Jump to content

Monday in Nature October 10, 2016


Laura Weishaupt

Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Basic Guidelines</strong>: Nature based subject matter. Please, declare captive subjects. Keep your image at/under 700 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing and try to keep file size under 300kb. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc. Feel free to link your image to a larger version. <strong><em>In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include hand of man elements. Please refrain from images with obvious buildings or large man made structures like roads, fences, walls. Minimize man made features and keep the focus on nature. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Are you new to this thread? We post one image per week. For more <a href="/nature-photography-forum/00cgtY">details on guidelines please read this</a> helpful information. </em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good Morning,<br>

We are nature photographers and probably consider ourselves, to some extent, to be naturalists. Some contributors to this forum have formal training and others are self taught so some degree. Many of us follow in the footsteps of amateur naturalists from across the ages. Imagine their work if they had cameras. But then we might not have the beautiful illustrations of flora and fauna drawn with such painstaking care.</p>

<p>Detailed notes and drawings, with preserved samples were the documents of the day in the early 1800's. One naturalist, Thomas Lea, lived in Cincinnati at that time and he studied mushrooms. He collected in the area that is now a large city, but his world was quite different. He collected 280 species with descriptive notes. The collection was an incredible contribution to science and eventually found its way to the hands of mycologist Rev. Berkeley. To honor Lea and his work, Berkeley named a mushroom for him, <em>Mycena leaiana</em>.</p>

<p>If Lea had a camera he surely would have captured the incredible colors and features that make this one of the most recognizable mushrooms in the woodlands. We have cameras. We're lucky.</p>

<p>We can all envision having coffee on Wednesday with Philip Greenspun. See Casual Conversations. But, for now we'll salute those amateur naturalists with great nature photography, and a cup of coffee. After all, it's Monday in Nature.</p><div>00eAtr-565790884.JPG.ad3c3682b1ac515fd8e9d7f6725a8183.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>...and here is another mushroom, a group of black trumpets (<em> Craterellus fallax ).</em><br>

Despite having had a much hotter and dryer summer than usual, there has been a big upswing in the number of mushrooms in my forest this autumn and these chanterelles are showing up everywhere.<br>

<em> </em></p><div>00eAu7-565791684.jpg.08cccfcaf2f10e6ac859cc914ad64b3d.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday morning I discovered a few <i>Archaea</i> formations that have not been bulldozed. They're 1/2 mile or so from where the large "colonies" (my word) were, very small, and very scattered. Whether they'll be bulldozed or not is a moot point since the entire area is due to be "reintroduced to tidal influence" (flooded).<br><br>

In the photo, the small, rounded knobs are <i>Archaea</i>, the orange dampness from water. There was no other evidence of dampness, no other colors in the area. The whole area was white, glittering in the sunshine.<div>00eAuo-565795684.jpg.9fa7f5c53c15755482dc6569a56d55b9.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A cluster of tiny mushrooms (<em>Coprinellus disseminatus</em> I think - some older ones had become quite inky). Six stacked images 5D4 + EF 100m f/2.8L IS + 12 mm extension tube + EF1.4xIII.<br>

Note, the 1.4x telextender does not fit the lens without the extension tube and does not show up in the EXIF data.</p><div>00eAvd-565799184.jpg.93c9abcd3fe0806d6c31f3bcd1ada73b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>An unusual light-colored specimen of Allegheny Glade Gentian, a (since disputed) variation of <em>Gentiana saponaria (var. allegheniensis</em>) that grows in a couple of places in far southern Pennsylvania. Otto Jennings identified it back in the 1940's. There are only a couple of places where it was found in his time, and I can only find it one of locations now. </p><div>00eAxs-565805584.jpg.75d29ecac09750f20e0ce13e112db91a.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...