|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
deerstalker
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 589
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
deerstalker
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 589
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
wellington womble
Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 15051 Location: East Midlands
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 34535 Location: Hereford
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 04 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
This really depends on what the microscope is for; I'd be uneasy using anything much less than 1000x magnification for differentiating fungal species.
Spore work really comes into its own when you're dealing with species that are hard to differentiate otherwise, say with genus Russula. Leafing through Phillips, I find notes like "Spores ovoid, with warts or spines 1-1.2um high, some isolated, others jouned in chains or by a few lines to form at most a rather scanty network with 0-2 meshes, 8-10x7-9u" (from the notes for Russula caerulea.
For comparison, the kind of detail you need to pick out there is around the size of a Bacillus spore, and to pick that out against the background of the rest of the spore, and to work out scale, you really do need a powerful microscope, and it needs to be well calibrated; 1000x really is necessary, and then you might still sruggle.
That said, if the microscope isn't going to be used in such a way then less magnification might do. |
|
|
|
|
McLay455
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 89 Location: West of Scotland
|
|
|
|
|
|