Notes: Specimens were part of display at Cascade Mycological Society mushroom festival. Identifiers included Bitty Roy, Steve Trudell, Debbie Viess, Freeman Rowe, Erin Page Blanchard, Joe Spivak and others from CMS.
|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||10.46||2||(incredulis,myxomop)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
is a Antrodia; I got a name from Jim Ginns a few years back (it’s very common on Sitka Spruce), but I have to look it up.
then I looked up your Panasonic DMC-ZS7. 25-300mm equivalent zoom. that, plus 3cm working distance in macro mode, explains the size discrepancy. and your description, of course, which I plainly misread. my mistake.
that being said, i remain skeptical about image 1’s identity, but I don’t know enough to argue, and we haven’t poroid people to call upon here. Presumably, the other material all came in from locations other than Siltcoos Lake Trail, so you could untick the ‘Is Collection Location’ box and leave this as a display table observation, then let whomever else is so inclined weigh in on the sameness/differentness question. Or, you could split the observation into what you observed near Florence and what you photographed on the display table. I would vote for the latter, but it’s up to you.
right in my description:
Notes: The first collection/photo was taken on the Siltcoos Lake Trail near Florence, Oregon. For size reference, this is the small white specimen on the left in the group shot.
1. why would you care about an observation with several fruit bodies?
the number of fruiting bodies is not the problem. The problem is that one of them is from a completely different location, collected at a completely different time, and, incidentally, could be a completely different fungus based on its appearance (though we’ll likely never know since a specimen wasn’t kept). One out of three of those is enough to warrant splitting the observation. Three out of three is… much more than enough.
2. These were all identified by mycologists at the foray and put on the same table.
Every fungus in these four photographs was handled and identified in person? Does that include the fungus in image 1? If so, why is there no display table photograph of it to correspond with the field photo?
Side note: The checkbox for ‘Is Collection Location’ should be unchecked for this observation, as you’ve listed the event location and not the collection location.
why would you care about an observation with several fruit bodies? These were all identified by mycologists at the foray and put on the same table.
are of less concern here than the acknowledgement that image one’s fruiting body is from a different place and time as those photographed on the display tables. they belong in separate observations.
These were all the collections brought to the fungus fair in Eugene. One photo taken in different light; probably in shadow or at a different table. I was documenting the fungi brought to the fair.
are of different collections?
Created: 2012-10-31 17:27:23 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2016-08-10 02:44:57 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 108 times, last viewed: 2017-03-25 09:44:12 CET (+0100)