Observation 15121: Mycena abramsii (Murrill) Murrill
When: 2008-11-25
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes:

[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:02:51 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Mendocino CO, CA, north of Fort Bragg’ to ‘North of Fort Bragg, Mendocino Co., California, USA

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
57% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: Brian Perry.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Yeah, but I want more…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-12-09 23:18:55 AST (+0300)

Yeah, I know about downloads and such, but I’m just a detail whore, I always want more…

You can trim these photos, and that will reduce size, I mean you don’t need all the denim in the image there, and then save the photo under a different jpeg compression number, and that will reduce size without losing much info. Like a 75% compression. Then you should have a photo not much larger in byte size than you have here, but much larger in pixels and amount of information displayed.

Anyway, I don’t really know the micro-details of these Mycenas that well, I keep meaning to give that a shot, but there are too many, and it kinda scares me a little… and I waste too much time on small brown spored guys to start in on small white spored guys. I should give it some try at some point, so I can learn the important taxonomic features at least, and the major sections of the genus.

I did not break the stipe. Any good microcharacters for haematopus?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2008-12-09 23:03:38 AST (+0300)

as to size….it takes too long to load the giant photos. If you are doing a serious ID on something, i can always privately send you the biggest files, like with that galerina. even with the biggest files, can’t get MUCH more detail…

Did you check if the base bled?
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-12-09 22:55:03 AST (+0300)

Might be M. haematopus, I believe I’ve seen them turn grey like this when they get dry.

One question though, the full size images you post here, they are only about 1.7M pixels, I thought your camera there had more pixels then that. Sometimes I wish I had more detail there. Is there I a reason I only see these smaller images when I click through to the full sized image?

Created: 2008-12-09 19:21:50 AST (+0300)
Last modified: 2010-08-14 21:49:16 AST (+0300)
Viewed: 48 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 14:58:29 AST (+0300)