Observation 120578: Russula Pers.
When: 2012-12-20
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

70% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
15% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Adolf
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-12-22 05:41:13 CST (-0500)

I don’t share your opinion completely.
Good photos of properly ID:d mushrooms also have a value even if there is no voucher specimen.

And I don’t know why you say that nobody listens? MO is filled with pictures of poorly identified voucher specimens from exhibitions. Some of these photos are completely useless as descriptions of the mushrooms too. I don’t think I need to give examples. I’m not sure I like the idea of MO being ONLY a tool for the herbariums, with lists of Fungi sp. obses and label numbers..

In some cases, when more info is added (tree host, spore colour, taste, smell etc.) it’s possible to ID even a Russula.
In this case it’s not possible, particularly since the obs shows a mixed collection..

Re: Funny
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-12-21 22:31:35 CST (-0500)

Irene Andersson’s comments about Russula cremoricolor vs. R. emetica clearly show that MO observations should be supported by voucher specimens. In this particular observations, we can agree that this is a Russula, but we cannot say what species or even how many species. I am trying to convince the Mushroom Observer guru’s that the MO observations should be supported by voucher specimens, but so far nobody listens. Adolf

Re: Funny
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-12-21 22:31:35 CST (-0500)

Irene Andersson’s comments about Russula cremoricolor vs. R. emetica clearly show that MO observations should be supported by voucher specimens. In this particular observations, we can agree that this is a Russula, but we cannot say what species or even how many species. I am trying to convince the Mushroom Observer guru’s that the MO observations should be supported by voucher specimens, but so far nobody listens. Adolf

Yes 3 & 4 look do look different
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2012-12-21 22:08:23 CST (-0500)

I was finding these abundantly throughout the park so I ended up with numerous red Russula photos and just grouped em all into this observation.

Mixed?
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-12-21 17:50:51 CST (-0500)

Photos 3 and 4 look like they are a different species – different looking cap (blotched), and stipe texture, as well as more distant gills.

While it is objectively true that this (maybe any?) species cannot be definitively identified from a photo, the rounded cap, even bright color, white stipe and acrid taste, as well as growth with oak and tanoak in our area point pretty strongly to R. cremoricolor in what I think is the most commonly held current concept. There are probably other species in the area, but this is by far the most common.

Funny
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-12-21 14:06:32 CST (-0500)

A collection of Russula cremoricolor from British Columbia (UBC F16286) is as good as identical with the european Russula emetica (just one base pair different).

That’s amusing :-)

Clean red cap and white stem, not fading, acrid taste and growing with pine, is what we usually call emetica in Scandinavia.

I knew I wouldn’t narrow this down by photo alone
By: Randy Longnecker (Randy L.)
2012-12-21 13:22:25 CST (-0500)

that’s why I simply proposed Russula :P

Impossible to identify
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-12-21 10:41:08 CST (-0500)

It is impossible to identify any [red] Russula, if you don’t have a supporting specimen. Pick whatever name of a red Russula and you will right. At least, nobody can prove you wrong. Your photos, however nice, are useless. Adolf

Created: 2012-12-20 18:26:39 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-12-22 06:40:56 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 222 times, last viewed: 2017-06-15 05:06:52 CDT (-0400)
Show Log