|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)
the info, Rod. I had heard that name before but had forgotten that it was a Lamoureux provisional name.
That’s too bad about Yves. His collection of fungi photos is phenomenal.
For areas outside of those I work in daily, MO is a good source for names currently being used.
I just thought it kinda funny that so many names have been used for this type mushroom. Actually, these Mushroom Observer discussions are the main way that I (and presumably other members) keep up with all the changes in fungal nomenclature.
there is no “correct”-ness or rules of priority. As far as the nomenclatural rules go, provisional names are [EDIT] non-existing names and an annoyance (to some). However, among [EDIT] ecologists, field mycologists, ATBI folks, etc., the desire for a name and not a number is very strong. The Roosevelt group services multiple user communities. So we end up not being nomenclatural purists. When a species epithet is published formally and validly, we obey the rules.
In this case, Yves is significantly incapacitated by illness after too short a career in which he made significant contributions to the field study of Amanita in eastern Canada. In the present case, I would prefer that his name become the formally correct name for the present species if all the evidence points to the two provisional names as having been used for the same entity.
If rhacopus turns out to be the correct name for this amanita, then I would think it puts this type mushroom in the clear lead for “most names” category… at least for the last 25 years.
Is it just me, or are observations lately showing up increasingly early on a yearly basis?
provisionally named “Amanita rhacopus.” Yves and a number of his colleagues in Montreal and other Canadian clubs were pretty confident that it was the same as “A. borealisorora.” Both names are provisional. I have had the opportunity to examine the proposed “fungal barcode” gene for some of my material of “borealisorora” and some Canadian material identified as “A. rhacopus” and found that there are only minimal differences with regard to the gene sequences from specimen to specimen and that there was no significant difference between Canadian and U.S. specimens under the two provisional names. I am continuing to pursue more information. If things continue as they now appear. I will abandon my name and adopt Yve’s name in this case.
Created: 2013-06-14 21:19:05 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-06-14 21:27:38 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 51 times, last viewed: 2016-06-12 14:03:58 CDT (-0400)