Notes: On a different piece of dead wood near the one with the Bisporella citrina cup fungus (obs. 11064). I found mushrooms growing near this spot as well, for all three of Ascomycetes, Basidiomycetes, and Myxomycetes fruiting simultaneously in a small area.
Third photo shows these slimes after three days. They hadn’t sporulated yet.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.97||1||(Twizzler)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||21.44||5||(Tao,myxomop,Josh KC,...)|
|Could Be||1.0||10.67||2||(Alan Rockefeller,Pulk)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.67||2||(Alan Rockefeller,Pulk)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Especially when they become outdated and use older or mistaken names. As an example most guides still confuse multiple Ganoderma species for Ganoderma lucidum. It happens.
Not saying this is what is happening in your guide, did the guide provide photos of the matured organism? During spore release?
in your guide matches the amount of information in this observation than yes that would be completely misleading. What is the name of this guide? Who was the author of this guide?
On the other hand other commenters here have strongly implied the extraordinary claim that a well-respected one is actively misleading.
There is no such thing as a completely comprehensive field guide.
There is not enough information in these photos to determine the genus or species. More photos in more stages of development are needed.
I don’t think I need to dignify anything else from you lot with a response. Unless, that is, someone actually wants to say something about the observation, and not the observer, for once…
Your obviously being obstinate to get attention.
…when Danny Newman called me “reprehensible”? That certainly was a comment chock full of personal attacks.
Can you explain why you think it is a personal attack? What could you possibly think we have against you? I know nothing about you. No one does, it is merely the observation does not have enough information for the community to agree with your ID. We aren’t even saying that you are wrong. No body has said that it isn’t the right name. Just that there is NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION to say one way or another. It’s that simple. Nothing more, nothing less, you are reading more into it than what is really here.
Mushroomobserver works through people agreeing or disagreeing based on presented evidence, your photos are not enough evidence to be conclusive. At least I am learning more about slime molds from all of this. So for that, I thank you.
Based solely on appearance it could be numerous different species so you can’t say it’s one thing in particular. Why is that hard to comprehend?
…about the reason for my ID being questioned fails to explain a clear bandwagon effect in the name votes. My theory, which is that people with an axe to grind are ganging up to attack a person rather than an ID, does fit those facts, however…
Of course, this all looks especially ridiculous when reduced to a summary like so:
PD: Hey, I found this. Field guide says it’s Hemitrichia clavata.
TL: Nope, you’re wrong.
PD: Do you have any evidence that I’m wrong?
TL: Do you have any evidence that you’re not?
PD: The burden of proof is on the one making public accusations.
TL: Is not!
DN: I vote for “anything but H. clavata”
DN: Oh, and you’re a meanie besides! A reprehensible meanie! Yeah, that’s it, reprehensible!
PD: (rolls eyes)
Using big words doesn’t mean you aren’t still behaving more like kindergarteners trying to establish some sort of pecking order than reasonable adults…
You did follow the right procedure unfortunately you did not collect enough information in this observation to say for sure it is what you have demanded it is.
That is it. Nothing personal.
This is pretty easy to understand, but for some reason you refuse to.
If you don’t feel comfortable with people criticizing you this is definitely not your forum. I too have felt attacked here but when I stopped and considered my opposers information, I as a scientist had to agree with them when the evidence was presented. As I have tried to teach you, by presenting you with the knowledge that there are other myxogastria that look like the ones in your observation.
Here again is my evidence, please follow the links and look at the images. As you will see they look like your images even though they are other species. Your observation could be H. clavata but it could also be one of these species as well.
How fascinating that you say “you will vilify me, no doubt, as nothing more than another attacker, and this is unfortunate” and follow that up promptly with a vicious attempt at character assassination.
In the meantime, it remains true that I followed a correct procedure (took good photos, looked it up in a reputable field guide, etc.) and am being told by multiple people (now including several of “the usual suspects”) that despite this, it’s “just not good enough”.
This sort of thing has happened often enough in my life for me to have noticed the pattern: I do what everyone else does, then get singled out and told it isn’t good enough. Meaning, that it’s not what I did that is being considered not good enough, but rather it’s who did it that is being considered not good enough.
Which puts the lie to any claim that this isn’t personal. The very fact that work that is accepted from other people is rejected when it comes from me clearly establishes that there is a subset of people who have a prejudiced reaction to me, for whatever reason. And you, Newman, in particular clearly harbor personal animosity towards me, based on a pattern of previous activity. On that basis you ought to recuse yourself from any interaction with my observations, and perhaps, out of fairness, vice versa, though I think that unlike some people I am capable of retaining my objectivity even around people that have treated me the way you have done, and continue to do…
Listen, and listen close. Your arguments on this and other, similarly ambiguous postings, are all equally bankrupt. Crying foul on the imagined existence of personal attacks against you is a poor and unsupportable defense of those arguments. Matt and Thomas have made it abundantly clear, in language which can be made no clearer, that what is pictured here could be several things, and no amount of your righteous indignation-ridden comments to the contrary can sway that fact. You will vilify me, no doubt, as nothing more than another attacker, and this is unfortunate. If you can muster the will to re-evaluate this observation, you will find that what these kind-hearted, vendetta-less, ill-will-less users have to say rings indisputably true: this could be one of several slime molds given the information offered, and we therefore have no business calling it any particular one of them. The smear campaign is real, and its origin is not in the speculators of this observation, but its creator. I find your conduct on this site reprehensible and an embarrassment to the ethos which we, collectively, strive to uphold. Take a long, hard look at the nature of this debate and your part in it, and think equally long and hard before you decide to retaliate with another swing of the argumentative stick. NO ONE with a knowledge of this group of organisms would side with your identification on the basis of the information presented thus far, NO ONE. I challenge you to invite ANY authority of your choosing into the conversation to see if they disagree. They will NOT.
…then the field guide would have to contain major omissions. That’s an extraordinary claim, for which you would need to provide extraordinary evidence. But as usual you have none…
Ok lets make this simple.
The image in your field guide of H. clavata at this stage could only be that if the people who made the guide followed the progression of the specimens until sporation. That is the only way they could have proved it was H. clavata. You did not get all the information in this observation to prove this is H. clavata. The fact they look exactly like that image in your guide still does not make these H. clavata because other Myxogastra also look exactly like these images here too.
Does that make sense to you?
…to you there is only “your truth” and “my truth” rather than “the truth”, and a published, respected field guide is “some image you saw somewhere”.
Where is it? Not Here.
The truth can be hard to handle but its still the truth. Your truth based on some image you saw somewhere that may have looked like the Myxogastria you have here is obviously your truth. But to base your observation on such flimsy evidence is weak at best and to stand by it with such emotion shows that for some reason you need this observation to be what you believe it to be even if the truth is showed to you repeatedly.
I am sorry for you.
You show specimens in the middle of their life cycle where they resemble, pretty closely several other species. This observation does not include any other evidence than the photos you posted. If you have photos of them from when they were matured that would help settle this.
Really there is nothing here meant to be taken personally, it is not a personal attack, it simply notes that the information you provided in your observation is not sufficient to fully ID the organism. It is that simple.
No one is saying that they are or aren’t, they are just saying there is not enough information provided in this observation to say one way or another, which is correct.
that you say this is H. clavata would make it impossible to be any other Myxogastria. How can you prove without a doubt that this specimen is not another species? You cant without fully formed sporocarps which you don’t have to examine, or do you?
Here is my example of H. clavata:
Please point to anywhere where I claimed that H. clavata does not resemble any other species. I did not. I pointed out that your claim that this observation is not H. clavata is pure speculation, based on seemingly nothing. I also asked repeatedly for you to proffer more concrete evidence to back up your assertion that it’s not H. clavata and you have steadfastly refused, strongly implying that you got nothing.
Yet you continue to argue vociferously against this being H. clavata despite that lack, and at the same time the comments begin to fill with multiple personal attacks and insinuations about me as a person.
That turns your supposed “quest for accuracy” into a witchhunt motivated by personal animosity towards me. A theory that much more fits the observed phenomena (insults, namecalling, and a faith-based assertion that an ID was mistaken) than any supposed quest for accuracy.
Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here.
In all seriousness it astounds me you are unable to grasp the idea that there could be other Myxogastria that look like the ones you are displaying here. Because of that fact this and any observations with incompletely formed sporocarps of these species(Arcyria ferruginea, Hemitrichia calyculata, Hemitrichia clavata, Trichia decipiens.) are erroneous. The proof is in the pudding and you only have some of the ingredient not the pudding. And we all know, if you don’t eat your pudding you don’t get any meat!
That’s how the (American) criminal justice system is designed, not Mushroom Observer.
I don’t really have any strong opinions here, just weighing in to point out that Paul’s basis for argument isn’t really applicable in this arena.
When someone accuses me of something, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. That you actively refuse to meet that burden of proof opens you to the appearance of engaging in a smear campaign.
A few days ago, one of two things happened: either you saw an observation that you had a genuine basis for suspecting was misidentified (but then why won’t you state your basis?) or you decided to impugn a bunch of identifications without any such basis. Which was it?
Still not seeing any evidence here refuting H. clavata. A field guide here says that it is that. I have yet to see positive evidence presented by anyone else that it’s something else instead.
if you’re feeling attacked, but you have no evidence to prove that this was in fact H. clavata. Your images don’t prove anything, except you found a myxogastria. Yours was not the only observation I made this vote for. I actually voted against any observation that did not have completely formed sporocarps, which are needed to confirm this classification.
…now more troops are being rallied to accuse me without evidence of being mistaken?
Is the goal here. No attacks intended from what I can see, if you look at the photos linked of the other organisms you will see that this group has a lot of similar forms, which may very easily be mistaken for one another.
Thomas, you know not what sleeping dragon you have awakened.
So, you have no evidence against an ID of H. clavata, only speculation. Furthermore, you are assuming that these sporocarps are immature. Yet they look exactly like the (presumably mature) ones of H. clavata in the field guide I have here.
What triggered your attack, by the way? These observations had been sitting for years and then suddenly you get it into your head to start questioning the IDs on them. I somehow doubt it was completely spontaneous, so something must have motivated you to dig into my older observations to look for something to accuse of error without evidence. What was that?
The images you have posted here show what could be anyone of several myxogastria. If you look at my examples in the previous comment, they all look the same at some point while they are forming. You need fully formed sporocarps to be sure. Your observation does not show that.
Please stop being vague. If you see something in the photos that indicates that it’s not H. clavata, please be explicit and point it out. Let us learn from your expertise … if, that is, you actually have a basis for suspecting it’s not H. clavata instead of just being ornery for no particular reason.
Did you look at them?
It could be one of many.
Created: 2008-09-16 04:19:34 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-11-21 15:46:32 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 669 times, last viewed: 2017-06-15 13:17:20 CDT (-0400)