Andrus Voitk

SPONSORS:TThhee DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt,, && CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn::

- Parks & Natural Areas Division- Wildlife Division

- Salmonier Nature ParkWWeesstteerrnn NNeewwffoouunnddllaanndd MMooddeell FFoorreessttGGrrooss MMoorrnnee CCooooppeerraattiinngg AAssssoocciiaattiioonn

SSiirr WWiillffrreedd GGrreennffeellll CCoolllleeggeeMMeemmoorriiaall UUnniivveerrssiittyy

GGrrooss MMoorrnnee NNaattiioonnaall PPaarrkkTTeerrrraa NNoovvaa NNaattiioonnaall PPaarrkk

QQuuiiddii VViiddii BBrreewwiinngg CCoommppaannyy

FORAY

SSeepptteemmbbeerr 1155--1177,, 22000066LLaavvrroocckk CCeennttrreeAAvvaalloonn PPeenniinnssuullaa

NEWFOUNDLAND& LABRADOR

An organized event of the Humber Natural History Society<http://www.hnhs.ca>

REPORT of

Copies of this Report, the Reports for 2003 - 2005 and Cumulative Species List can be downloaded in pdf form from the mushroomsection of the Humber Natural History Society’s web page, <www.hnhs.ca/mushrooms/>.Please feel free to use or circulate this and any of the other documents.

Comments & questions —

All rights reserved© Andrus Voitk

CONTENTS

Faculty 1

Trails 1

Participants 2

Program 3

REPORT 4

Highlights 7

Heather denizens 8

Species List 9

What do the data mean? 13

2007 Advance Notice Back cover

NNOOTTEE: Just as the foray tries to serve many interests, so also this Report tries to serveits many constituents. Some of the material may be too detailed, some too tedious andboring, much of it irrelevant to many interest groups. The biologist may be interested inhow many collections of a species came in. The park interpreter may want to know whatare the common mushrooms in her park. The foray participant may just want a memen-to of what went on. The mycologist may wish to know what species fruit on the Avalon.And so on. If much of it is not pertinent to you, please ignore it. You need not feel badfor not reading it all. It is easier to write one report, including things pertinent to facul-ty, participants, sponsors, biologists, other mycologists and mycophiles and so forth,than trying to write a separate Report for each group. Yes, I’m lazy!

TRAILS

1. Salmonier Nature Park (provincial)Boreal forest. Boardwalk all the way.

2. Salmonier back to — Avalon Wildernessarea (provincial)Boreal forest, bogs. More remote, roughertrails but easily passable.

3. Butter Pot Provincial ParkBoreal forest. Good trails.

4. La Manche Provincial ParkBoreal forest. Good trails.

5. Castle Hill Historic Site (federal)Boreal forest, fields of lawn. Good walking,moderate hills to climb.

6. Atlantic Charter Historic Site (federal)Littoral grasslands, sand dunesand Sugarloaf Trail (community)Hilly. Montane, some barrens.

7. Hawke Hill Ecologic Reserve (provincial)Significant climb. Subalpine.and Deer Park (community)Relatively easy walk. Lush and moist protectedboreal forest with some southern plantlife.

8. Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve(provincial)Flat walking over some heath. Coastal high-lands heath with dwarf trees.Area divided into segments with groupsresponsible for foraging their segment. Atleast 1 1/2 hr’s drive from Lavrock, each way.

FACULTY

GUEST

Arne Aronsen Torød, NorwayDave Malloch New Brunswick MuseumEd Lickey University of TennesseeRon Petersen University of TennesseeRoger Smith University of New BrunswickMike Wood San Francisco, USA

LOCAL

Michael Burzynski Gros Morne National ParkFaye Murrin Memorial UniversityAndrus Voitk Humber Natural History SocietyGary Warren Canadian Forestry Service

TRAIL LEADERS (in addition to the above)

GuestAlan FlemingBill Richards

LocalJohn MaunderJudy MayMac PitcherMaria Voitk

Quuqout Chefs

John Mølgaard, Gene Herzberg, Murray Colbo

Registrars - Judy May, Maria Voitk

DOCUMENTATION

Michael BurzynskiRoss Collier*Natalie Djan-ChékarJeri GrahamClaudia HanelSusan Knight*Anne MarceauMeherzad Romer*Roger SmithAare Voitk*Andrus VoitkMark Wilson*and many others

* “student volunteer”

1

Roger ZilkowskiGraham ZilkowskiMike WoodMarian WissinkMark WilsonGary WarrenJane WardzinskaMaria VoitkAndrus VoitkAare VoitkSid TorravilleLorretta TorravilleHelen SpencerBeth SpencerRoger SmithMonika SaurermoserMeherzad RomerBill RichardsMac PitcherHilda PilgrimRon PetersonLaura ParkJohn MolgaardElke MolgaardFaye MurrinJudy MayJohn MaunderAnne MarceauDave MallochEd LickeyFrancine LemireSusan KnightClara JenniexKaren HerzbergGene HerzbergPat HaywardClaudia HanelSarah GrahamJeri GrahamJamie GrahamRae FlemingAlan FlemingNathalie Djan-ChékarAva Djan-ChékarMurray ColboRoss CollierMichael BurzynskiRandy BattenArne Aronsen

It is a sad comment on our societybut I removed the e-mail addressesthat are usually found here. Many peo-ple find these a convenient way tostay in touch with some of the partici-pants they befriended at the foray.Unfortunately this practice is nolonger safe. This report will be distrib-uted electronically and posted on ourwebsite. Spammers send spiders orcrawl engines all over public sites andcopy any e-mail addresses found thereto add to their lists for future spamdistribution. Thus any address postedon our site will eventually attractspam.

Apparently if you put your address upas a graphic or image, most spiderswill not recognize it as a bona fide e-mail address and will not copy it. Withthe fast pace of technology, even thismay have only a limited time to work.

Therefore, if you lost somebody’s e-mail whom you wish to contact,please let me know and I’ll be pleasedto send it to you. My address is onthe obvious graphic below:

PARTICIPANTSReverse alphabetical order.

2

Corner Brook NLCorner Brook NLSan Francisco CASt John's NLSt John's NLCorner Brook NLSan Francisco CAHumber Village NLHumber Village NLHumber Village NLPort au ChoixPort au ChoixTorbay, NLTorbay, NLFredericton NBRoddickton NLCorner Brook NLFort Saskatchewan ABHolyrood NLRoddickton NLKnoxville, TNHarbour Main NlSt John's NLSt John's NLSt John's NLHumber Village NLPouch Cove NLRocky Harbour NLLittle Lepreau NBStrawberry Plains TNCorner Brook NLSt John's NLHumber Village NLSt John's NLSt John's NLRigolet, LabradorCorner Brook NLCorner Brook NLCorner Brook NLCorner Brook NLEdmonton ABEdmonton ABWitless Bay NLWitless Bay NLSt John's NLSt Alban’s NLRocky Harbour NLConception Bay S NLTorød, Norway

3

PROGRAM

FRIDAY, Sep 15, 2006

3:00 PM – 9:00 PMRegistration

4:00 PM – 6:00 PMWelcome receptionHosted by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador throughthe Ministry of Environment & Conservation, The Hon. ClydeJackman, MHA, Minister.

6:00 PM – 7:00 PMSupper

7:00 PM – 7:30 PMMushroom ID Contest winners & otherimportant stuff

7:30 PM – 8:30 PMGary Warren: Polypores of Newfoundland

8:30 PM – 9:30 PMAndrus Voitk: The May Model of amushroom foray

SATURDAY, Sep 16, 2006

8:00 AM – 9:00 AMBreakfast

9:00 AM – 4:00 PMForays

1:00 PM – 2:00 PMLunch

4:00 PM – 6:00 PMQuidi Vidi Mushroom QuuqoutBeer courtesy of Quidi Vidi Brewing Company

6:00 PM – 7:00 PMSupper

7:00 PM – 8:00 PMArne Aronsen: Small is beautiful — a shortjourney into the world of Mycena

8:00 PM – 9:00 PMRon Petersen: Mushrooms, mating and mole-cules: Newfoundland 2006

Around the talksMike from Newport and other locals drop in

and other importantstuff

SUNDAY, Sep 17,2006

8:00 AM – 9:00 AMBreakfast

10:00 AM – 12:00PMCape St Mary’s Blitz

1:00 PM – 2:00 PMLunch

2:00 PM - 3:30 PMTABLES SESSIONS

3:30 PM – 4:00 PMWrap-up & Thank you

As in past years, this year’s Foray was sponsored by TheHumber Natural History Society, aided by its several kindpartners: The Department of Environment, &Conservation, the Hon. Clyde Jackman, Minister(Parks & Natural Areas Division, Wildlife Division &Salmonier Nature Par), Western Newfoundland ModelForest, Gros Morne Cooperating Association, SirWilfred Grenfell College, Memorial University, GrosMorne National Park, Terra Nova National Park andQuidi Vidi Brewing Company.

The Foray started, as in previous years, with a FacultyForay for our experts. This provided faculty an informalforum to meet each other, walk the foray trails andexplore our unique mycoflora.

Youth was a noticeable component of this year’s partici-pants — we had three children and a significant numberof students and participants in their thirties (or even less).We enjoyed our largest ever number of participants,mushroom enthusiasts from Labrador, the Great NorthernPeninsula, Central Newfoundland, the West Coast andthe Avalon (yes, even St John’s) joining others fromAlberta, California, Tennessee, New Brunswick andNorway to forage the autumn woods of the AvalonPeninsula for species to be identified with the help ofexperts. Little over one-half of the participants were new-comers to our foray.

The Foray opened with a reception by the Department ofEnvironment & Conservation. Pictures of Cape St Mary’sand other memorabilia were presented to our out ofprovince guest faculty members on behalf of the people ofNewfoundland and Labrador via the Department ofEnvironment & Conservation. All registrants received ahandsome registration package from the Department.

Small teams, under expert leadership, went forth intoselected trails, foraging for mushrooms. This was the firstyear that mushrooms were a bit scarce but despite that, avery interesting variety of species was collected by theforaging teams. The weather was pleasantly sunny for theevent..As before, foragers were very diligent about the use ofcollecting slips - virtually no specimen came in without

4

REPORT

a slip. Specimens were sorted with attempt to identify atleast to genus. These were submitted to the experts’eagle eyes and authenticated specimens taken to the

exhibition hall.Despite all this help,the experts were stillkept busy into thenight, seeking to final-ly pin a name onsome elusive andpesky little mush-room. Although therewere fewer mush-rooms out than in pre-vious years, the cullwas impressive.

As anyone with expe-rience of foraysknows, the finalspecies list often

reflects as much the interest of the identifiers as the avail-able mushrooms. For example, this year’s list shows agoodly representation of the genus Cortinarius, whereasthe genera Entoloma (as opposed to last year) andRussula do not figure prominently. This is just the natureof the event. Our experts did yeoman’s work, using micro-scopes, chemicals, tomes of books and each other for

consultation toproduce a list,backed with pho-tographs andvoucher speci-mens. The latterpart of theprocess was car-ried out by thebiggest contin-gent of “volun-teers” it has beenour fortune tohave. We havealways enjoyedgood supportfrom all levels ofgovernment butthis year this spe-cific aspect of ourforay received even better support, allowing us to engagemore young people in the database work than everbefore.

Saturday was devoted to foraging the diverse regions ofour various protected areas on the Avalon. Two of the for-ays were dedicated to mushroom photography, one led byCalifornian Mike Woods, author of the large mushroomwebsite MykoWeb, and the other by Canadian naturephotographer Roger Smith. Roger and his Documentation

5

Photographs in the Report by Roger Smith, Gene Herzberg and Andrus Voitk.6

Team photographed all identified specimens, after whichvoucher specimens were dried for archiving in the GrosMorne National Park Herbarium.

Sunday was devoted to a unique habitat - the coastalhighland heath at Cape St Mary’s Ecological Reserve.Participants were divided into teams and dispersed overthe Reserve in an effort to cover the entire area.

The Quidi Vidi Mushroom Quuqout was a huge success,even though we had a temporary slip-up with our spon-sor’s product. The person in charge of picking up the beerfell ill and arrived a day late, completely forgetting aboutthe beer in the interim. Conscience stricken, she drove tothree stores in order to get enough Quidi Vidi product forthe Quuqout (afterwards she collected them from oursponsor, although she did have to go to the main office

and take a lie detector test that she only bought Quidi Vidiproduct! Under the eye of Chef-in-Chief JohannesMølgaard, sous-chefs Murray Colbo and Gene Herzbergcooked up a storm, completely oblivious to the beerdrama playing out around them. The Sin City Quuqs friedevery edible mushroom from miles around and every lastscrap was eaten.The evening scientific programs provid-ed varied and informative talks. Friday we had anoverview of the polypores of our province, followed by adissertation on the relationship of a foray to the mush-rooms of its region and how species lists may be used tocompare habitats. Saturday we had a personal journeythrough the world of the very beautiful mycenas and a dis-cussion of various approaches to species concept inmycology and how this has been pursued with in vitromating studies and current DNA studies. The talk was allthe more interesting because some of the species studiedhad been shipped to him from Newfoundland, showing ushow our mushrooms fit into the larger scheme of things.

The end result: 741 collections processed, 189 mushroomspecies identified, 40% new to our forays, bringing ourcumulative species list to 570.

Highlights are personal. What moves you may not moveme and vice versa. These are some of mine.

Top of the mycological highlights for me must be findingsomething I have sought for a few years, Hemimycenalactea under juniper. This led to further exploration of

junipers on the island and an eventual story, mailed toforay participants under the guise of a Preliminary Report.Specialized habitats have their unique mycoflora andoften reward you with beautiful surprises.

There’s no denying that finding the rare Amanita wellsii inprofusion at Cape St Mary’s was a thrill. Sure, a prelimi-nary scouting team already found it there last year, so wecame fully expecting it, but still — a real highlight! Aftera bit of rain the mushrooms were in prime shape, withoutthe usual drying or bleaching from exposure. Obviouslymost people found it attractive, because there were sever-al collections brought back. Wish I had a picture of thewhole pile! It was also nice to confirm its mycorrhizalpartner, the arctic bear-berry willow, Salix uva-ursi. CapeSt Mary’s also yielded one of the most hauntingly beauti-ful mushrooms, a white Hygrocybe, species yet to bedetermined.

Another highlight was seeing the very rare boreal feltlichen in Salmonier Nature Park under the guidance of

Salmonier’s lichenophile, Mac Pitcher. Mac treated uswell throughout and did not mind our trampling his holyplaces. As a reward, Michael Burzynski spied an unusualmushroom amongst the lichen on a balsam fir. It is piningaway in our collection, still nameless. We do not keepunidentified specimens, but this one is special…

Even though we have visited there often, seeing the land-scape and the birds at Cape St Mary’s was still one of thenon-mycological highlights. For several reasons, so wasthe little episode about forgetting to pick up the beer andthen going off to buy some from several stores, to getenough Quidi Vidi product.

Best of all was the positive response from so many partic-ipants. More than in previous years, people came up andtold us they would be sure to return next year. Otherscame up and offered to take on some tasks for next year’sforay. This was a far better feed-back than any form couldprovide. I am now eagerly waiting to see you in 2007.

HIGHLIGHTSMYCOLOGICAL & OTHERWISE

7

The May model tells us that traditionalforays will never recover all the mush-room species in a region. Commonspecies are recovered each time and theless common species with variable fre-quency. In that case, how can we maxi-mize the number of species recovered?One way is to explore all the diversespecialized habitats of the region. Eachhabitat has its own mycoflora, some ofwhich may be quite common in, yet

unique to, that habitat; those mushrooms will not berecovered by general foraging. Thus, although the numberof species in any specialized habitat may be small, thelikelihood that they are new to the list is quite high.

Examples of specialized habitats are bogs, mountain bar-rens, alder thickets, coastal sand dunes, etc — you canthink of as many as your imagination allows. Mushroomsfruiting under juniper provided an example. Specializedhabitats often reward you with not only new species toadd to the list but also mushrooms of incredible beauty.However, everything has its price. Places not commonlyexplored often harbour mushrooms not commonlyencountered, ie not commonly described. In other words,they may be very difficult to identify because literature islacking or unavailable, hidden in very obscure sources.

One such habitat that we explored during the foray washeather. As other plants, heather has some mushroomsassociated with it, some because they are exclusiveheather partners and others because they thrive in condi-tions like those supplied by heather. Our search wasrewarded with three small mushrooms of delicate beauty.True to form, they proved somewhat difficult to identify.

The commonest small, hairy, white cup fungus isDasyscyphus virgineus, not exclusive toheather. The same genus has somespecies, apparently exclusive to heather.Although comfortable with this identifi-cation, based on the material supplied,the identifier could not exclude some ofthe others with absolute certainty.Similarly, the identifier of Ramariopsisrufipes was happy with the identifica-tion, although unable to exclude twopotential contenders with certainty. Theidentifier of the small galerina-likemushroom was much less happy withits identification as Simocybe reducta,stating that it was the “best fit” from theavailable literature. What fun!

HEATHER DENIZENS

8

Number of species from each foray trail

Dark red indicates species new to NL cumulative species list.

The numbers of collections per trail are not comparable and do not necessarily reflect the respective amount or diversity ofmycoflora along that trail, compared to others. Some trails were surveyed twice (both at the Faculty Foray and the MainForay), some are only part of a foray group’s destinations and Cape St Mary’s was surveyed both at the Faculty Foray and byall foray participants as a “blitz”.

That said, the data suggest considering change of Atlantic Charter-Sugarloaf combination for something more productive inthe future. For more of what the data reveal, see “What do the data mean?”, right after the Species List.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Atlantic Charter

Butterpot

Cape St Mary's

Castle Hill

Deer Park

Hawke Hill

LaManche

Lavrock

Salmonier A

Salmonier B

Sugarloaf

Misc

NOTE:1. Taxonomy in Barron: Mushrooms of Ontario and Eastern Canada has been followed, as a base. Where it madesense, or where faculty urged us, more recent convention has been adopted; common usage or sense has been fol-lowed for species not named in that book.2. Names in blue indicate species new to NL cumulative species list.3. Names in green indicate species common to all our forays to date.4. List tentative - further study may cause revisions.

SPECIES LIST189 SPECIES, 76 (40%) NEW TO NL CUMULATIVE SPECIES LIST

Developed by Michael Burzynski & Andrus Voitk with plenty of help from the Faculty and the Documentation TeamAuthenticators: Arne Aronsen, Ed Lickey, Dave Malloch, Faye Murrin, Ron Petersen, Andrus Voitk, Gary Warren, Mike Wood

9

This list may seem unnecessarily complex. Just look at the first column, if all you want is to know what species were identified.Because this Report is also a report for the use of our sponsor, the Department of Environment and Conservation, the list showsthe breakdown of what was found where. This enables each protected area to develop its own database, as well compare withother areas and the whole province . The numbers in each box indicate the number of collections for that species from that foraytrail. This information is summarized in the chart below. A simple list and the updated cumulative species list for all our past fiveforays are available to download from our website <www.hnhs.ca/mushrooms/>.

10

SPECIESNr

collec-tions

AtlanticCharte

r

Butterpot

CapeSt

Mary's

Castle Hill

DeerPark

Hawke Hill

LaManche

Lavrock

Salmonier

A

Salmonier

B

Sugarloaf

Misc

Agaricus campestris 1 1Albatrellus peckianus 1 1Amanita bisporigera 2 1 1Amanita flavoconia 12 4 3 1 4Amanita fulva 1 1Amanita muscaria var. guessowii 1 1Amanita porphyria 9 2 3 1 3Amanita rubescens 6 1 2 3Amanita vaginata 3 1 1 1Amanita wellsii 8 8Amylostereum chailletii 1 1Armillaria ostoyae 1 1Boletus subglabripes 1 1Boletus subtomentosus 5 5Bovista pila 2 2Bovista plumbea 1 1Calocybe carnea 1 1Camarophyllus pratensis 4 2 1 1Cantharellula umbonata 2 2Cantharellus cibarius 10 3 2 2 1 1 1Cantharellus tubaeformis 21 1 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 1Catathelasma ventricosa 1 1Cerrena unicolor 1 1Chalciporus piperatus 4 1 2 1Cheilymenia fimicola 1 1Cheimonophyllum candidissimus 1 1Chlorociboria aeruginascens 2 1 1Clavulina cristata 11 5 3 1 2Collybia cirrhata 1 1Collybia tuberosa 3 1 1 1Cordyceps ophioglossoides 1 1Cortinarius acutus 10 1 1 1 3 4Cortinarius agathosmus 1 1Cortinarius alboviolaceus 1 1Cortinarius anomalus 1 1Cortinarius armillatus 3 2 1Cortinarius brunneus 2 2 1 1Cortinarius brunneus var. glandicolor 2 1 1Cortinarius callisteus 1 1Cortinarius camphoratus 5 1 2 1 1Cortinarius caninus 1 1Cortinarius corrugis 1 1Cortinarius evernius 24 5 2 1 8 1 5 1 1Cortinarius flexipes 2 2Cortinarius flexipes var inolens 2 2Cortinarius furvolaesus 1 1Cortinarius glaucopus 1 1Cortinarius hemitrichius 3 1 2Cortinarius huronensis 6 1 3 1 1Cortinarius limonius 7 2 1 1 2 1Cortinarius malicorius 5 2 1 1 1Cortinarius mucifluus 16 2 7 3 4Cortinarius obtusus 1 1Cortinarius paleaceus 9 3 2 1 2 1

11

SPECIESNr

collec-tions

AtlanticCharter

Butterpot

CapeSt

Mary's

Castle Hill

DeerPark

Hawke Hill

LaManche

Lavrock

Salmonier

A

Salmonier

B

Sugarloaf

Misc

Cortinarius pholideus 1 1Cortinarius porphyropus 1 1Cortinarius semisanguineus 6 5 1Cortinarius semivestitus 1 1Cortinarius stillatitius 5 2 1 1 1Cortinarius tortuosus 1 1Cortinarius traganus 7 7Dacrymyces palmatus 7 2 2 2 1Dascycscyphus virgineus 1 1Endogone pisiformis 1 1Entoloma fuscotomentosum 1 1Entoloma sericeum 1 1Exobasidium vaccinii 4 3 1Fomitopsis pinicola 12 2 2 4 2 1 1Fuscoboletinus laricinus 10 2 1 3 3 1Fuscoboletinus paluster 4 4Fuscoboletinus spectabilis 5 1 1 2 1Galerina marginata 1 1Galerina paludosa 6 1 2 1 1 1Gloeophyllum saepiarium 10 2 1 2 4 1Gomphidius subroseus 1 1Gymnopus acervatus 2 2Helminthosphaeria clavariarum 1 1Helvella lacunosa 3 3Hemimycena lactea 2 1 1Hirschioporus abietinus 6 3 1 2Hydnellum pineticola 2 1 1Hydnum albomagnum 2 1 1Hydnum repandum 1 1Hydnum rufescens 1 1Hydnum umbilicatum 4 1 3Hygrocybe calypteriformis var. alba 1 1Hygrocybe cantharellus 2 1 1Hygrocybe coccinea 1 1Hygrocybe coccineocrenata 1 1Hygrocybe conica 6 1 2 2 1Hygrocybe laeta 2 1 1Hygrocybe miniata 10 1 3 1 1 2 2Hygrocybe punicea 4 3 1Hygrocybe virginea 3 3Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca 5 5Hypholoma capnoides 5 2 2 1Hypholoma elongatum 2 2Hypholoma fasciculare 1 1Hypomyces hyalinus 1 1Inocybe lacera 2 2Inocybe lanuginosa 1 1Laccaria bicolor 1 1Laccaria laccata 35 8 1 11 1 2 1 2 1 5 2 1Laccaria longipes 1 1Laccaria proxima 4 3 1Lactarius camphoratus 17 2 3 7 1 1 2 1Lactarius deceptivus 12 6 2 2 1 1Lactarius deterrimus 4 2 1 1

12

SPECIESNr col-

lec-tions

AtlanticCharter

Butterpot

CapeSt

Mary's

Castle Hill

DeerPark

Hawke Hill

LaManche

Lavrock

Salmonier

A

Salmonier

B

Sugarloaf

Misc

Lactarius glyciosmus 2 1 1Lactarius helvus 1 1Lactarius hibbardae 7 1 3 1 1 1Lactarius lignyotus 1 1Lactarius lignyotus var. canadensis 1 1Lactarius representaneus 1 1Lactarius thyinos 4 2 2Lactarius uvidus 1 1Lactarius vinaceorufescens 3 1 1 1Leccinum atrostipitatum 2 2Leccinum aurantiacum 1 1Leccinum niveum 4 1 1 1 1Leotia lubrica 33 1 2 3 2 10 1 1 2 8 1 1 1Leotia viscosa 3 1 1 1Leucoagaricus leucothites 1 1Lichenomphalia umbellifera 1 1Lycogala epidendrum 3 1 1 1Lycoperdon nigrescens 1 1Lycoperdon pedicellatum 2 2Lycoperdon perlatum 1 1Mycena adonis 5 1 3 1Mycena borealis 10 1 1 1 1 5 1Mycena citrinomarginata 1 1Mycena filopes 2 1 1Mycena hemisphaerica 2 2Mycena laevigata 1 1Mycena maculata 4 2 1 1Mycena metata 2 2Mycena rubromarginata 4 1 1 1 1Neolecta irregularis 7 1 1 1 1 3Nolanea stricta 1 1Onygena equina 1 1Panaeolus campanulatus 2 2Panaeolus foenisecii 1 1Panellus stipticus 1 1Paxillus involutus 11 4 1 2 1 1 1 1Pholiota astragalina 3 3Pholiota lenta 1 1Pholiota scamba 1 1Pholiota spumosa 2 1 1Phyllotus porrigens 5 1 2 1 1Pluteus atricapillus 2 1 1Pseudohydnum gelatinosum 1 1Psilocybe semilanceata 4 1 2 1Ramaria fennica 1 1Ramaria rubrievanescens 1 1Ramariopsis rufipes 1 1Rhytisma ilicis-canadenus 1 1Rickenella fibula 1 1Rozites caperata 6 4 1 1Russula aquosa 1 1Russula brevipes 1 1Russula compacta 1 1Russula emetica 1 1

13

SPECIES Nr AtlanticCharter

Butterpot

Cape StMary's

CastleHill

DeerPark

Hawke Hill

LaManche

Lavrock

Salmonier A

Salmonier B

Sugarloaf

Misc

Russula fragilis 2 1 1Russula laurocerasi 2 2Russula nigricans 2 2Russula ochroleucoides 1 1Russula olivacea 1 1Russula paludosa 2 1 1Russula peckii 16 1 3 2 12 1 1 4 2Russula vesca 6 1 1 1 1 1 1Russula xerampelina 1 1Sarcodon imbricatus 1 1Simocybe reducta 1 1Stropharia alcis 1 1Suillus cavipes 15 3 4 6 2Suillus grevillei 10 7 1 1 1Suillus intermedius 2 2Tricholoma atrosquamosum 1 1Tricholoma fulvum 3 1 1 1Tricholoma fumosoluteum 4 1 1 1 1Tricholoma intermedium 2 1 1Tricholoma myomyces 1 1Tricholoma pessundatum 6 1 1 3 1Tricholoma sejunctum 20 3 5 6 1 1 2 2Tricholoma virgatum 4 2 2Tricholomopsis decora 1 1Tricholomopsis rutilans 2 1 1Tylopilus porphyrosporus 1 1Xeromphalina campanella 4 1 2 1

TOTAL COLLECTIONS 741 13 111 90 88 99 21 93 39 130 35 11 11

TOTAL SPECIES 189 6 62 47 51 43 14 53 29 69 29 11 11

NEW1 76 0 16 17 18 11 4 11 7 21 5 4 2

COMMON2 24 4 18 9 16 15 18 17 8 18 13 4 3

UNIQUE3 105 1 11 25 10 8 3 11 6 19 2 5 4

1 New species to the NL Cumulative Species List2 Species found during all our previous forays3 Species found only on (the) one foray trail during this foray

WHAT DO THE DATA MEAN?As always, our data speak. You already saw thatthey suggested that the Atlantic Charter trail mightbe replaced with something more productive. Thus,the data allow us to make evidence based decisionson how to improve our foray experience. More ofthis a bit later.

What else do they tell us? Look at the two graphson the next page. Both show the same thing, onefrom Gros Morne in 2005, the other our Avalon

foray of 2006. Each bar represents one collectedspecies. The height of the bar represents the numberof collections of that species. To allow comparison,the scale along the Y axis is the same for bothgraphs. The first thing that hits the eye, is that thisyear the beginning of the graph is much taller, whilethe tail end remains unchanged. In other words,uncommon mushrooms (at the end) are still repre-sented by single collections but the number of col-lections of common ones more than doubled.

14

We shall get to the explanation of this in a momentbut first, let us notice some other differences.Yellow bars represent those species found at everyforay to date. Two things become evident: this timethey are fewer with a different distribution. Both ofthese differences were predicted by the May model.Our first three forays all took place in Gros Morne.It should not be surprising that many mushroomsturned up in the same location year after year. Whenwe added a foray in Labrador, the number of speciesconsistently present at both sites dropped; some

species common in Gros Morne were not found inLabrador. Each time a new site is added, the numberof species consistently common to all regionsdecreases. Therefore, adding a survey on the Avalonagain reduced the number of species consistentlyfound at all sites. This suggests that the habitats ofAvalon may differ from those of Gros Morne (andLabrador), even if the regions may the same.

Now, study the distribution of the yellow bars. InGros Morne the commonest mushrooms, represent-ed by 5 or more collections, were mostly those

species found consistently every year. By the timeof our Avalon foray we have additional data fromone foray in Labrador and this one on the Avalon.With the addition of two different regions to themix, those species common in Avalon (representedthis time by 10 or more collections) are no longerthose common to all our surveyed sites. As we addnew sites, the number of mushroom species foundon all sites each time can be expected to decreaseand they will be less likely to be concentratedamong the common species for the new foray sites.

Now, look at the red bars in the Avalon graph. Theyrepresent species new to our cumulative species list,species we have not found on any foray before. It isreasonable to expect them to be somewhat uncom-mon and thus it is not surprising to find most amongmushrooms of which only 1 or 2 collections werefound. What is surprising is to find some among thecommon finds of this foray. Cortinarius mucifluuswas collected 16 times, the seventh most commonspecies of the foray. It is difficult to believe that wehave not found it in Gros Morne in three years — Iknow that it fruits there. Both Cortinarius stillatitius

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

GROS MORNE 2005

AVALON 2006

and Amanita rufescens are quite common in GrosMorne, yet we have recorded neither at our previousforays. Mycena borealis was collected 10 times,from six of our nine major trails and from habitatsas disparate as those around the moist and lushboreal forest of Deer Park and those of the exposedand inhospitable coastal highland heath of Cape StMary’s. Surely such a species must exist throughoutthe province — we just have not been able to recog-nize it before? Amanita wellsii presents a differentstory. Eight collections of it are recorded yet it is avery uncommon mushroom, not only here buteverywhere. We recorded so many only because wesurveyed a very special habitat, Cape St. Mary’s,where it seems to thrive enough to be common.

Now, let us get back to why the big difference in thenumber of collections from previous practice (the2005 Gros Morne graph looks just like that for 2003and 2004 before). Well, the night before the foray atalk about the May model of a foray mentioned thatinformation is not only gleaned from the number ofspecies but also from the number of collections orthe “commonness” of a species. My guess is thatwhen people heard this, they collected a species onre-encountering it, even if it was collected beforeand/or the Database Team felt that there was a pointto the tedious recording of repeat collections ofspecies already amply documented. Whatever thereason, there was a significant and abrupt change ofbehaviour, apparently in response to informationgleaned from a “scientific presentation”. In thisinstance it seems our data suggest that presentationsdevoted to broad ideas are of value: people learnfrom them and, if justified, alter their behaviour bywhat they learn. (That, of course, is only one possi-ble explanation. An obvious alternate explanation isthat there just were that many more mycological“weeds” on the Avalon. My impression, although Ihave no data to verify it, does not support this.)

At first blush this seems counterintuitive. When Iask what sorts of talks we should have, peoplealways request talks devoted to recognizing mush-rooms or groups of mushrooms, not “scientific” dis-courses. Yet, whenever people speak to me after-ward about our talks, invariably they mention talksdevoted to broad “scientific” concepts. It seems thattalks about species concept, evolution, genetics,migration, habitat, substrate and the like have

increased our understanding of how fungi behaveand where they and we fit into the greater picture.

Although over the years we have had excellent talksabout mushrooms or how to master specific groupsof mushrooms, not once has anybody commented tome how helpful these have been in recognizingmore species. Not once! It seems that although wewant them, we are unable to benefit much fromtalks like “How to identify the Russulas” or the like.This despite having had undisputed world expertsamong us giving excellent talks about the mush-rooms of their special interest. Let us look at threeexamples where our data suggest that these lectures,while enjoyed by the ears and eyes, have left no sig-nificant permanent trace in our gray matter.

1. Amanita vaginata is the common mushroom afterwhich section Vaginata was named and A. fulva isthe commonest species of that section in our area.Why were both identified for the first time thisyear? In all past years we have had a world authori-ty on the genus Amanita, who has been able to dis-tinguish several similar species within the genus.Left to ourselves, we are able to recognize only thetwo common species in the section that we knewbefore. Shocking! I had already imagined myself abit of an amanita expert from this association butthe data suggest his knowledge has not flowed tome by osmosis.

2. In 2005 we had a world authority on the genusEntoloma; he identified many species and gave usone of the most lucid lectures on this genus. Did welearn? This year very few entolomas were identi-fied, especially considering the many specimens dis-carded for lack of identification. Although he did hisbest for us, we learned relatively little.

3. This year we had a mycena expert, who gave us atalk on the genus and identified many new (for us)species, among them M. borealis, discussed earlier.This seemingly ubiquitous mushroom probablyfruited at our other foray sites as well but wentunrecognized. OK, fair enough, we did not know itthen and thus did not identify it. But what aboutnext year? My guess is that not only shall we notrecognize most of the mycenas added to this year’slist, but we shall also be unlikely to recognize thiscommonest of mushrooms again. Am I wrong?

15

These doubts did not come to me from thin air butfrom our own data. All these years I have pleadedwith our experts to lecture to us about how wemight recognize the mushrooms of their special areaof interest. Our data suggest that this has notworked. The fault is certainly not in the expert. Itprobably is not even in us. It seems that the didacticlecture, no matter how well organized and present-ed, by no matter how great an authority, is just notan efficient vehicle for teaching practical skills.Based on the evidence provided by our data, per-haps we should use our experts in a more practicalsetting. Probably the best would be to collect withan expert but at the foray we have too many peopleand too few experts. A practical compromise mightbe to encourage more broad topics for the didacticpresentations and plan to increase the exposure ofparticipants to the experts in better scheduled hands-on Tables sessions. Hopefully, examining the livespecimens collected from our own area with anexpert may prove to be a better learning forum thana didactic lecture with slides.

A few considerations are in order. First, not every-body wants to learn the names of all mushrooms shemeets. Some are content to walk in the fresh air,enjoy some camaraderie and reestablish ties withnature. Others take joy in painting or photographingmushrooms for their beauty, without having to knowtheir names. Many just wish to learn a few edibles

and know which poisonous ones to avoid. We allhave different wishes and expectations, all of themequally valid.

Second, learning is an active process based on repe-tition. It is unrealistic to expect to learn even a smallgenus at one foray or one lecture. That takes yearsand most of the learning has to take place outside anannual foray. Despite all efforts, many of the mush-rooms (gray mycenas like M. borealis are a goodexample) cannot be identified by gross morphologyalone but require differentiation of microscopic fea-tures as well. That said, it would still be nice if par-ticipants came away from each foray knowing a fewmore mushrooms. It would be nice if we could tapinto the expertise of our distinguished faculty a littlemore effectively, so that we retain a bit of theirknowledge beyond an ever-lengthening string ofLatin names that most of us are unlikely to use.

Third, we should not lose sight of the fact that thereis more to forays than learning mushrooms. Every-body appreciates good presentations with beautifulpictures. They have artistic value, contribute to thegeneral “mushroom atmosphere” of the foray, areoften the best of entertainment and may serve as apotent magnet to attract the neophyte to this pursuit.

In other words, decisions about the format of aforay depend on its perceived aims. However, nomatter what those aims, the data we generate canprovide evidence on which to base decisions thatwould otherwise rely on the three G-s: gut feelings,good intentions and guesswork.

There are many other interesting things seen in ourdata beyond the foregoing. If you have the time andare willing to buy red wine, I shall be pleased todiscuss them with you for hours or as long as thewine holds out. These issues were raised to demon-strate that the gathering of these data have a real andintrinsic value beyond the making of a list of Latinnames. They were also raised to make you aware ofthem and to solicit your input and ideas of the direc-tion we should take and how we should go about it.If you agree, it would be comforting to know and ifyou disagree, it would be especially helpful to knowthat. If you have any thoughts about these matters orwhat changes might improve future forays, pleasesend me an e-mail to:

The

gra

y-br

own

Myc

ena

bo

real

is,

one

of o

ver

30su

ch

med

ium

-siz

ed

gray

-bro

wn

myc

enas

; m

ost

requ

ire m

icro

scop

ic m

orph

olog

y fo

r di

ffere

ntia

tion.

16

HHOOWW TTOO IINNTTEERRPPRREETT TTHHIISS RREEPPOORRTT

This Report is patterned after a scientific paper (but lacking the tradi-tional introduction — aim, review of past knowledge and statement ofthe null hypothesis). Faculty, Trails, Participants and Program comprisethe Materials and Methods section. Results are found from the Reportthrough to the end of the Species List. “What do the data mean?” isthe equivalent of the Discussion.

Materials and Methods are generally accurate statements of fact. TheResults are equally accurate records of observations. They may differfrom truth only within the margin of error inherent in the materials andmethods used. Thus, within the field setting of a foray, a specimen mayhave been misidentified. Other than the occasional occurrence of sucherror, the results should be factual, incontrovertibly so. As all goodresults, they should be reproducible and verifiable. Our database,voucher pictures and voucher specimens make our collection materialavailable for anybody to study, confirm or correct.

The Discussion section (“What do the data mean?”) is an attempt tointerpret the Results. It is the author’s best attempt or explain whathas been observed, but lacks scientific proof. As such, it is pure opinionand makes no claim to be fact, no matter how authoritative the authoror her exposition style. This is the vital difference between Results andDiscussion: one is fact and the other pure conjecture.

That is not to say that a Discussion in a scientific paper has no value.But in a Report such as this — I wonder?