What’s wrong with mushrooms?

My tripod was inverted, with my camera close to the ground. I had two LED lights shining on the subject: a lone mushroom under a tree. And I got the image below. A woman asked, ‘What are you photographing?’ I said, ‘Some fungi.’ She took a step back. All of a sudden I was a weirdo, someone to keep a distance from, so just as well I wasn’t taking a photo of interesting lichen I suppose. Yet fungi can be beautiful.

I accept flowers are generally more colourful, and it’s not only insects that are attracted to them, but if you study fungi, you’ll find them fascinating. They are necessary for healthy woodland. They aren’t flora as such, in fact they are closer to fauna, but a different genus to both. Their range in shape and form is as vast as that of wild flowers, but what we see above ground is a small percentage of what fungi is all about. Tim Berners-Lee did not invent the internet. Fungi was there first.

The main body of much fungi, particularly those in woodland, is mycelium, the network of root-like structures which can cover many acres, and is essential not only to the fungi itself, but to trees and other plants. It can transmit information. It can both encourage and discourage growth. Little was known about mycelium until recently and, despite many scientists investigating the substance, little is known about mycelium now, just a wee bit more than a few years ago.

I reckon, as fungi live off dead/decaying matter, it’s been shunned historically, despite it cleaning up the rotting wood and other material. Something’s got to do it, but that’s no reason to like it. Mind you, it’s fair to say it doesn’t always form itself in the most attractive of shapes.

Nor does it do itself any favours in the way it presents itself. I mean, look at the item below. It’s as if it didn’t care or, worse, that it wanted to put you off. Mind you, I bet some idiot has investigated whether it is safe to eat. Who cares?

You might not appreciate what fungus does for the woods, and indirectly for us, but without it, the world would be a much less comfortable place to live. In fact, it might not be liveable. It would appear fungi may well have had a part to play in raising Earth’s temperature to a reasonable level. On the other hand . . .

The carboniferous period, starting around 359 million years ago, a Thursday, was when coal was laid down. Trees collapsed but did not decompose, being crushed by the weight of further layers and, as a consequence, its carbon was captured. There was an oxygen-rich atmosphere that started to change around 290 million years ago when carbon dioxide began to seep into the atmosphere. The reason? There are many arguments as to cause, and we’re a long way from a consensus, but there’s no doubt fungi did (or didn’t; different viewpoints as to whether it was beneficial) help. It evolved to live off dead and decaying wood, meaning trees were no longer the carbon sink they had been for the preceding 70 million years. It also brought to an end the manufacture of coal. Fors and against with regards global warming.

I might be a bit weird, what with taking photographs of strange fungi, but we are all a bit odd in our own way. Fungi is even odder as it serves us, albeit unintentionally, making the countryside more resilient to change and, despite it living off dead and decaying matter, it is essential to keeping woodlands alive and functioning healthily. So don’t step away from me. Smile, and say ‘That’s nice.’

A lone inkcap in a car park. It is lovely.