Observation 148465: Entoloma subsaundersii Largent
When: 2009-10-11

Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Entoloma subsaundersii Largent
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F27032

Proposed Names

83% (1)
Used references: Based on the discussion in this observation

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Responding only to Noah’s comment
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2015-03-17 13:35:52 CDT (-0500)

Thank you for the detailed morphological information about this taxon. That is very helpful and I have copied it to the E. subsaundersii Name Page where people may be able to find it in the future.

Given that you apparently have (or at least had) a key handy, all you need do is find something else in that key that this observation might be, pointing out some of the reasons it might not be that, and I’m totally on board with calling this Entoloma. The limits of species and the correlation between names and species are difficult to pin down and honestly who knows what conclusions other lines of evidence such as DNA may support. Science is not easy and shortcuts get us all into trouble. Just saying what you think something isn’t and then identifying it as some higher level taxon that includes that thing provides almost no information, is lazy, and in my view is probably a waste of the small amount of time put into it.

The other comments in this thread are not appropriate for this observation so I won’t respond to them here. I certainly appreciate most of them and agree with some of them and would be happy to have an actual creative discussion about naming in MO in a separate email thread or on Facebook.

Mushroom Observer Plus
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-17 07:01:15 CDT (-0500)

I don’t insist that MO needs to directly replicate the methods, practices and workflows of [my] herbarium, it can be your herbarium or any other mycological herbarium.
My proposal is simple: for the MO observations which are supported by the herbarium voucher specimens, protect the original MO Observation author’s ID and get the other user’s comments in a stricter “annotation label” format: New name (or the confirmation of the original name using an exclamation mark), reason for the change [e.g., “it has the both legs the same, with the exception of the left one :-)”], date of the annotation and the author of the annotation label. It’s simple like that, it cannot be simpler. Mushroom Observer Plus would apply only for the MO observations supported by the herbarium specimens and this version could live side by side with the ordinary MO. It is quite simple. Sorry, I was a herbarium curator for almost 15 years and I indeed grew up into a little nasty curmudgeon.

Problems with the voting system,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-03-17 02:18:57 CDT (-0500)

cohesively listed, are as follows:

1. Vote weight dictated by the arbitrary contribution point system, which has little to no bearing on the “authority” of the voter

2. “Drive-by voting,” in which binary opinions (for or against) are left without any explanation as to their reasoning. A very important point, which Christian raised and which he and I discussed not 24 hours ago, is that the janitorial workload on this website is so high and so unevenly distributed among the membership that stopping to explain every proposal or change is impractical. This would be greatly alleviated with added expertise on the site, thereby reducing the amount of “mess” any one of us would have to clean up. We all realize that there is no push-button solution to make that happen.

3. Original herbarium labels and/or original name proposals from the uploader are not lost (they exist in the log), but are hidden if and when new names come along. I agree with Adolf (possibly for the first time ever) that this functionality is important to implement here, somehow. I disagree that MO needs to directly replicate the methods, practices and workflows of his herbarium or any herbarium in order to function.

4. Names are in constant competition with one another to claim the title spot at the top of the page. There are countless examples in which the consensus (or lack thereof) on a given observation is of a more complicated, less (again) binary nature, which the current naming/voting system cannot adequately reflect. Vote-bombing and vote-warring are one type of fallout. The sensu lato names, tacitly accepted by some, abhorred by others, are an attempt to work within the current confines to establish a baseline of taxonomic agreement, in which users can at least consense upon a basic body form. Ideally, this consensus will, someday, be taken out of the naming/voting arena and implemented in parallel in at least one of two ways: 1. offering a checkbox option in the ‘Create Observation’ page to indicate body form, or 2. introducing a tagging system in which observations can be assigned a broad, easily agreed-upon designation post-upload. I think both would be best, just as users have the option to propose a name when creating, and add or modify names after uploading.

All of these are interconnected with one another. That Christian or I or Noah or anyone else airdrops a quick and dirty bit of taxonomic opinion over the course of a broader flight path over the MO landscape is not “the problem.” It is the best possible benefit we can practically provide given the available framework, the available expertise, and the time available to each of us. If the contents of that cargo leave the recipients wanting, maybe it’s time to take a step back and consider all of the variables in the equation.

Let’s stop beating a dead horse
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-17 01:10:10 CDT (-0500)

We are using MO observer for documenting our herbarium specimens and vice versa: we are trying to have every our MO observation supported by a corresponding herbarium specimen. We greatly appreciate any suggestion of identifications or misidentifications, but we would like to have then done in the form of “annotations”, not by crossing out the original name and replacing it with whatever other name. The original MO observation name should be out of touch of other MO users and only the MO Observation "owner"should be able to change it. This is normal practice in herbarium revisions and identifications as well as in GenBank: only the collector himself or the person who submitted the particular DNA sequence into the GenBank can change the original name. I have suggested to Nathan long time ago that MO should separate general comments (e.g. what does “curmudgeon” mean) and “annotations” and let it on the MO Observation owners if they would like to live with a wrong ID or fix it. Annotations would be visible to other MO user who would be able to judge who is right and who is wron, but the link between the MO Observation and supporting herbarium specimen would not be broken.
Mind you, the word “annotations” is not entirely right, since for real annotations one should examine the original herbarium specimen. No amount of one’s experience and expertise can substitute having the specimen in hand or under the microscope.
As it is now, MO users don’t have any control of the MO observation names. We came across quite a few our MO images when looking for some fungal taxa in Google and every such posting implies that the original image was “named” by us. At the present state of MO this is not always true.
Oluna says that you won’t read this anyway, but ??? Let’s stop beating a dead horse!

By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2015-03-16 23:37:57 CDT (-0500)

Sometimes it is a lot easier to say what things aren’t, then what things are. Yes this is an Entoloma, but beyond that, it’s tough to say.

Based on Larget’s monograph, My own, and certainly Christian’s experience with this species, it’s quite obvious this is not E. subsaundersii. But that does not mean we have any idea what it might be, beyond Entoloma.

1. Basidiomes with the following set of features:
a. pileus dark grey to dark grey brown (5-6F1-3(-4» ;
b. pileus with aeriferous fibrils or frost-like areas;
c. pileus with rivulose fibrils as well;
d. taste and odor strongly farinaceous;
e. pigmentation typically intracellular, at times minutely incrusted as well;
f. basidiomes typically growing in clusters of 2-4 and often remaining underground;
g. associated with oaks ….. ……….. E. subsaundersii (p. 294)

I have stopped suggesting alternative names to Adolf and Oluna’s observations, even when they are glaringly wrong; it’s not worth the bullshit that comes along with it. Unfortunately, the data base is becoming less useful as a result of people not wanting to touch certain people’s observations, because of blow-back.

Look Adolf
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-03-16 23:21:46 CDT (-0500)

I can use Microsoft Paint too:

Seeing that you are, by your own admission, not a mycologist, that you would so roundly and routinely dismiss the opinion of someone who is (Christian), and to have done so here of all places, on an observation concerning a genus of particular professional interest to that mycologist, is, well, typical Adolf, really. That one of our administrators has left your most recent tantrum unmentioned in the comment beneath mine is all that surprises me here. Your wife’s excellence in her field, of which you are but the angry conduit, has been the sole redeeming quality to merit suffering your broken record bullying and bellyaching.

I share wholeheartedly in Christian’s frustration, but I consider you too great a liability to let be left alone. We’re going to be best friends, Adolf.

Best friends.

As for the voting system, this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. Despite that, somehow, none of this discussion seems to have translated into any significant changes in the voting system of MushroomObserver 2.0 (test.mushroomobserver.org). Do correct me if I’m wrong.

A few comments…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2015-03-16 21:48:47 CDT (-0500)

First, I think it is childish that the Entoloma subsaundersii name was removed as a possible id. This is valuable information.

Second, while myself I am not familiar with E. subsaundersii, I find Oluna’s ID’s to generally warrant at least a vote of Promising.

Third, I think it is wrong to change the name of an observation without explaining why and I plan to make this a requirement in the future. It will still be possible to quickly suggest alternative names, but they will only become consensus names if they are justified in some way. Yes, this will slow down the users who quickly review observations and want their name to “win”, but it will increase the value of what they contribute to the people who make the ids. Unsupported suggestions will be allowed, but they will no longer be allowed to “win”.

Fourth, I think it is wrong to simply propose a higher level taxon without also proposing an alternative taxon at the lower rank. In this case, what other Entoloma might it be (I honestly have no idea so it may be very obvious to some others)? Entoloma is a very large genus and simply rejecting a name because it doesn’t exactly fit your own experience of a particular species name is not enough. In comparison, I recently went through all the observations named Chroogomphus vinicolor and Chroogomphus ochraceus. Since the only currently documented reliable way to distinguish these two taxa is either by looking at the cell wall of the cystidia or doing a DNA analysis, I only accepted at the species level those that had supporting microscopic evidence. For all the others I made sure that both species names had been proposed and then added the higher level taxon as what I personally would call it. This is particularly instructive in this case, since it was originally thought that color was a key feature in distinguishing these two species. If fact both epithets explicitly refer to the color of the fruiting body. However, DNA evidence showed that this is a reliable feature.

In the case of this particular observation, in the absence of a clear alternative name, I think the right thing to do would be to simply raise a question in the comments about the color and distribution.

Re: Okay Adolf
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-15 15:37:10 CDT (-0500)

Your help is not any help, and I will be only happy if you leave our MO observations alone. Many thanks,

Okay Adolf
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-03-15 15:32:47 CDT (-0500)

I’ve had enough. You don’t want my help, I shall hereafter let your misidentifications stand.
I would rather clean up the mushroomobserver database, but you are a very difficult and insulting person, and I simply don’t want to deal with you.

Re: MO Voting, ID’s, Description
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-15 14:53:21 CDT (-0500)

MO Voting and ID by Consensus are strange idiosyncrasies of Mushroom Observer and you have to ignore them if you want to use MO for documentation of your collections. As Christian indicated, people making ID changes often do not have time to look at your MO observations carefully before they vote on their identifications. Unfortunately, it is this voting system for which professional mycologists stay away from Mushroom Observer. Mushroom Observer is very professionally programmed as a data base management system, but no professional mycologists had any input in its data handling part. Mushroom Observer then ended up as a nice computerized Ludo game that many professional mycologists find totally useless. This is a pity, since if you protect your original name in the Notes:, you can use it as a good filing system of your jpegs that go with the real collections. We have done it for Oluna’s 7,000 or so herbarium collections where we have MO observations for about every fifth collection.

Answer to Christian re: Maybe
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-15 14:28:07 CDT (-0500)

Arrogant behavior is often associated with narcissistic personality disorder:
If “it simply isn’t practical for [you] to write a detailed note on every observation [you] attempt to correct”, just stay away from correcting them. Other MO user’s time is also valuable, maybe more than yours and you should not waste their time on issues that are not worth your time!
The last paragraph of your comment is what I would mean by partial “annotations”, I say “partial”, since you failed to indicate what other species this MO observation could be. You wrote:
“I am pretty certain this is not E. subsaundersii based on browner color, different habit, and very far northern distribution.”
Color differences do not mean too much for me, since I am colorblind. As for the “very far northern distribution”, this speaks in favor of Entoloma subsaundersii rather than against it. On Texada Island, this fungus occurs in the close vicinity of Woodwardia fimbriata and Polystichum californicum sites:
http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/ben402.html &
Both grow here at the northern limits of their distributions.

I sympathize with your
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-03-15 13:44:01 CDT (-0500)

perspective on most counts, although I’m not sure I agree that my comments are only valid if an observation gets many votes.

I tried not to vote-bomb this one (by leaving E. subsaundersii as “Could Be”) when I first proposed Entoloma. However, Adolf vote-bombed that suggestion, so I changed my vote to a more extreme level in order to reflect my strong belief that this is not E. subsaundersii.

I also try to leave “wiggle room” in the confidence levels of my votes, but I agree a better system could be devised.

MO Voting, IDs, Descriptions
By: L G Price (LG_Price)
2015-03-15 13:36:59 CDT (-0500)

This conversation is very interesting to me, not that I have any idea as to the ID, but the process of expressing opinions on MO. I consider each person in the previous conversation as “expert” and yet there are the same frustrations expressed here as I experience as a newcomer to mushroom identification.

C. Schwarz’s comments would be valid if each MO observation got a dozen or more votes. However, the reality is that few get any votes. A particularly interesting find may get one vote and exceptionally an occasional observation gets 3 votes. His brief comment as to why he disagrees is worth more than all the votes.

I sometimes get what I call a “blast” vote with no comment and find it very frustrating. I live in NE Texas and the likelihood that someone in California or Maine can correctly ID based on “recognized”, from the photos apparently, seems very unlikely to me. Many mushrooms I find here just don’t match anything or look a little different from other MO Observations with the same probable ID. In general, I try to leave room in my own votes so that someone can nudge the ID one way or the other. I am not an expert.

I wish MO would adopt a rule that one should not move a vote more than one level one way or the other without an explanation. Without an explanation someone like me has no notion of what the disagreement is about, i.e. the new ID is pointless without direction.

One VERY GOOD THING about MO is that when searching for examples of a species, you can find ones ID’d as such even if voted down. I make a point to look at these as the current voting system is not robust.

I realize that the problem lies in “not enough experts” reviewing. There is also a problem with experts posting observations with a couple of photos, no description and ID’d by recognition. I’m sure they are correct but there is nothing in the observation from which I can learn.

I particularly look for observations by Oluna and Adolf Ceska because I can learn much about mushrooms and fungus from each carefully described observation. Whether a particular species ID changes over time is of little consequence. They put the critical information and descriptions in place so that a reasonable opinion can be made as understanding changes.

As a new “hobbiest”, it seems the majority of mushroom identifications are at best tentative, except for the extremely well known which are not the majority.

LG Price, a tortoise in the race to learn about fungi.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-03-15 09:58:26 CDT (-0500)

it is arrogant – but it is also very efficient. Most of us have outside jobs and don’t get paid to do taxonomy. Users of Mushroom Observer get a fairly high level of attention to their observations for free. Although I would like to, it simply isn’t practical for me to write a detailed note on every observation I attempt to correct.

I hope you can see that it is mathematically self-evident that this is a more practical way to do things – one taxonomist sweeps through and makes suggestions, and then each user takes on that suggestion to investigate. Many hours of work distributed across many individuals. The alternative is that all those hours are on the clock of the person whose expertise is being tapped.

I am pretty certain this is not E. subsaundersii based on browner color, different habit, and very far northern distribution. You are welcome to investigate further.

It’s up to you
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-03-14 19:55:03 CDT (-0500)

It’s up to you to explain why this is not Entoloma subsandersii. I am not a mycologist and I do value expertise of other MO users. However, as a former herbarium curator I would like to have MO identifications made as formal herbarium specimen annotations: New name, Why, Date, Annotation author. That would be more professional then just telling me that this MO observation is Entoloma. I do believe you, we knew that when I was posting this MO observation. But as Noah would tell you, I am beating a dead horse.
Conclusion: Next time you don’t agree with Oluna’s ID, made it in the form of a herbarium annotation, preferable as a comment to our MO observations. Just to cross our our original name without any further explanation is a highly arrogant behavior.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2015-03-14 17:35:43 CDT (-0500)

convince me.
You often say you value the taxonomic expertise of others, but you flatly refuse the suggestion that this is not E. subsaundersii?

Created: 2013-10-14 19:15:06 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-03-17 05:15:01 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 319 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 19:33:46 CDT (-0500)
Show Log