Shots from the archive: puffball lad
Well hello. It’s been quiet here for a while, hasn’t it? Things are thawing now and I’m really looking forward to a new mushroom season. I’m sure you are too.
In the meantime, did you know that we have a really big archive of cool old photographs here? This is one I have blown up and hanging on the wall of my lab. It was taken in 1937 by our then department photographer, W.R. Fisher. We’ve been fortunate to have several generations of expert photographers associated with my Cornell department–explore our photographic heritage here. We’ve already talked about the puffballs here, and I can tell you nothing about the lad (I’m a mycologist!).
Part of my job is to direct the Cornell Plant Pathology Herbarium. In addition to a few hundred thousand specimens of fungi and sick plants, we have about 60,000 photos in our archives, going back to the 1880s. Many of them are interesting or odd. I’ll be posting some here, but feel free to explore on your own.
Welcome back! I hope to see more such gems in one of my favorite blog sites.
Elio
The probably name of this puff ball is Langermannia gigantea (Batsch) Rostk., that occurs in lawns and pastures.
Indeedy, the puffballs in the photo can be called Langermannia gigantea. However, some call them Calvatia gigantea. Because botanical nomenclature resists tyranny and favors freedom of expression, the decision is up to you. Yes, you!
Call it Calvatia if you agree with this statement: Puffball species with irregular dehiscence of the peridium should be classified together in a single genus. If so, you probably believe that this fungus and Calvatia craniiformis are congeneric, and the name that must be applied to this group is Calvatia, a name that is officially conserved in the Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
Call it Langermannia if you agree with this statement: Puffball species with flabelloid glebal development should be considered distinct at the genus level from those with coralloid and lacunar development. You’ll want to sharpen your wits by studying the argument of Matthias Gube (Mycologia 99(3): 396-405. 2007). Since the Code doesn’t reject the name Langermannia, we can feel comfortable resurrecting it for a genus distinct from Calvatia.