|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.87||1||(SamSchaperow)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
i knew where it was grown
anything better than Earth?
it looked convincingly agaricoid at first glance. i admire your mischief making, Sam. it gets a bit dry around here sometimes. carry on, sir.
The other day I found something on our butcher block. I thought, “did I leave a mushroom there?”. I picked it up, seeing the cap and stem, and wondering about it. I soon realized it was a mushroom lookalike. What was it? Turned out to be the interior of a garlic bulb (what holds the cloves together). So, I thought I’d take some pictures of it and post it to Yahoo! Groups: MushroomTalk and ForageAhead.
Later a part of the team that created and/or maintains MushroomObserver.org and I got to talking. How about if I post it to there w/o disclosing what it is? Would people comment on it? And so an agreement came to be that I would do so. I posted it, not calling it a mushroom, though by default “fungi” did appear until something else was added, but MO folk(s) thought it was even better that it came through as “fungi” to keep the fungal though in peoples’ minds. As for location, I thought, "I found it in my kitchen, but I don’t know where it originally grew, so I’ll have to put “earth” down as the location". I know saying “earth” could have tipped people off that something silly was going on here, but I wasn’t comfortable with specifying location not knowing where it grew. Anyway:
Soon, Noah posted about it on MO to the effect of:
Earth? You don’t want to disclose where that slug-eaten, dried up mushroom came from?
I have to say, it did look like a dried, slug-eaten mushroom (looks like pores are on underside, but thinner like a polypore, and yet areas w/o pores as of a slug ate them).
I offered to mail it to someone who mentioned a microscope would help ID it, if even to genus. I expected mailing it would produce quite an enjoyable surprise for him, either initially, or when viewing the plant cells. I then posted an additional picture of it to MO. But then who else but Noah shocked me. I went to MO to see it was given a name! I thought, “What?!?!”. Noah named it Allium sativum. I thought, “what mushroom is that, or is it a mushroom? Hey, isn’t Allium an onion or garlic?” Sure enough, his name for it is indeed “garlic” (MO requires scientific names, you know;)). So, I am so very impressed w/Noah. I told my wife, a psychologist, and she suspects he has exceptional visual memory recall, being able to recall something seen with great detail.
Nevertheless, what an amazing ID. I 2nd the comment on it being the best non-fungal ID. And, I appreciate the collaboration w/MO for allowing it and then even giving it extra exposure by bumping up this mushroom lookalike in the listings.
Sam Schaperow, B.S., M.S.
P.S. Taste and odor, mildly garlicky, but not as much as a white truffle.
…even though I was fooling with the whole idea that the ob could possibly be ID-ed I was serious about the point of non-fungal input creating false positive results in the data set. You cleared that up. I do like MO quite a bit and I think it’s a great tool even though I seldom Have time to participate.
the genus and epithet are accepted, but membership in the Non-Fungal list ensures that all such observations are marked to ensure their clear distinction from those of fungi. it does corrupt the site’s total taxa tally with false positives, but a bit of subtraction using the names from said species list takes care of that as well.
….and on my Earth we call this Garlic. I have no interest in your fancy-pants Latin names like Allium sativum… but it is interesting that this post gets into the data and Allium becomes a generic name that’s accepted….
Yeah Christian, I was about to say:
I see you’ve edited your original comment. I must say, I found it very funny to read your comment when you were talking about it from Earth and my not wanting to reveal the original location of my dry & slug-eaten find. The way you originally phrased it was hilarious. Please please post it again!
After he edited his comment anyway… slug-eaten indeed.
Best non-fugal IDer EVER…not too bad with the mushrooms either!
that’s a pretty large area…
It looks like this has shallow pores. Does anyone agree?
Created: 2012-09-04 20:22:00 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-10-26 13:23:19 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 421 times, last viewed: 2016-12-02 22:09:19 CST (-0500)