those lower down.  Those at the top are small, thick, and fused to the vertical stem axis; this fusion of leaf and stem creates a relatively large volume of tissue and intercellular space that can store water. The leaves in the lower part of the crown by comparison are large, flat and horizontal to the stem axis.   Now scientists as the University of California (Davis) have further investigated the role of these leaves.  They now believe that the different leaf forms help explain how the exceptionally tall trees are able to survive in both wet and dry parts of their range in California.  In the rainy and wet North Coast, the water absorbing leaves are found on the lower branches of the trees.  In the Southern part of the redwoods range, the water collecting leaves are found at a higher level to take advantage of the fog (and rain, which occurs less often).

In the C19th, many objects were made from ivory.  The ivory came from the slaughter of elephants.  As elephant populations fell, so the search for a suitable substitute began.   Celluloid was one of the first materials used but it was easily combustible. It was soon replaced by other materials like Bakelite,  this was the first entirely synthetic plastic.  It was made from phenol and formaldehyde.  It was used for toys, radios, telephones etc.   Bakelite  was tough, heat resistant and  did not conduct electricity.  Other materials followed, and many different plastics are produced today; for example, polyethylene (which is widely used in product packaging) and polyvinyl chloride [PVC] (which is used in construction and pipes because of its strength and durability).  The trouble is that plastics are just so useful.  Plastics are cheap, lightweight and durable.  Durability is a good quality when the plastic is being used but not when it is discarded, for example, into landfill where it may take centuries to degrade.  Sadly, many consumers leave empty bottles / containers / wrappers in the streets, on the beach, at picnic sites etc.  As most plastics are made from fossil fuels / oil, the manufacture of plastic is also a driver of climate change. Since the middle of the twentieth century, it is estimated that some 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic has been produced. Sadly much of this has ended up in landfill, in rivers, the soil, and the oceans - with significant effects of wildlife. Plastic pollution is ubiquitous. For example, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is a collection of large areas of plastic and other debris in the North Pacific Ocean. It has been estimated that it contains some 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic .  It is a serious threat to marine life such as whales, sea turtles, fish, and birds.  Plastic items are discarded with little thought to the consequences.  Bottles etc can end up as traps for many animals and a few years back we (at woodlands) found a child’s plastic boat dumped in a woodland (see featured image above).  Sometimes, we see the distorted remains of plastic tree guards ‘strangling’ young trees. Plastic carrier bags (sometimes filled with dog faeces)  can end ups suspended from trees / shrubs in woodland, or caught on wire fencing, waving n the wind. Discarded plastic items come in all shapes and sizes; those that are 5mm or smaller are termed “microplastics.”  Microplastics come in part from larger plastic pieces that degrade into smaller pieces; but also from microbeads.  Microbeads are very small pieces of polyethylene plastic that are added to health and beauty products, such as some skin cleansers and toothpastes. Now microplastics are to be found everywhere from deep oceans, to Arctic snow and Antarctic ice.  They are found in foodstuffs and drinking water.  One investigation found that if parents prepare baby formula by shaking it up in hot water inside a plastic bottle, their child might swallow tens of thousands of these microplastic particles each day.  The movement of these particles through ecosystems is  graphically summarised in this article.   There is currently much discussion and research about how these microplastics will impact on the environment and different organisms, including us.  Because they are so small and to be found widely in the environment,  they enter organisms and food chains.  Apart from the plastic in these particles, they may also contain chemical residues of  plasticisers, drugs, and pharmaceuticals, and heavy metals may stick to them.  Sometimes, sewage sludge may be used as fertiliser and this can contain nanoplastics.   Also, treated wastewater is used for irrigation  purposes and this again may be a source of plastic.  Research indicates that earthworms in microplastic ‘enriched’ plant litter grow more slowly and have a shorter life span, and there is evidence that the gut of earthworms becomes inflamed after exposure to microplastics.   Earthworms are important in aerating the soil and transporting materials such as dead leaves from the surface to deeper in the soil, they also 'inadvertently' transport micro-plastics.  Springtails, a group of soil micro-arthropods (Collembola) can also help move micro-plastics in the soil.  The movement of microplastics through the soil makes these materials ‘accessible’ to other soil dwellers but it is not clear if they pass along food chains (as has been the case with pesticides). Whether nano-plastics are taken up by or affect plants - again is not yet clear.  However, the chemicals released by plastics such as phthalates may taken up by plants. There is a significant risk of physical and physiological damage to organisms and ecosystems by these micro-plastics *. The particles also get into the human body and the consequences for our health are, as yet,  unknown. further information on nanoparticles etc : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220420133533.htm

In my last post I wrote about inconspicuous ascomycetes – the kind of tiny species that hide in plain site, manifesting themselves as little black dots on dead plant matter such as woody stems. This time, I want to zero in on a species that is not quite so inconspicuous and which grows on dead deciduous wood. After spotting it for the first time this year, it then started popping up everywhere in my local woods and beyond. I’ve found it in three different sites over the past few weeks alone. And not only me, as I’ve seen numerous postings in various online mycological interest groups by people who’d stumbled across it just as perplexed as I initially was. Who knows, perhaps the conditions have been particular good for it this year, or perhaps it’s always been around and I’ve just never noticed it. It’s name is Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma, and though it doesn’t have a common name in English, I’d argue it probably should do, as it is a fairly distinctive species. From a distance, it manifests itself as black fuzzy patches. Up close however, one notices that nestling amongst the felty patches of hairs are dozens of tiny slightly rough textured dark bluey-grey to black spheres up to 0.5mm in diameter.  [caption id="attachment_37861" align="aligncenter" width="650"] Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma[/caption] These are the perithecia of this pyrenomycetous ascomycetes  – if you didn’t read last months post, these are the hard black spherical flasks that hold the asci sacs that in turn hold and release its spores of this particular group. Looking closely, you can see the top of many of them have broken away, like the tops of Easter eggs. There are many, many fungi species that consists of groups of tiny spherical perithecia like this (to name but a few, there are the various species in the genuses of Nischkia, Ruzenia and Rosellinia, if you care to Google them). But Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma is distinguishable from these due to the coarsely hairy mat its perithecia are immersed in, known as the ‘subiculum’ (defined as the net, felt, or crust-like growth that covers a substrate formed by a mat of hyphae from which fruiting bodies emerge). In fact, there was a time when scientists believe this was two separate species, the orb-like perithecia being one of them, the hairy subiculum being another. [caption id="attachment_37862" align="aligncenter" width="650"] The large distinctive spores of Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma.[/caption] Fungi are complex organisms that constantly seem intent on thwarting those whose attention they attract. So it’s perhaps no surprise to find out that there is actually another species, Acanthonitsckea tristis, that looks superficially much the same as Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma. Whether it is more or less prevalent in the UK, I don’t know, but as ever, the way to tell them apart is through microscopic examination of the spores – the fungi in focus has relatively large (20-25x6-9 microns) banana-shaped ones that are segmented into four with the end segments lighter than the middle two;  Acanthonitsckea tristis has much smaller single-celled ones about 6-9x1.5-2 microns. [caption id="attachment_37863" align="aligncenter" width="650"] No hairy subiculum and totally different spores point towards an entirely different genus of Nitschkia for this otherwise very similar looking specimen.[/caption] I duly set about looking for the evidence, laying my find, after removing it from the wood with a penknife, facedown on a microscope slide overnight. The next day, I put the slide under the microscope and found thin curved ones, about 10x2 microns, which fit neither species. I was perplexed for a while, until the ever-helpful Emma Williams of the British Mycological Society pointed out that not only did the spores look more like those of the Common Tarcrust (Diatrype stigma), which I covered in some detail a few years back, or those of a number of other species in the related Eutypa genus, but that Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma doesn’t actually grow on dead deciduous wood, but parasitises these Diatrype and Eutypa species. I had stray spores. [caption id="attachment_37864" align="aligncenter" width="650"] In the top left of this picture you can see Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma growing as a parasite on its host in the bottom right, a member of the Eutypa genus.[/caption] And so I went back to break open the tiny perithecia and tried to ease a new batch of spores out. I was relieved that these did indeed perfectly match the large segmented spores of the Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma I thought I’d discovered. A closer inspection of the original photos also showed that beneath the margins of the felty subiculum, one could see the distinctive pimples of a Eutypa species upon which this was growing.  Whereas the Common Tarcrust is fairly easy to identify, the various Eutypa species are not so much. Some grow as a crust with the perithecia embedded in a spreading hard black body (the stroma) on top of the wood, like the Common Tarcust, and some species grow with the stroma forming beneath the wood and the perithecia emerging through it as little black dots. Wikipedia notes this “widespread genus is estimated to contain 32 species”. Even my fairly specialist literature at hand notes only about four species in detail, and I found no records of which might be found in the UK. [caption id="attachment_37865" align="aligncenter" width="650"] This cross-section photo shows the perithecia of this Eutypa species growing beneath the surface of the wood.[/caption] To be fair, such widespread but generally unremarkable types as Eutypa, of which we can find many more examples within the vast understudied field of ascomycetes, are not likely to be of much interest to anyone beyond those who have dedicated their life to the study of such things right down to the level of molecular genetics. I quickly decided it wasn’t worth my losing much sleep over narrowing it down to a species level.  However, that they themselves play host to more interesting species like our focus species, Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma, and therefore provide vital clues as to their identification, is more of interest to the amateur mycologist, and points to the complex and little understood interconnectedness of our woodland ecosystems. (I have covered several such examples of fungi-on-fungi relationships previously in these postings, including the Yellow Brain, the Silky Piggyback and the Bolete Eater). The other purpose of this month’s post is also to remind ourselves how surface features of many fungi only get us so far, and that how the complex and unusually-shaped spores of many of the otherwise nondescript ascomycetes can be a handy guiding feature.  [caption id="attachment_37866" align="aligncenter" width="650"] The lack of the fuzzy subiculum, the vestiges of white downy hair on the perithecia and in particular the long, worm-like spores guide us to an identification of Woolly Woodwart.[/caption] As an example, I just want to quickly mention another species I found recently beneath a damp, well-rotted deciduous log, the Woolly Woodwart (Lasiosphaeria ovina). The one has an english name, and one that reflects its appearance. While it too grows as tiny spherical perithecia that match the size of those of Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma, these are not immersed in the same black felty subiculum but are typically covered in the woolly white hairs that give it its common name. Except, however, that in the case of the specimen I found, these hairs had worn away, leaving distinctly un-woolly little black balls with little to identify them from without diving into the microscopic realm. Fortunately this was another one with highly unusual looking spores; large, long and worm-like, with dimensions around 40x5 microns, and singled celled – indeed, I initially thought I’d chanced upon a stray nematode on the microscope slide.  There are dozens of pages of tiny non-stromatic pyrenometous species listed in my go-to guide Fungi of Temperate Europe (vol 2., to be precise), and many many more unlisted. I hope that the example of Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma shows that not all need a microscope for identification, and that its not worth being too daunted by this group. [caption id="attachment_37867" align="aligncenter" width="650"] Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma[/caption]