|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.38||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
all belong to one species. The species I’m tentatively calling amerivirosa is very large. You’ll need the spore shape to separate them, but that works rather well.
I see this sort of big white chunky destroying angel commonly from several sites around Wisconsin in the autumn and likely they’re all the same. I have smelled them…but never really got a garlic odor. There is a foulish-spicy smell to them to be sure. As winter is bearing down on us it’s unlikely I’ll get a chance to sniff again until next season. I seem to recall posting one or two other observations here on MO of very similar mushrooms. Thanks!
to correct the name of the species for the present observation.
The DNA was very convincingly a match for suballiacea and not sp-O01. The images are more slender than I have grown to expect for the latter speices. Also, the spores of this material should be broadly ellipsoid on average rather than subglobose on average.
Thanks again for sending the material.
This material has been recieved and accessioned to Rod’s herbarium. We have scheduled it for DNA sequencing.
Just a matter of scale…I suppose.
Was it Edward Teller who made a famous quote (upon seeing his creation detonated in a huge mushroom cloud) about becoming a destroyer of worlds?
Comments have an inherent psychological oddity on MO.
I just realized that on all my comments an option is offered:
“R. E. Tulloss [Edit | Destroy]”
Maybe I should feel more threatened?
DNA sorting is a very useful thing. No doubt. However, you and others are customers of taxonomy that need clues that deploy the skills of the naked eye, the hand lens, and the microscope.
You shouldn’t be satisfied with the current state of affairs regarding recognition of taxa that are “sorted” into “observable reality” by DNA sequences.
For taxonomists to do the job for all their customers, we need physical details…lots of them…in order to be able to offer people the possibility that they will someday be able to sort out such groups as the destroying angels. I think there is some progress…although the sample sizes are still small. We need size measurements to go with well-photographed collections. Etc.
Nowadays, a large percentage of the new material for my herbarium comes from people other than myself. I do not get a chance to write descriptions on the fresh material. This is something that can only come from collectors with the time to do the job…which, I know, isn’t everybody.
about the spore sizes of spO01 and bisp04. Rod, this collection is new, not the material I’d recently mentioned being examined chemically. However I see this mushroom in WI and elsewhere in the upper midwest several times each year. If your seq analysis gets a handle on this, I’ll be MOST delighted to call it by an accurate and reliable name once and for all. Until then I’ll just keep collecting from all over and save for you until you tell me to cease and desist. Hope you’re feeling better soon!
I recently posted comparative sporographs for taxa that have been called bisporigera or (years back) virosa in eastern North America. Feeling a bit under the whether today; so please excuse if I guess wrong on the following:
The comparative sporographs (all with data streamed from the relevant species pages to keep the graphs up to date) can be found on one of these pages:
I gather that these are pictures related to the amanitin assays about which you wrote to me?
Or is this something new?
At any rate, we’d certainly like to take a shot at identifying the material.
Created: 2014-09-21 14:37:10 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-10-17 19:27:22 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 120 times, last viewed: 2017-01-14 21:35:04 EST (-0500)