Digital download →
Mushroom illustration has a problem that flower illustration does not. A drawing of a lemon can be wrong and cost you nothing. A drawing of a mushroom has historically been the difference between dinner and a hospital. That pressure shows in the work. It is why the fungal plates in old books look different from everything around them.
TL;DRPorcini and chanterelles cannot be farmed, so they have to be found. Knowing where to look has always passed person to person and picture to picture, which is where mushroom illustration comes from.
Key Facts
Two mushrooms nobody can farm
Button mushrooms grow on compost in sheds. Porcini and chanterelles do not, and the reason is not a failure of effort. Both are mycorrhizal. They live in partnership with the roots of living trees, trading sugars for minerals. The fungus you see is only the fruiting body of something already woven through the soil.
You cannot reproduce that in a shed. Decades of work have gone into trying, and the results remain marginal. The porcini on a menu in October was almost certainly picked by a person in a wood. That is unusual for anything sold at scale in Europe.
The consequence is a body of knowledge that never became an industry. Where to go, which trees, which week after which kind of rain. This is real expertise with no textbook. It is local to a valley and it changes with the year. It gets handed down instead, and for four centuries part of that handing down was done in pictures.
Why mushroom illustration exists at all
Digital download →
Try describing a chanterelle in words to someone who has never seen one. Yellow, funnel-shaped, smells faintly of apricot. Now describe the thing that looks like it and is not it. You will find yourself reaching for comparisons that only work if the listener already knows the answer.
This is the practical case for botanical illustration, and fungi make it more sharply than plants do. A drawing holds colour, form, surface and proportion at once, in a way a paragraph cannot. Foraging cultures worked this out early. The fungal plates in the great illustrated works were reference rather than decoration. People consulted them with a basket in the other hand.
It should be said plainly that a print is not a field guide, and this article is not one either. Chanterelles have lookalikes, some of them seriously toxic, and the same is true across the group. Nobody should eat a wild mushroom on the strength of a picture, mine included. The tradition of illustration supported expertise; it never replaced it.
Beatrix Potter and the 350 paintings
The best fungal illustrator in Britain in the 1890s was a young woman who is now remembered for a rabbit. Beatrix Potter made around 350 paintings of fungi and lichens, most between 1887 and 1901. Their accuracy was such that mycologists have used them to identify species since.
She learned precision from Charlie McIntosh, a Perthshire postman who was also a serious naturalist. He walked a delivery route through good fungal country and sent her specimens. He taught her the taxonomy, and pushed her to make the paintings exact rather than merely beautiful. It is a good example of where expertise actually sits, which is rarely where the institutions are looking.
By 1896 Potter was germinating spores on glass plates and had a theory about it. Her paper was called On the Germination of the Spores of the Agaricineae. George Massee of Kew read it at the Linnean Society on 1 April 1897. She was not there, because the Society did not admit women. The paper was received, set aside, and eventually lost. The Linnean Society apologised in 1997, a hundred years late.
What survives is the pictures. They are held at the Armitt Museum in Ambleside, at Perth, and in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The argument was lost and the drawings won. That is roughly the story of Potter’s scientific career, and not a bad summary of mushroom illustration generally. James Sowerby had done something similar with English fungi a century earlier, on a larger scale.
Drawing the two
Porcini and chanterelle are opposite problems. The porcini is about mass. A thick stem, a domed cap with a slightly greasy sheen. Underneath sits a pore surface rather than gills, which reads as a fine sponge. Getting that surface to look soft without turning it into texture-for-its-own-sake took the longest.
The chanterelle is about the edge. Its whole form is a wavy funnel. The ridges running down the outside are not true gills but folds of the flesh itself. That distinction is easy to state and hard to draw. If you render them as gills the drawing is wrong in a way a mycologist sees immediately.
Both plates are hand-drawn from specimens. Fiurdelin is a botanical illustration studio on Lake Como, Italy, with 53 published plates. The pair belongs together on a wall for the same reason they belong together in a basket. Anyone who knows one knows the other.
Styling mushroom illustration at home
Fine-art print →
Fungal plates want a warm wall. The colours sit in a narrow band of ochre, russet and bone, and against cool grey they look drained. Terracotta, mustard, deep olive and warm plaster all hold them. This is the one group in the collection that improves on a strong wall colour rather than needing a quiet one.
Hang the porcini and the chanterelle as a pair. Add the fly agaric as a third if you want a note of red. Keep the frames identical and the spacing tight, around 6 cm. The group then reads as a plate series rather than as separate pictures. Thin oak or a dark stained wood both work.
The natural rooms are the kitchen and the dining wall, where the subject connects to the table. A study or a hallway takes them well too. Avoid a bright white modern wall, which is the one setting where these particular drawings lose more than they gain.
FAQ
Can porcini and chanterelles be cultivated?
Not commercially, in any meaningful way. Both form partnerships with the roots of living trees. That relationship has resisted the controlled production that works for button mushrooms. This is why they remain seasonal, expensive, and foraged.
Can I use a botanical print to identify wild mushrooms?
No. A print is a drawing of one specimen, not a key. Several edible species have lookalikes that are seriously toxic. Foraging safely relies on expert instruction, local knowledge and, where available, verification by someone qualified. Treat any illustration as a picture rather than a permission.
Was Beatrix Potter really a mycologist?
She was a serious and self-taught one, and historians still argue about the label. The quality of the work is not in dispute. Around 350 fungal paintings, accurate enough that mycologists have used them for identification. She also did original research into spore germination, which the scientific establishment of the day declined to take seriously.
Why are mushrooms drawn so differently from flowers?
Because the stakes were different. Mushroom illustration developed as reference material for people who needed to tell one species from another. Surface, proportion and underside detail carry weight that a decorative flower study can afford to lose.
How is this botanical art printed and shipped?
These plates are sold as digital downloads through the studio’s Etsy shop. You receive a high-resolution file and nothing physical is posted to you. Print it at home, or take the file to a print shop. Size it to whatever your frame needs.
The pair
The porcini and the chanterelle are available as digital downloads, and they were drawn to hang together. Both sit alongside the other fungal plates in the studio collection. That also holds the fly agaric and the honey mushroom, for anyone building the full forager’s wall. The history of botanical illustration covers where mushroom illustration came from. The mushroom kitchen wall shows how the group works in a room.
