Observation 132079: Tricholomopsis Singer
When: 2013-04-18
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Bright yellow Fungi with gills and stem yellow also. Was growing on moss covered log.

Proposed Names

3% (2)
Recognized by sight
31% (3)
Recognized by sight
52% (3)
Recognized by sight
34% (5)
Recognized by sight
74% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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)
2013-04-23 20:06:44 CDT (-0400)

do please send the specimen at your earliest convenience. I’m afraid the AmScopes we discussed occupy the floor end of the price spectrum. Going much lower than $300-$400 will be of little value for mushroom microscopy.

Have you asked Byrain about his?


Can send you a specimen. Checked out the link(s) you gave me. Still on it. Thank you. Might have to look at something less expensive , any suggestion please? Postage to Australia $200 (25lbs) Makes a purchase hurt. Still working on the subject though. Let me know if you would like the specimen. Chow, kk

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 17:32:13 CDT (-0400)

please re-read all the comments before designating only mine as condescending. so far, it would appear that at least one eavesdropper and the OP find sanity in my broader name proposal. do you? why or why not?

edit 4/21/13: Richard has never been terribly willing to participate in discussions where people disagree with him:


By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-04-19 17:02:43 CDT (-0400)

Richard and others would be more willing to participate in such a discussion if you would refrain from speaking with so much condescension.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 16:49:35 CDT (-0400)

the only contradiction I see is you continuing to participate (belittlingly at that) in a conversation you’ve stated you don’t care about.


That’d be one way to go about it. I’m mostly trying to highlight a problem I see happening pretty frequently on the site without much thought or attention. Richard, having no field experience in anything more tropical than his home state of Florida, believes that only Gerronema and Chrysomphalina are within the realm of possibility for this Australian agaric. He fails to consider how many other (probably) light spored, lignicolous, sub-/tropical agaric genera exist, and how, without a more complete understanding of the mycota of NSW and/or microscopy for this specimen, differentiating between all these possibilities is problematic. Let me be clear: this is not at all to say that Gerronema and Chrysomphalina are not possibilities here, they’re simply not the only ones.

To account for this overconfidence in the face of a paucity of information, I throw Agaricales sensu lato into the ring where I believe it to be the most precise name that can be settled upon given the information currently available. More specific proposals live happily alongside it, or exist as written wonderings in the ‘Recognized by Sight’ or ‘Used References’ fields. I’ve done it for everything I’ve collected in Latin America so as to not have my own “hunches” end up printed beneath my images as gospel truth names, which happened about a year ago in one of the first color publications on the fungi of Bolivia. It’s a kind of caution I think deserves more exercising, especially when so many eyes are focused on this site. That Richard or anyone else does not feel like exercising such caution, much less discussing the need to, is unfortunate.

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-04-19 16:09:45 CDT (-0400)

You are suggesting that all ‘could be’ proposals should be accompanied by higher taxa proposals?

Seems like a pretty trivial issue to me.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 16:08:47 CDT (-0400)
care to explain yourself?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 16:06:31 CDT (-0400)
of course you dont…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 16:05:43 CDT (-0400)
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 16:04:10 CDT (-0400)

re-read my first comment:

therein lies the utility of names like Agaricales sensu lato to be used in combination with other proposals

To answer your question, no proposal is not welcome. On the contrary, all proposals are welcome. The much more finely featured search abilities of MO allows for the displaying of definites and maybes in separate links (via ‘More Observations’ and ‘Similar Observations’, respectively). Since the name at the top of the page is all that any search engine scraper pays attention to, it doesn’t seem to me to be the best place for proposals of anything less than an unequivocal nature.


i don’t get it.

how about this…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 15:42:34 CDT (-0400)

for a “deadringer…"


full of contradictions, as usual…

By: Rocky Houghtby
2013-04-19 15:37:19 CDT (-0400)

Are you suggesting we do not propose names for fungi that are not “deadringers”? That seems ridiculous to me. If you are that concerned about google search results( I agree with you on this) then the proper course of action would be not allowing google to index observations.

Perhaps the site can be programmed to only allow indexing in observations with a 80% consensus that has been voted on by more than one member.

in my opinion…
By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 15:21:32 CDT (-0400)

it is either Chrysomphalina or Gerronema.
like it or hate it, i don’t really care.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 15:18:40 CDT (-0400)

I think you’re having a hard time understanding the action that name proposals have on the overall name, regardless of confidence level. This is the name and image combination that google images scrapes from the site, which is consequently shown in their search results without any confidence level whatsoever. At that point, anyone’s ‘could be’ degree of confidence in a name is irrelevant. Safeguarding the sanctity of the banner name helps protect MO’s integrity as a web authority on fungi.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 15:06:06 CDT (-0400)

i think you are having a hard time understanding what “could be” means…

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-19 15:02:40 CDT (-0400)

there are some fungi, particularly those from understudied parts of the world, which cannot be sight IDed via color photos alone over an internet connection. save for those species/genera with deadringer combinations of clear and incontrovertible macro characters (purple stem + rusty brown spores + pumpkin colored pileus + presence of subiculum = Pyrrhoglossum). the best that we who are not steeped in Australasian fungi can do is guess based on what our often irrelevant observations from the other side of the world have told us. this problem is compounded by Ian’s lack of access to a microscope, under which the most meaningful and diagnostic features are typically seen.

therein lies the utility of names like Agaricales sensu lato to be used in combination with other proposals, such as yours here, which are not at all far fetched, but are only estimations based on very limited information. the ‘Similar Observations’ feature on the pages for Chrysomphalina and Gerronema will bring up this post, whether or not either proposal has garnered the majority of votes. Until or unless the naming/proposal system gets a makeover, I believe the bold, italicized name that sits atop the observation itself should be reserved for what we are sure it is, not what we suspect it might be; a topic that I encourage devs and other users to chime in on.

By: Richard and Danielle Kneal (bloodworm)
2013-04-19 10:16:54 CDT (-0400)

what type of wood was this growing from?

Created: 2013-04-19 00:37:41 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-05-17 17:29:18 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 190 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 15:08:32 CDT (-0400)
Show Log