Name: Xeromphalina campanella
Author: (Batsch) Kühner & Maire
Citation: Icones selectae Fungorum, 6 Texte general 6: 236 (1934)
Deprecated Synonym(s): Xeromphellina campenella
[Description is for X. campanella]
Cap: 5-25 mm across; convex, becoming broadly convex with a central depression and an arched margin; bald; dry; widely lined on the margin when wet; brownish yellow, rusty, yellowish, or orange; usually darker towards the center; fading.
Gills: Running down the stem; fairly distant; usually with many cross-veins; pale yellow or orangish.
Stem: 1-5 cm long; 1-3 mm thick; more or less equal; smooth; yellowish above, darker below; bald above, finely hairy at the base; rather wiry and tough; often curved.
Odor and Taste: Taste mild; odor not distinctive.
Spore Print: White.
Microscopic Features: Spores 5-8 × 3-4 µ; smooth; elliptical; weakly amyloid. Pleuro- and cheilocystidia fusiform; up to 55 × 14 µ. Caulocystidia clavate to fusiform; up to 75 × 15 µ; thin-walled; hyaline in KOH. Clamp connections present.
I’m going to write a quick script to take care of these cases. @newmy51 (I’m sure you’re reading this, haha!) and Pulk, I hate to do this, but please ask me to help when this situation arises in the future. We’re going to try to start doing this “right”.
To wit: This script will systematically propose X. campanella group for all observations currently called X. campanella. If you have already voted on X. c., it will transfer that vote to X. c. group, and vote down X. c. to as if! If you have not already voted, then by default it will enter a vote for you at or just above whatever the current consensus vote is for X. c., and again vote down X. c to as if!
I’ll make it so I can run this for multiple users. So if Danny, for example, agrees with you, Pulk, I can have it transfer all of his votes automatically, too. But since X. c. group will already have been proposed for all these observations thanks to running it once already, it will skip that step.
Let’s see how well this works in practice before I make this publicly accessible from the website. There are lots of pathological edge cases which may or may not occur “in the wild”. And it may turn out to be very easy to detect and flag those edge cases, inform the user, and leave them alone. But there is too much potential for things going south in a hurry! I want to watch the first several carefully.
This particular case should be nice and easy since there is no synonymy to worry about, just two simple names.
Joe, in principle I agree with you, but in practice we have no way to propose the correct name – Xeromphalina campanella group – for 286 observations in anything resembling a sane workflow. So I’ve already been supporting Danny taking advantage of this “exploitation” on MO to accomplish something almost as good. This is, in fact, the perfect case. We know 100% confidently that for all but one of those 286 observations X. campanella is not the best name. Until we build the appropriate tool to propose new names in bulk (and I’ve described its heuristics in some detail on pivotal, I’m just waiting until I have time to implement it), I support what Pulk is doing here.
Pulk, sorry, I have worked with and have discussed this issue at length with Danny already, so I know he’s on board and I know I can trust him. I just needed to make sure you were also on the same page.
Adolf, for what little it’s worth, I do hear your opinion concerning “fuzzy” taxonomy (and voting and all the rest of the dead horses you continue to flog). But I respectfully (for my part at least) disagree with you, and see no further point in engaging you on any of those subjects. This is why I am happy to help you sometimes but apparently completely ignore you other times. This would normally be one of those “other” times. Pleases don’t make me regret bending my rule in a moment of weakness.
Best practice: propose correct name
X. campanella is a legit Name. Like any other legit Name, it can be misapplied. If you feel a need to respond, the correct response is: propose/vote for a better name for the Observation(s) (creating the better name if needed), rather than changing the misapplied Name.
Aldrovandi et al, 2015: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26297781
Only observations with DNA sequences (or mating studies… ha!) have any chance of being identified to species.
Nobody identifies a mushroom on MO as X. campanella as opposed to X. enigmatica (obs 293127 would be the only candidate here, but X. enigmatica actually is found in the PNW).
IMO, the con of changing observation names in a weird way here is a lot less than the con(s) of 286 misleading observations telling the internet something wrong and/or the nightmare of filling the activity log (and my week) with votes and name proposals and rehashing this discussion 286 times.
is not defined in the International Code of Nomenclature. MO should get rid of such designations.
Would you mind convincing me it’s the right thing to do before summarily changing 286 observations without the observers’ consent! I have to occasionally pretend to be watching these sorts of things…
The current authorship is (Batsch) Kühner & Maire
and Oluna & Adolf Ceska created a new Name with the correct authorship.
It would be nice to combine the two names, so that only the correct authorship shows when a user creates a new Observation. Seems like the right thing to do is to deprecate the instant Name in favor of the Ceskas’ Name, and also copy the Classification, Description, etc. to the Ceskas’ Name.
Is there a better way to deal with this?
Created: 2007-01-09 21:04:04 PST (-0800) by Darvin DeShazer (darv)
Last modified: 2017-12-14 13:58:03 PST (-0800) by Oluna & Adolf Ceska (email@example.com)
Viewed: 969 times, last viewed: 2017-12-17 11:07:32 PST (-0800)