|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
would require knowledge of some microscopic anatomy or a little genetic work.
On the other hand, because the human brain has its incredible pattern recognition capability, after several years of amanita obsession, one can say, “It’s an Amanita,” with relatively high confidence when you see some of the larger species from your car while moving at only a bit less than 100 km per hour. At least, I have a tendency to try to do that.
I think this observation concerns an Amanita.
When I look at a photograph and suggest a name, I almost never use the highest confidence rating on MO because I know that I am guessing…and I know the work that it would take to do the job properly.
Dried material and good photographs (and, when possible, good field notes) are the only way to make real steps forward in understanding an organism. This is why it is so valuable when MO-observers preserve material and share it.
Thanks again for what you (and your Dad when called upon) have done.
Yes, all correct mostly. The only one I’m not sure of is the lower stipe but only because my dad had difficulty getting this one out of the ground and so I don’t know if what is there was there to begin with or was the result of being squashed a little. Is this an Amanita? I thought so but then wasn’t sure just because it looks so different from all the others I have found and I don’t know what the rules are for calling something an amanita vs not. :)
The photograph in side view seems to show gray patches of volva on the lower stipe and on the bulb. The ring is a sort or sordid pink or pinkish pale gray. In your judgment, am I correct in interpreting the volva on the lower stipe and the color of the partial veil?
Created: 2014-04-12 12:31:36 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2014-04-14 02:45:05 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 35 times, last viewed: 2015-08-17 09:45:51 CEST (+0200)