|I’d Call It That||3.0||7.30||2||(Noah)|
|As If!||-3.0||5.36||1||(Herbert Baker)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.36||1||(Herbert Baker)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
: characterized by absence of mental images
Merriam-Webster Disctionary on-line
this pull quote from you is the crux of the problem:
“If you have good reason to think that the observation author’s identification is wrong, I urge you to add a Comment stating so, and giving a reason. (It doesn’t have to be wrong.)”
How can anyone debate, change or even offer supporting votes to the name of an observation when there is absolutely NO DATA backing it up, other than someone’s “I told you so?”
That line might work for parenting, but certainly not for science.
Of course we all use lists for forays and field trips and other casual documentations. But they are quick and dirty guess-timates, not science, because they are not backed up by hard data, and the IDs are most usually done on the fly.
Once these imposter sightings get moved off of the playing field of real observations with back-up data, I think that this whole argument will go away.
I look forward to that day. We have all wasted enough time on this “go-nowhere” topic.
I look forward to seeing future data rich observations by Noah, Christian and everyone else here that truly add to our database and move mycology forward, in a real and observable, reproducible and yes, even ID debatable way.
That is the foundation upon which MO is built, and giving these sorts of obsie-lite posts similar value to such in fact devalues the whole.
Thanks again to the MO admin who carefully vet these changes and keeps an impartial view and works hard to keeping both the high research value and the soul of MO alive. Your work here is invaluable and the myco-community deeply appreciates it.
Infrageneric ranks above species as being some sort of bottomless pit, on the contrary, I consider most species determinations to be inaccurate, or even arbitrary.
Within the context of contemporary phylogenetics, the line of speciation is ephemeral to the point of tedium; in this regard, I posit that infrageneric ranks derived from molecular study represent the terminus of reasonable precision for any collection that hasn’t been sequenced, and plotted in a well supported tree.
There are no less than 11 species of blackening Hygrocybe within the Hygrocybe conica aggregate worldwide (perhaps a half dozen in NA), and even more outside this aggregate. Macromorphological, and other info regarding these NA species is lacking. H. conica group loosely works. But how do we define it? Any red Hygrocybe that stains black? I’m not sure science corroborates that idea. This group needs a lot of work. The species in Hygrocybe subsect. Hygrocybe are defined by their blackening reaction.
Thanks so much for (repeating) the explanation.
What to do with these misapplied names?
Bumping it up a rank puts the ID into a bigger, less precise bucket, from which the Observation will never come out. But it is accurate.
What about creating an unofficial name as a placeholder, like Hygrocybe conica sensu auct. amer.? More precise. And once there’s an official name, easier to find the Observations which need to be changed. (Or even simply deprecate the unoffical name in favor of the official one.) But is is accurate? Also it’s more work up front.
I don’t know which is better. What do you think?
I’m asking you a favor:
Please avoid proposing names in higher ranks for observations which lack images. Here’s why:
- You have enough voting power so that your proposal will often change the consensus ID for the observation. When the observation is part of a species list, the change in ID probably will destroy the functionality of that observation as part of that list.
- You may be doing this because you
(a) are concerned that the lower rank name is messing up MO, and/or
(b) think it’s the best reaction to someone’s proposal of Imageless.
These concerns should be addressed by a change which is in the works.
This weekend the MO Development Team will be working on content filters for users. The first will be an imageless filter. It will apply to the activity log, searches and range maps at least. By using the filter, any user will be able to wall off observations like this one. This should make the whole issue moot.
- Once the filter is in place, we’ll probably delete the name Imageless completely from the system. We will be able to delete Imageless name proposals and votes. But we have no practical way to deal with proposals and votes for other names — we can’t unscramble that.
If you have good reason to think that the observation author’s identification is wrong, I urge you to add a Comment stating so, and giving a reason. (It doesn’t have to be wrong.)
— Joe Cohen
a Seinfeld episode?
a post about nothing, with names proposed and debated for zero data.
c’mon fellas, this is insanity.
the MO Admin is working on getting these data-free lists to not pop up on our screens and to not be part of documented databases, unless specifically requested. I can live with that.
All the fighting over these ridiculous who knows what they saw posts just pops them up on my screen AGAIN, and it is NOT appreciated.
Do y’all have too much time on your hands or WHAT?
Yeah, Breitenbush has Hygrocybe sp. Thank god this was put up here for future researchers to discover, at least those who like their info loosey goosey and data-lite.
Why bother, if not just to annoy? It is meaningless and a waste of time, no matter those long and rather ridiculous justifications.
Created: 2014-07-15 06:47:25 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2016-07-29 21:42:04 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 126 times, last viewed: 2017-06-18 17:52:00 CEST (+0200)