Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Cortinariuis sp. with boletoid spores
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.34||2||(Byrain,myxomop)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.30||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
…is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach…"
are not so constructive. “MO is broken, we know best, consensus is stupid.” this has been your reiterated anthem for a long, long time, and people are rightfully bored of it.
i wrote a lengthy comment addressing the specifics of the problem you cited and how I felt it could be solved. it does not look like you read it.
condescension continues to get you nowhere.
was to bring attention to these issues to the MO developers, they use the github page so we should bring our concerns to them. That is what github is there for. :)
I like your herbarium field suggestion, I think from this point on we should try to not lose our good ideas in miscellaneous comments anymore and start porting them to the MO github issues page at the very least.
arguments in response to this User’s persistent resistance to MO conventions reminds me of the old adage about beating a dead horse. No matter how logical, reasonable, sensible or sane your (and other’s) comments are, a dead horse is incapable of getting up and running.
We believe that our Cortinarius with boletoid spores is a new species that has not been described yet.
then describe it.
we sent the material to Joe Ammirati and his answer was, “”Keep looking and collect more.” We use MO for communication with specialists (such as Prof. Joe Ammirati) and the Citizen Science kind of comments and suggestions make them to doubt about this marvellous system that Mushroom Observer indeed is
I would have picked “use of nonsense names” over “Citizen Science kind of comments” as a thing to make mycology professors doubt the marvellousness that is Mushroom Observer.
Do you have any suggestion on how we should label (collection label and collection name are two different things!) our unknown observations together and not to get them lost? Such as in e.g., 2442 observations named “Cortinarius”.
elsewhere I’ve voiced support for an original herbarium label field, which would be unchangeable by all but the OP:
With your great herbarium experience, you should know that the herbarium labels should not be touched and all the ID suggestions should be done by annotations.
My herbarium experience is not great. Yours is. That is part of why I’m surprised to see you using nonsense names and being surprised at and indignant toward the natural responses to the use of such names. If I call something Agaricus lookslikemyfriendtomswifeschinchilla in my field notes, and eventually make that my herbarium label, whosoever should accession that collection is reasonably entitled to think I have no idea how naming works, but it remains the label, just as much as if I decided to replace collection notes on habit and habitat with scribbles and supermarket coupons and pictures of cats. MO already makes this information sovereign to the OP. No one can change your notes but you.
Nathan told me that MO is not a herbarium, but he might be wrong, since our more than 2900 herbarium-supported observations speak for our argument.
He’s right. MO is a website, not an herbarium. It employs many practices reminiscent of those used in herbaria, and is a great compliment to physical collections however they are stored, but it isn’t an herbarium. I write the MO number into the notes on every collection I make. So does Alan. Now anyone wishing to see and read much more than would be appropriate or feasible to fit inside a box can do so by looking up any observation by its MO number.
I have been calling for getting rid of deprecation and Consensus and accept the old good herbarium practice of annotations.
That you have been unsuccessful at this is and will continue to be as long as you push for it is of no surprise to me whatsoever. “Original Herbarium Label” as a permanent, built-in field, not subject to changes by other users, is a very good and very simple feature to implement. Placing the actual identification of a given user’s observations under their direct and inviolable control is absurd. You presume, incorrectly, that Mushroom Observer users and people who make collections that end up in herbaria are of comparable mycological aptitude. Sometimes they are. Usually they aren’t. To account for the presence of different experience levels among the membership, the contributor ranking tries (and fails) to distinguish between whose word should carry more weight. What MO does not yet account for is differences between observations themselves, and this is part of the problem we have here. Your dislike of seeing your Cortinarius lumped together with 2442 other observations by the same name is no doubt due to the fact that not all of these observations are alike — they may not all even be Cortinarius! — but they’re all wearing the same nametag. Rather than do away with consensus and deprecation, I believe observations should be able to have their comprehensiveness measured. An observation of something vaguely Cortinarioid which somebody drops a ‘Could Be’ genus proposal onto, never to be bothered with again, is so very, very different from a meticulously documented collection of a Cortinarius whose identity eludes even the highest ranking authorities on the group. With a system in place that recognized these differences, it would be a privilege to have an observation be called Genus sp. or Family sp., not a punishment, because it would mean that the collection has resisted all efforts, in spite of all the information available, to give it a more specific name.
that this name or any other like it would be defended on the basis of acting in accordance with standard herbarium practices is preposterous. determinations, redeterminations, synonymizations, etc. are expected to follow the same rules of naming as anywhere else. this is just as true for the digitization of fungus collections, where the ‘Name’ field is linked to MycoBank’s own name database, and any names entered by digitizers which do not match a MycoBank name are flagged for review. personal herbaria are another story, just like personal websites, which MO is not.
there are instances in which provisional naming is appropriate here. Rod’s system for undescribed Amanitas comes to mind. when he creates/uses a name on MO, there are always corresponding entries on Amanitaceae.org with supporting information. that’s a far cry from naming things with poor portmaneaus of plain english because the observer can’t/hasn’t yet identified what they observed, or because they want an easier way of finding that observation in a pile. There are 20-odd things I know to be possibly undescribed, unidentified species from the Neotropics. They all occupy their own species lists ennumerated under the common header of “Unidentified Neotropical Fungus.” If you want to group novel observations of your own, you can call a species list whatever you like and always have an easy way of retrieving the observations it contains. You can also name the observations themselves things like Cortinarius funnyshapedcapskinnystemweirdspores. Only one of those options will elicit strong, negative feedback from the community (hint: not the first one).
Created: 2014-07-09 00:39:12 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-05-05 07:17:49 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 354 times, last viewed: 2017-09-14 02:24:55 CDT (-0500)