Observation 115014: Pycnoporellus alboluteus (Ellis & Everh.) Kotl. & Pouzar
When: 2012-10-26
No herbarium specimen

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.

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-08-08 21:14:20 PDT (-0700)
First picture
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2016-08-08 20:58:58 PDT (-0700)

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.

I didn’t believe it,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-08-08 20:55:45 PDT (-0700)

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.

here you go
By: David Rust (incredulis)
2016-08-08 20:39:32 PDT (-0700)

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.

two problems
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-08-08 20:06:52 PDT (-0700)

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.

wasn’t my goal.
By: David Rust (incredulis)
2016-08-08 19:42:46 PDT (-0700)

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.

differences in lighting
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-08-08 17:38:01 PDT (-0700)

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.

By: David Rust (incredulis)
2016-08-08 17:19:45 PDT (-0700)

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.

so images 1 and the rest of the photos
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-08-08 16:46:59 PDT (-0700)

are of different collections?

Created: 2012-10-31 09:27:23 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-08-09 17:44:57 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 103 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 23:08:37 PDT (-0700)
Show Log