identification features well. Small inset photos are provided in some descriptions — some of these are helpful but others are too small to be very useful. Note: the photo allegedly of Suillus lakei actually shows S. ampliporus (previously referred to by the European name, “S. cavipes”). Warning: common-names rant ahead. Feel
free to proceed to the next paragraph. I don’t like the decision to use so-called “common” names to refer to the species. Te purpose of names is to promote communication — so that we can be sure we are talking about the same thing. If there was a universally agreed-to list of common names, such as pretty much exists for North American birds, using those names would be fine. But few mushrooms have legitimate common names because only a tiny handful of them are familiar to most people. Arguments that such names are needed because scientific names are unpronounceable hold no water. Folks deal easily with “rhododendron,” “eucalyptus,” “rhinoceros,” hippopotamus,” Homo sapiens, and Tyrannosaurus rex, so Amanita, Boletus, and Tricholoma should not present a problem. Is “ambiguous stropharia” any easier to pronounce than Stropharia ambigua? Many of the names used will only lead to increased confusion — “honey mushroom” is used just for Armillaria ostoyae when it is widely used for A. mellea or more generally for all its closely related species; “amethyst laccaria” already is used for Laccaria amethystina, but here it is applied to L. amethysteo- occidentalis; Peziza varia is the “brown cup,” even though that name could be used for nearly every peziza, as well as many other cups. Some mycenas are “mycena,” but others are “bonnet;” some gymnopilus are “gym,” but others “flamecap.” Tis may work for someone who uses only this book and interacts only with other users of it, but relying on mostly manufactured common names merely serves to handicap further learning. So, with that out of the way, how does the
species coverage compare with that of other similar guides? I found it interesting that the authors steadfastly avoided including BC as part of the “US” Pacific Northwest, seeing as how the province is in the southwest of Canada. However, a large part of BC is biologically part of what is generally referred to as the North American Pacific Northwest (PNW) and books covering the PNW are relevant for folks wishing to know about the province’s mushrooms. Guides focused on the PNW include the
Winter 2022 FUNGI Volume 15:1 49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
