|I’d Call It That||3.0||8.27||2||(Scott,email@example.com)|
|As If!||-3.0||9.64||2||(Christian Schwarz,Byrain)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.58||2||(Christian Schwarz,Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|As If!||-3.0||15.88||3||(firstname.lastname@example.org,Byrain,Christian Schwarz)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Danny & Dennis Dejardin,
You have to make a difference between Index Fungorum (better yet Index/Species Fungorum ) and Index Fungorum Publications. When I suggested to use the “Current Name:” for MO naming, I had Index/Species Fungorum in mind, NOT the Index Fungorum Publications. The entries in I/S Fungorum are rigorously researched. Index Fungorum Publications, on the other hand, publishes users’ contributions as they are submitted without any editorial interference (Paul Kirk, personal communication). I don’agree with this, since blunders such as describing one species under two different names based on the same type lower the standard of the IFP.
See: http://www.indexfungorum.org/... and
Your example of Amanita confusum Desjardin sp. nov. looks to me as formally correct and – without any editorial interaction – it would be published as it is, although in the Species Fungorum it would be listed as Amanita confusa (as ‘confusum’ ).
and replace it with " Current Name:", unless you say who prefers that particular “Prefered Name:” [Byrain, Scott Redhead, Christian Schwarz, etc.]!
Species Fungorum prefers :
Hypholoma myosotis (Fr.) M. Lange, Meddr Grønland, Biosc. 148(no. 2): 64 (1955)
I don’t have much to add at this point, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not think using MO as an virtual herbarium is wrong, just that its a lot more than just that and thus running it just like an herbarium may end up harming the data set. The original herbarium label is important to include, just not as the preferred name. It would serve much more use in the notes or as a suggested name with lower confidence than the currently accepted name which is used to organize similar observations. Your and Oluna’s observations are great, please keep it up! :)
Edit: @ myxomop, I totally agree with the silly “As if” votes, however it only takes one person to have us all forced to play along or watch as good observations get lost under old names such as Agaricus myosotis…
Another riveting MO conversation. I live for these threads.
Digital publishing of names on Index Fungorum is now very easy, and fast, and appears to introduce a seed of chaos. For example Vizzini et al. assigned a mushroom to Cyanoboletus (their newly erected genus), which Jonathan Frank and Noah and I later placed in Xerocomellus. Neither of these happened with an attached peer-reviewed paper. Why are we allowed to do this? Is this really a good system?
Dennis Desjardin recently decried the shortcomings of IF to me in the following email:
Here is how bad the IF method of publication could be, with this hypothetical submission by me:
Nomenclatural novelties: Dennis E. Desjardin
Amanita confusum Desjardin sp. nov.
Differs from other Amanita species in its separable, poroid hymenophore, yellowish brown, boletoid basidiospores, and lack of a universal veil.
Holotype: DED 9000 (SFSU).
This is an acceptable submission, but one that is clearly not taxonomically acceptable; but with no review process, no checks and balances, literally anything can be published as a new taxon in IF.
I agree with his assessment. Leaving a door this wide open to a nomenclatural free-for-all is treacherous, and has caused me to look upon IF with much greater skepticism than ever before. That said, it is a good and bandwith-light source of spelling confirmation. That’s about all I use it for these days, given that peer review is practically non-existent.
There is absolutely no need to debate which name to put on any particular observation. And a disturbing trend lately is to go back to older observations and up-vote a newer name and down-vote the now older synonym which is still a perfectly valid name. That is totally unnecessary and works against the system of synonyms.
Two things: The “trend” of reassigning name priority of old observations is something I have been as guilty of as anyone. This has been done in an attempt to have the almighty Google scraper pick up the “most appropriate” name for a given species, and, ostensibly, the most likely one to be searched for online. I concede that the newest name may not necessarily be the most recognizable or “best” one. Indeed, it often is not. That said, the current system displays one name and one name only as the bold, italicized title of each respective observation, and that forces us to decide on a single combination.
I agree that a better alternative exists, and this falls neatly into the debate of instituting a parallel naming system over the current hierarchical one. It is foolish and a waste of time that any observation get bounced back and forth between Agaricales sensu lato and any one of a number of proposed genera. If the thing is gilled, we should be able to assert and agree upon the gilled-ness of the thing, and move on to more specific proposals. Short a major revamping of the MO naming system, we will always have to settle on a single name, whether or not any alternative has equal merit. Relying on a combination of IF and MycoBank has been the method by which this site has made those decisions thus far, but I support the notion that a more plural system should hold sway. How (and more importantly, when) that system takes shape is dependent on the development of the site, which will always proceed at a slower pace than it would if our thankless staff were thanked with dollars. Perhaps the Digital Mycological Consortium with obtain its long-sought 501c3 status sometime soon, and tax deductible donations will finally begin to grease those wheels. Until then, we will have to juggle names and decide as an online community which one deserves titular priority.
Herbarium mycology is not difficult either. In that field, the name on the label must not be touched and all other suggestions are placed in annotations. That’s not the case in MO, but we have to live with it. Adolf
Mathematics is easy.
is easy to deal with and understand, and keep track of…
Why not at least attempt to have everyone keep up with current nomenclature that has purportedly been peer-reviewed by experts?
The birding community has a meta-review of new names in place in the form of the ABA and AOU committees (here in North America; others at global levels) that issue yearly checklist updates, in which new names that have been introduced are officially made standard usage.
If what Scott says here is true:
“It is also prudent to be a bit conservative to see how things settle out.”
Then perhaps those authors bringing the new genera into being should do it only in cases where this an abundance of information.
It really feels dumb for different groups of biologists to be operating so differently (continued usage of Entoloma in Europe vs. segregate genera here in the USA)…
My original comment was under the title Phaeonematoloma myosotis, which I only used because currently I recognize that name, but my comment was intended to be addressed towards the species identification (as was realized by Patrick) with no intention of saying MO should use Phaeonematoloma. There should not be a huge fight over which generic name is best. Phaeonematoloma may yet prove to be a Hypholoma again and for that matter Hypholoma may yet prove to be a Pholiota. The last chapter has not been written.
Also as pointed out by Patrick, neither Index Fungorum nor Mycobank claim to represent the ultimate classification and they may disagree on classification.
As for Hymenopellis – have you really looked at the molecular data? My impression is that Oudemansiella looks like a far better bet on reclassifying those taxa. And why didn’t Paul Kirk accept Hymenopellis for 4 year? To begin with, the authors of the name failed to register all of the new combinations, and they had to be put in manually by CABI staff, even while CABI was busy transferring the same staff member (Paul) to Kew. Things do not always run that smoothly. It is also prudent to be a bit conservative to see how things settle out.
This issue about which synonym to use for a mushroom is best dealt with at the taxon name level not on every observation record for the mushroom species. MO has the system in place that links synonyms together. There is absolutely no need to debate which name to put on any particular observation. And a disturbing trend lately is to go back to older observations and up-vote a newer name and down-vote the now older synonym which is still a perfectly valid name. That is totally unnecessary and works against the system of synonyms.
This should be dealt with by some consensus on which synonym to treat as the current name through the MO system of preferred names and deprecated names. MO allows more than one preferred name by the way. Don’t have to choose just one. The names are linked together. To see all the observations for a species you click on the “More Observations (all synonyms)” link. Simple as that. This observation has 3 different names but they all refer to the same species. The voting on an observation should be for choosing which species not for voting on what we want the current name to be.
But the problem is do we follow Index Fungorum or Mycobank or the latest publication, peer-reviewed or not? There are many “newer names” that are not used. For example Psalliota campestris (L.) Quél. 1872 (for Agaricus) and Cladodendron frondosum (Dicks.) Lázaro Ibiza 1916 (for Grifola). A recent example is a 2006 paper (Mycena 6: 4-56) that took Abortiporus and Bjerkandera and lumped them into Grifola because the microscopic characters were the same. The paper made 69 new combinations which can be found on Index Fungorum but many are not current names.
There is a consensus on which names are used but this does not emerge immediately (example Hymenopellis). And authors from different continents do not agree. As Redhead said earlier it doesn’t matter which name is used. Lorelei Norvell, also on the nomenclature committee, told me last year that it is not the job of Index Fungorum or Mycobank to decide on the “current name.” But having them suggest one does help though they are sometimes wrong. But it is a matter of opinion.
I know that MO is not a herbarium, but for storing all the jpegs that go or should go with the herbarium specimens it is better than whatever else the existing herbarium data management systems can offer. We are actually misusing MO as a “virtual herbarium” and linking our specimens with the MO observations.
These are several fields and rows from the UBC herbarium database system:
Accession No. Genus Species Genbank MushroomObserver
UBC F25165 Pluteus podospileus GQ159827 75852
UBC F24242 Durella melanochlora GQ159828 76021
UBC F23804 Boletus barrowsii GQ159829 76047
UBC F25169 Marasmius limosus GQ159830 77187
UBC F23801 Cantharellus formosus GQ159831 77609
UBC F25168 Amanita pachycolea GQ159832 77610
UBC F23802 Cantharellus cibarius GQ159833 77682
I had an impression that this was something what Nathan Wilson had in mind when he offered MO as a tool at the MSA 2011 conference in mycofloristics:
Apologies if Nathan and Byrain did not have such a use in mind, but I cannot find a better “virtual herbarium” system than MO.
And maybe in four years IF will accept Phaeonematoloma, or perhaps another better genus will solidify. But for now we are left with a choice of who’s concept to adopt. I agree with you wholeheartedly that dialogue between peers is essential to deciding which names are acceptable. However, I believe that this ever important dialogue should mostly take place prior to publication in the form of peer review.
Is that really a good name for it? And yes, erroneous names can pop up, but if no on discusses why or why not these names are erroneous how are we supposed to do anything, but follow the most recently upated site?
Also, MO is not an herbarium, this is a collection of digital photos and accompanying information which includes the herbarium info, but the name on the herbarium label is not the end all of the best name for MO. A system that may work for real collections in front of you does not neccesarily work for an online database.
Edit: I think the issue is that Adolf prefers an unchanging stable system where I would prefer more fluid rolling system.
As Christian pointed out, modern naming conventions are in such a state as to allow erroneous taxa to crop up like dandelions. Some bum tried to rename Panus rudis as Panus neostrigosus recently! Should we rename all of the Lentinus strigosus obsies? If so, what should we name them, the obviously correct concept of Panus rudis or the ludicrous Panus neostrigosus because that’s the last taxon to be published? A different example, Paul Kirk took damn near four years to recognize Peterson’s Hymenopellis, some European Author’s still refuse to use the names. If this were an obs that Adolf had labeled as Xerula in the field, this conversation would be occuring over a Hymenopellis.
At the end of the day, synonyms are just that- they refer to the same organism and blessedly MO keeps track of that information and provides it for whoever cares to read it.
We follow Index/Species Fungorum that prefers the name Hypholoma myosotis (Fr.) M. Lange and lists Phaeonematoloma myosotis as a synonym. We are putting our specimens into the UBC herbarium. The UBC herbarium has already 14 specimens of this species: 8 specimens are labelled Hypholoma myosotis, 5 specimens are labelled Pholiota myosotis and 1 specimen is labelled Naematoloma myosotis. Considering all this, we labelled our specimen as Hypholoma myosotis and we would prefer that our MO observation that goes with this specimen would use the same name. It that’s not possible, the use of the basionym (Agaricus myosotis Fr.) is safer that any other nomenclatural combination.
For all the observations of one species to be under one name so that they can be easier to find. Since mycobank prefers Phaeonematoloma myositis and no one seems willing to offer contrary views that is what it should be for now. Using old outdated names just to spite is pretty lame.
I am astounded by the series of responses when I was merely agreeing with the identification. No criticism was intended; rather I was trying to be supportive. It is almost irrelevant if it is called Hypholoma, Phaeonematoloma or even Pholiota at this stage. The microscopic observations appear to confirm the species identification. My comment was precipitated by a search on the WWW for a good picture of this mushroom for use in Wikipedia for Phaeonematoloma if the picture was available for such uses. A discussion on the pro & cons of other issues (generic concepts, publication venues, etc.) can be aired elsewhere. I think Oluna & Adolf do fantastic work which leaves me quite impressed.
I have realized that the dried specimen was still at home, we are going to bring it to the UBC herbarium on the 3rd of October. The smallest sporocarp is what I photographed in the field.
Mycology seems to go through the same phase as the vascular plant botany was going through 40 or so years ago. People are competing in creating new names and new combinations instead that they should go in the field and work with the real plants resp. fungi.
I think a conversation about how we make name changes and refer to mushrooms is long overdue…
Digital publishing of names on Index Fungorum is now very easy, and fast, and appears to introduce a seed of chaos.
Neither of these happened with an attached peer-reviewed paper. Why are we allowed to do this? Is this really a good system?
As for Scott’s name – what evidence suggests we should use Phaeonematoloma?
And assuming that is convincing evidence, why should Adolf be allowed to pick and choose what name is used?
Is it actually a good idea for our community to keep using multiple names (whichever “valid” name we want) even after a recombination or reassignment is made? Or after two taxa are differentiated that were formerly considered one? It is at best sloppy-looking, and at worst actually damaging to analyses of diversity, calculation of extinction rates, conservation research, etc.
The situation as it stands seems chaotic and unsustainable. I would love for someone with greater knowledge of these issues (Scott? Else?) to walk me through these questions.
I did not include Oluna’s drawing to this observation when it was posted. I scanned Oluna’s Book # 4 after the observation was posted and I did not update the original postings. Apologies. I hope my photo is of the same material as what Oluna drew. When in doubt, go by her drawing.- Adolf
I admire your ability to identify any mushroom from my poor photographs. I am flattered by this fact that show that my photography is outstanding. The specimen exists and it has been deposited (or is waiting for the accessioning) into the UBC herbarium. It would be nice, if you could get a loan from the UBC and have a closer look at it. I don’t trust my photography the same way as you do! Adolf
P.S. As for Hypholoma vs. Phaeonematoloma myositis, I think that this poor mushroom does not care how it is called. For naming our observations, I am using rather conservative approach and I choose the genus under which I suspect the specimen will be filed. I belive, it would be Hypholoma in this particular case.
This looks to be correct.
Created: 2014-08-20 21:40:18 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-10-26 07:27:31 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 351 times, last viewed: 2016-11-29 19:44:47 EST (-0500)