Observation 175633: Pluteus petasatus (Fr.) Gillet
When: 2014-08-24
(50.3282° -122.7931° )
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Pluteus petasatus (Fr.) Gillet
Growing on decaying trunk of Populus trichocarpa lying on the ground

Species Lists

Images

450121
450122
450123
450124
450195
Cheilocystidia
450196
Cheilkocystidium
450197
Pluerocystidia
450198
Pleurocystidium
450199
Pleurocystidium
450200
Peleopellis
450201
Pileopellis
450202
450203
Pileopellis
450204
Spores

Proposed Names

-6% (2)
Recognized by sight
63% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Based on microscopic features: Pleurocystida and pileopellis are typical for Pluteus petasatus.

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Intellectual honesty or why was Walt wrong?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-05-03 06:12:33 PDT (-0700)

The problem is that MO mentions identification only in the first few paragraphs of its Introduction. In the main body of MO, the “Identification” is replaced by “Naming”. If you have a closer look, then you realize that what is going on in MO is not identification, it is just changing names. I rejected Walt’s Pluteus because with our Pluteus petasatus we were closer to this MO correct identification than Walt was with his Pluteus suggestion.

cap colors
By: Alfredo Justo (Fredo)
2014-11-01 14:35:06 PDT (-0700)

the colors of the cap are a bit darker for petasatus, but it is true that P. petasatus is very variable externally.

microscopically P. petasatus should have: basidiospores relatively short and narrow (on average, 6.1–7.0 × 4.2–4.8 μm); intermediate cystidia predominantly fusiform and without apical hooks; cheilocystidia usually scattered and not forming a continuous strip; pileipellis with a gelatinous matrix at least in the most external part.

Intellectual honesty
By: Byrain
2014-08-31 09:52:17 PDT (-0700)

You have made no comments as to why Walt is wrong and you are not, intellectual honesty is not throwing a fit everytime someone disagrees with your names, its rexamining your work and either further supporting your claims or reavualting them…

Please don’t chnage our observation names
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-08-31 08:30:02 PDT (-0700)

We are using MO to provide links between our species lists and supporting herbarium specimens. We thought that erxactly this was what Nathan Wilson had in mind when he presented his contribution to the MSA Mycofloristics symposium:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxySE56sJgQ
Changing the names by “Consensus” without seeing the original collections is OK in among citizen scientists, but not in normal herbarium practices. Borrow the actual specimens and investigate them properly before you destroy the MO observation names!
We are aware of several our MO observations that are being described as new species or assigned to the long forgotten taxa. Never mind, we will change the MO names only after those studies are published.
We will do the same with this observation after you investigate the voucher specimen (it will be deposited at the UBC herbarium soon) and find out a correct ID for it.
Sorry, but until then, we would like to keep our specimen ID as Pluteus petasatus (Fr.) Gillet

Cap color
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2014-08-31 07:20:59 PDT (-0700)

is too dark for P. petasatus and I do not see the squamose disc.

My concept of this species is closer to this: http://mushroomobserver.org/97943?q=2A9iR

On the other hand,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-08-30 21:30:39 PDT (-0700)

I have to agree with Walt that it really is Pluteus!

I don’t agree with the Consensus
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-08-30 21:21:02 PDT (-0700)

Consensus is insane? Can you tell me WHY this is not Pluteus petasatus?
Adolf

Created: 2014-08-30 16:24:06 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-11-01 16:55:37 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 179 times, last viewed: 2016-07-23 13:19:02 PDT (-0700)
Show Log