Fungi


Generally  you see only the spore-producing structure (or fruitbody) of a fungus, the rest being well hidden (e.g. in soil, dung or wood). On Nature Map, fungi are divided into categories (the groups and sub-groups shown on the right) based on fruitbody form. Each category name consists of a descriptive phrase and this may be followed:

           in square brackets  ]      by a colloquial name

 or     in angled brackets  >      by a technical term

for what you find in that category. Some examples of colloquial terms are mushroom, bolete and polypore – and these are some of the traditional groupings, that have long been used in fungal field guides aimed at the general public.

Why not use just the colloquial terms as category names?

Mushroom is a word that many people are familiar with but it is used in different ways. Mostly it denotes something fleshy with cap, gills and stem (and that will be the meaning in these notes) but some people add the extra condition that a mushroom must be edible (anything else is a toadstool) and some use it virtually as a synonym of fungus. Experience has shown that other traditional terms (e.g. bolete, polypore) are meaningless to people who have never read anything about fungi. The brief explanations in the category names tell users who are unfamiliar with fungi what sorts of fruiting bodies they’ll find in a given category. Note also that some groups of fungi don’t have well-established colloquial names. 

If you click on a category you will see an Overview for it. While the category names help, they must necessarily be short and, to get the most benefit, you should read the Overviews. An Overview may (via Hints) offer more detail about the visual or non-visual features that would help identify your sighting or give some Warnings.

The fungi in a given category need not be closely related and the only aim of this categorization is to help you place your sighting. Many users are likely to take photos of fungi incidentally, without necessarily studying the fungi closely, and so would need to rely on just the photograph when trying to place a sighting.  For that reason the categories rely on visual features as far as possible to make it easier for those with no knowledge about fungi. The terms in square brackets aim to help those with some knowledge of fungi  and even the more knowledgeable users may find more help within the angled brackets.

How to search

If you are unfamiliar with fungi it is best to start at the top of the list on the right and work your way down until you find something that describes your sighting. First are the Cap on a stem groups. In these the top of the fruitbody is sharply differentiated from a supporting stem. In some fungi the fruit body tapers gradually from a broad apex, but with no such sharp differentiation, hence no proper stem (but a pseudo-stem) and such fungi are not included. On past experience, most fungal sightings will be of mushrooms and they are in the first group.

Why do some genera appear in more than one category?

Long ago, fungal classification was closely tied to fruitbody form but later research showed that closely related species need not have the same fruitbody form. Mostly, all species in a genus have the same form of fruitbody but there are exceptions. As an example, look at these two: Schizophyllum amplum  and Schizpophylum commune .

This means that in any categorization based only on macroscopic features there will inevitably be cases where all the species of a genus do not fit into the one category. There are a few instances where it is more sensible to deal with slightly dissimilar fruitbody types together and so though your sighting has a fruitbody that should be in category X, a note there will direct you to category Y.

Use of formal taxonomic categories (e.g. genera, families or orders) would avoid the splitting of genera but such categories would not be easy for a non-expert to use since many such categories rely on microscopic features. Also, dissimilar fruitbodies may be grouped together (as Schizophyllum shows) and two species, with fruitbodies of similar form, may fall into different taxonomic categories.

Warnings

The grouping is based on mature fruitbodies and immature fruitbodies may look different.

Many fungi are not identifiable from photos, no matter how good.

With age frutibodies may become tattered, dowdy and unidentifiable from a photo.

More information

For more about fungi in general see: http://www.cpbr.gov.au/fungi/index.html  

     .....For more about fruitbody types see: http://www.cpbr.gov.au/fungi/types-of-fungi.html  

     .....For more about macroscopic features see: http://www.cpbr.gov.au/fungi/macroscopic.html

Announcements

There are currently no announcements.

Discussion

Hejor1 wrote:
1 Oct 2025
@Heinol thank you, I think this counts as smooth then. It did have some imperfections but not consistently like those tiny pores look like.

zz flat polypore - white(ish)
Heinol wrote:
1 Oct 2025
Possibly a genus in the Russulales. There are numerous tiny chambers inside the fungus. The walls of each such chamber bear the spore-producing basidia.

zz - truffle
Heinol wrote:
1 Oct 2025
Perhaps a bleached Truncospora or perhaps a species of Trametes.

Truncospora ochroleuca
Heinol wrote:
1 Oct 2025
In fungi with such shelf-like fruiting bodies the underside may be pored, be packed with numerous ridges or with teeth or spines (in which the ends may be sharp or gently rounded) or be smooth. A smooth surface may have slight wrinkles or undulations or occasional warty bumps but you are still looking at what is essentially a smooth surface, continuous over minor rises – not at one packed with pores or protruding ridges, teeth or spines.

Some polypore species have very small pores, up to 10 per millimetre. To see such pores you may need to use a magnifying glass or hand lens. A close-up shot with a macro lens would also do the job – but even without that, if you enlarge a photo you my see the pores, depending on the quality of the photo. Here (https://www.neotropicalfungi.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ANGE1885-Rigidoporus-microporus_risultato.jpg) is a photo of Rigidoporus microporus. In a description of this species you’d read that there are 6-9 pores per millimetre. One specimen has been turned to show the orange-brown underside and there are no obvious pores. If I enlarge this photo I still don’t see any pores but soon get into a pixelated image. Perhaps the original photo would show the pores – or perhaps the camera was not close enough to allow pores to show in any magnification of the original photo.

Sometimes a tiny-pored underside may show a slightly fuzzy look, since a smooth surface reflects light differently to a surface with numerous tiny pores. Your photo of the underside is a little blurry. If the edges had been sharp and the rest of the undersurface had been slightly fuzzy (but not obviously out of focus) I’d have suspected a pored surface.

zz flat polypore - white(ish)
Hejor1 wrote:
29 Sep 2025
@Heinol how smooth does it have to be to be smooth? It didn't have obvious pores, but it wasn't completely smooth like the top of a mycena.

zz flat polypore - white(ish)
813,039 sightings of 23,346 species from 14,735 members
CCA 3.0 | privacy
NatureMapr is developed by at3am IT Pty Ltd and is proudly Australian made