Collector(s): Joseph D. Cohen
Other Habitat & Locality Notes:
Other Specimen Notes:
From the below list, I have only one observation on MO, i.e., Omphalina (Arrhenis) velutipes. In order to add the rest to the MO list, I would have to create new observation for each of those species. I found MS Word much faster form making lists.
It’s really hard to follow what exactly you’re talking about here…
But to answer your question, YES you should post them. And for those
species that have photos, specimens, and drawings, add those to the specific
You do know about the Species List tool on MO, yes?
Because that is exactly what you’ve ‘tried out’ (successfully) below.
It is MEANT to accommodate just such records.
here’s an example:
As for who would like to see them, I’d direct you to the current usership
of MO. There’s quite a few of us. Finding out what species grow where is a big part of what many of us come here for.
So… just learn to use the different tools, and nothing will break.
like this one below, only from the Observatory Hill Project. Should I post them all? Who would like to see them?
December 5, 2005
Mixed forest above the Observatory Road, southern slope, lower part,
between two gates on the road: Pseudotsuga menziesii, Arbutus menziesii,
Acer macrophyllum, Quercus garryana.
Cortinarius sp. Telamonia
Galerina jaapii f. jaapii
Ramaria cf. gracilis
Russula brevipes var. acrior
Russula fragrantissima group
Russula sororia group
Let’s avoid playing into this, even rhetorically.
The uses of imageless/specimenless observations on MO
have been discussed many times. Adolf dislikes them,
others understand that they do actually have value, and
in the meantime, we can all keep playing by the rules of
the site and abiding by each others’ different preferences.
MO currently has 169,765 Observations.
Why do you think that another 3,338 (< 2% increase) “will kill the system”?
I have no idea on how to address this problem. I am cataloguing Oluna’s collections from the last 6 years and I have MO observations for ca. 23.9% of them (1049 from the total of 4387 collections). If I would post all the collections as MO observations, I would kill the MO system. And yet, in addition, I have many records of fungi without collections, just as the species list entries. I have to restrict MO to the observations that have herbarium collections going with them.
I’m one of the people who posts Observations without images. I understand that’s not useful for mycofloristics or (obviously) for getting help in identification. But it’s a good way to keep a unified, publicly accessible database. For this cycle, I’ about to do it again.
I’ll consider your comments and email carefully for future cycles.
You will save your time if you throw out anything what is not worth posting on MO before you post it.
Advantage of MO is its universality, one can use it the way he/she likes to. (Some people – I don’t want to name them – use it without posting any images; Excel would work better for them in such a case.)
MO gurus adjusted the posting notice feature in the way you suggested. For genera Oluna is interested in (Cortinarius, Inocybe, Russula), we get only those notifications, where observations are being supported by herbarium specimens. I don’t want something like that for the Activity page, since I am a masochist, and I enjoy seeing observations like this one.
My main problem is that I am afraid that MO will collapse soon beneath the pile of useless observations. (Understand, any observation without a supporting specimen is useless for the mycofloristics project, the hype that is going on in NA just now.)
Do collect and have the OMS people collect as well. I know that quite a few of them have their own personal herbarium. If there is something worth doing, do it properly!
1. Right now, I’m just trying to get through the photos and labels from the May 10 Spring Camp. When I have time, I will do some cleanup and respond directly to your last email. (And at this point it’s actually useful to me to have some easily locatable examples of bad MO Observations, particularly some which I posted. I plan to use these in a presentation of how to use (and not use) MO.)
2. One can think of MO Observations as being on two separate tracks: (a) scientific/professional, (b) popular/social. I am trying to use both: the former for obvious purposes; the latter to try to ratchet up OMS member’s interests in a more scientific/professional direction.
3. I agree that it would be useful to have a more scientific/professional way of using MO. I think a relatively easy way implementation would be to let the User choose to see only those Observations with a Specimen (and/or — though I haven’t thought this through) a high-enough identification level, determined by confidence and/or the points of the voters).
Why do you post photos of something that cannot be identified? This illustrates the point I made in my recent private communication with you: We need something like “Mushroom Observer Plus” that would post only the observations supported by the herbarium specimens! I can see that MO will collapse soon under a lot of worthless garbage posted there. Adolf
Created: 2014-06-04 23:35:47 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-06-04 23:35:48 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 82 times, last viewed: 2017-06-18 07:51:03 CDT (-0400)