I see this argument come up all too often on here.

But I do think it’s dubious design at best that the site doesn’t make a decent distinction between “I think it’s an X” and “I think it’s an X, but I don’t think it’s any of the more specific things suggested”, since that does seem to motivate people to take an obvious basidio and vote “as if!” for “basidiomycota”, which in turn seems ridiculous.

an observation were clearly an Agaricus, having that proposed name take precedence in the title would require any broader terms be voted down. Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes, Agaricales and Agaricaceae might all be part of an Agaricus’ taxonomic placement, but none of those terms is as precise as Agaricus, nor is Agaricus as precise as its genus-species binomial.

Voting down Basidiomycota isn’t because it’s not a basidiomycete, it’s because it’s more than just a basidiomycete.

there’s a world of difference between saying it is in Agaricomycetes and saying it’s not in Basidiomycota. Particularly when those two things are mutually exclusive. :)

encompasses Tremellomycetes and Dacrymycetes in addition to all the other Basidiomycota. Agaricoymycetes is the most specific a name proposal possible for a basidio that doesn’t fall into either of those two jelly classes (Auriculariales still falls within Agaricoymycetes), but can’t be determined further.

For an observation that “might be a polypore or an agaric,” this is the best possible name.

possessed someone to vote against Basidiomycota? It sure doesn’t look like an asco …

This doesn’t look like any Dryad’s Saddle I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot. The cap doesn’t have the characteristic scales, nor is it depressed closer to the trunk.