|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||3.33||1||(Leciman)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
while the evidence is always incomplete for biogeography, it’s not “just” conjecture. There is now hard evidence for the identity, and researchabke evidence for the site and its habitat.
all just interesting conjecture.
But rather a species that is common in Europe and scarce in north America.
This is a pattern seen in many Tricholoma. They were all contiguous land mass at one point, after all…
It doesn’t necessarily have to be imported, and I doubt it was at this location – relatively undisturbed forest.
to see another confirmed European species here in the West. How did it get here? Wood products?
The OMS Mycoflora group had our part of this collection sequenced with the same result, Buchwaldoboletus lignicola.
so… lots of dead roots around
“If this is really a Buchwaldoboletus, why was it growing on a living root?”,
I believe that a characteristic of the genus Buchwaldoboletus is that they are non-mycorrhizal and lignicolous, but that doesn’t mean the host must be “dead”.
And according to the Santana and Both paper Buchwaldoboletus lignicola is often also seen growing near young trees of several species, which they postulate may indicate a secondary mycorrhizal association.
or need an absolute, in hand/voucher ID. yes, some photos can be pretty safely IDed, for all practical purposes (but not always for the table). But certainly not all, and certainly not ones that are ambiguous or have look-alikes, where the important features are not obvious. and then, of course, even when the photo macro appears to be good, sometimes the micro shows you up, and if not the micro, the DNA!
I think that it is kind of interesting that this obsie went thru so many hoops to get a good name, and I applaud the efforts that went into it. Good detective work! That’s part of what makes taxonomy so fun.
Our first guesses don’t always have to be right, and in fact often are not! but so what? It’s good for others to see that we all can make mistakes. It’s the pursuit of truth that’s important, not exactly how you get there or how quickly.
BUT, if you are doing a NA fungal survey for the ages, you damn well better have your ducks in a row, and that includes vouchers, photos, micro and yes, god willing if the money comes, DNA.
You are already up to speed on all of this Christian, so I wonder just what or why we are arguing?
If this is really a Buchwaldoboletus, why was it growing on a living root? Or was that tree root already long dead? I have seen amanitas (coccora) fruiting from the roots of an upturned tan oak, but that tree was obviously not quite dead yet, even tho its prognosis was poor.
the vouchers are important (very important), and the photos as well.
But there are many thousands of mushroom species and many more thousands of records of them. So sampling, saving, maintaining, and sequencing all of those observations is just totally impractical.
For example, it’s not necessary to ‘invalidate’ hundreds of records of Suillus pungens from the central CA coast just because they are unaccompanied by a sequenced voucher or even a photo. It’s common and recognizable enough that even if a few of them are (somehow) misidentified, it’s not going to make a huge difference in our understanding of their status and distribution.
Now a report of Gyrodon on the west coast needs to be scrutinized!
I took a photo, kept a specimen, sequenced it, and changed the ID.
I should have (in retrospect) gone a step further and directly solicited the opinion of European folks familiar with Gyrodon lividus (I think they would have seen it as a very tenuous match).
Some species, in some places, at some dates need documentation, others don’t.
Setting up filters to screen for ‘additional data required’ observations is a delicate and difficult (and contentious) task. But birders have done a very good job after years of refinement, and we can do as well!
but even with common things, the mushrooms can fool you. without deeper inquiry (micro/DNA)
you just think that you are right, you don’t KNOW.
with that all important voucher, you can at least check your work. or better yet, someone else can, independently. isn’t that what REsearch is all about? confirming the original data set?
People’s knowledge bases varies tremendously based on, among other things… geography.
I made no mention of Europeans being infallible – but they’re better at identifying mushrooms that more common… in Europe.
That’s why Irene was so useful for your Alaskan observations, and why European experts are called in to identify rare gulls in NA, and vice versa.
The idea behind varying levels of burden-of-proof is that some mushrooms are not hard to identify and not rare, and thus need less proof. This mushroom would not have been one of those.
Getting lots of data is aided by streamlining the acceptance-of-data process. Not everything needs the same level of scrutiny, nor the same level of documentation.
and we disagree, perhaps amicably, on several points.
photo ID alone is insufficient, and just a name w/out a photo is pretty worthless in a searchable database, if real documentation is your goal.
but you proved my point right here on this sighting, which was ONLY corrected thru DNA work!
you shouldn’t need a European to ID a NA mushroom. And even Europeans are fallible. Although Irene has certainly come to my rescue on a number of occasions!
It’s a human, not a geographic thing.
it would have been an easy in-hand ID for any European with experience with both species.
This is the major problem birders face in identifying vagrants as well, and the reason that they have set up data compilers and reviewers. Mushroomers would do well to learn from that example.
That said, we’ve discussed this ad nauseum (literally) before, so I’ll keep it short – the "no sequenced specimen = rumor’ rhetoric is overstated.
so it went from macro Gyrodon to ITS Buchwaldoboletus??!
So much for those in hand macro IDs.
I don’t completely trust the DNA work, either, still a lotta kinks to work out and drawing those species lines can be problematic…but a 99% match is pretty unambiguous.
Brings us back to: without a specimen AND DNA, it’s just a rumor.
Welcome to the NA Mycoflora Project, where ya can’t just drop on a photo and be done! :)
I noticed that Watling reported pores bruising grayish green and then becoming dirty brown for this species in BFF. He also reports the flesh above the tubes and in the stipe apex bruising blue. Also it seems to me that boletes in general are much more likely to bruise blue when wet and especially when wet and cool.
There is a prior record for the west coast from under alders in southern California : Kilpecker Creek, San Bernardino Mtns., elev. ca. 6000 ft., San Bernardino Co., CA, Dave Hayward, 4 Sept. 1982 (SFSU, UCR).
However those specimens were reported not to blue when bruised on the pores and these are strongly and immediately bluing, so…
Full report of that record at:
Gyrodon lividus in California
David Hayward; Harry D. Thiers
Mycologia, Vol. 76, No. 3. (May – Jun., 1984), pp. 573-575.
Created: 2012-10-28 00:53:32 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-12-20 00:28:21 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 229 times, last viewed: 2016-02-13 13:08:49 CST (-0500)