May 24, 2015 at 9:58 pm #1725
May 25, 2015 at 3:07 pm #1728Keith TModerator
The spore sizes seem a bit big? (Me = 31.2 x 24.1 µm ; Qe = 1.3)
Ellis and Ellis have 18 – 25 x 15 – 21
Wilson & Henderson 18 – 26 x 15 – 22
Bioimages M. Stor 26 – 28 x 20.5 for one example
And an 1888 book 19 – 26 x 17 – 20
Given that, I can’t think of anything else it could be.
May 25, 2015 at 8:01 pm #1730
May 27, 2015 at 6:38 am #1731
Thanks for this. Unfortunately, unless these are conidial spores(?) they do not match P. obscura or P. luzulae (the two species in E&E on wood rush). Nor do they match P. poarum. Info on P. obtusa is proving elusive (two further species which have been recorded by the BMS on wr). Of these four rusts I have found info on three of them and they all have septate spores.
One further thought; is this one of those species with the potential to produce as many as four different types of spore?
It should be noted the finder was Gordon Beakes (Plankey Mill).
Since John asked me to post this he has reminded me of uredospores. I had mistakenly concentrated on the teliospores.
Of note, no matter how good E&E is it does not list every species recorded on any given plant.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Dominique C.
May 27, 2015 at 6:57 am #1732
Is it possible for an author to edit their own post after posting, if so how? Interesting, I have been able to edit this post but not the first (hence this additional comment).
May 27, 2015 at 11:13 am #1733Keith TModerator
Information on Puccinia obtusa can be found in Mycologia vol 47 1955 p226
Don’t think it helps tho’.
May 28, 2015 at 9:51 pm #1735
Thanks Keith for the link. Is there a consensus that it is P. obscura? I would like to add it to Ron’s list. Cheers
May 30, 2015 at 7:46 am #1737
Yes, seems good to me. The spores are visually correct – just a bit larger than reported.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.