Observation 183281: Cortinarius (Pers.) Gray

Proposed Names

-13% (2)
Recognized by sight: Small conic-capped Dermocybe-like think with bright pink flush at stipe base. Not sure how to interpret this new name without more info.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
indeed.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-07 16:38:13 CST (-0600)

garbage in, garbage out.

We’ve had this discussion
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-07 16:25:20 CST (-0600)

“sightings without even a photo aren’t worth the byte space here. Why not just make yourself a paper list?”

This idea is garbage, but I no longer have any hope to disabuse you of it…

I have no idea why you would suggest making a paper list. This is better – it uses bytes instead of wood pulp, is searchable, georeferenced, and publicly available.

Au contraire, why don’t you put up the nice list of species you found at Salt Point here on MO? It was useful info.

As for asking Josh about it – just because a mushroom is named after you does not necessarily mean you know how to separate it from all others. Just ask Ben Marsh…

The description is here:
http://www.indexfungorum.org/...

BTW
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-07 11:33:06 CST (-0600)

I also collected a bright pink flushed at the base Dermocybe sp. in Alaska on the Kenai in 2010. No one had a clue what it was at the time (I sent tit to Amirrati). I don’t remember if it had a conic cap; I’ll look for it here on MO, and link to it.

http://mushroomobserver.org/51864?q=2KPe0

here’s a thought …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-11-07 11:30:31 CST (-0600)

why not ask Josh Birkeback, since this potential species appears to be named after him?!

I have to assume that the herbarium diatribe was due to the specimen available box not getting checked during the first posting. Mistakes happen.

ON the other hand, sometimes we react to what we have already experienced and that colors our future reactions, even if unwarranted.

OF COURSE a sighting is more valuable with a real mushroom behind it. And sightings without even a photo aren’t worth the byte space here. Why not just make yourself a paper list?

See how that crap just simmers under the surface? ;)

But I would hope that all of us dedicated mycologists here share the goal of wanting to do the best and most reproducible work possible, and increase our communal knowledge about fungi, the world over. Towards that lofty goal, more is definitely better than less.

All that being said, Herbarium-wise, Christian’s
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2014-11-07 11:07:49 CST (-0600)

Corts look fairly distinctive.
Is there an accessible description of Cortinarius birkebakii somewhere. Maybe even a spore measurement could at least verify whether they are in the ballpark.

We don’t shoot mushrooms!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-07 09:05:32 CST (-0600)

We are trying to post only those observations for which we have herbarium specimens. Out of our 2588 MO observations, 2299 observations (>88%) are marked as having herbarium specimens. We have much more collections for which we don’t have any photo/drawing documentation that we do not post on MO. From your 3307 MO observations, only 416 (ca. 12%) are marked as being supported by the herbarium specimens. That’s less than the MO average that is somewhere below 17% (fide Nathan Wilson).
Those percentages do not reflect the real situation, since MO users do not mark the herbarium field the same way. I mark the field as yes as soon as Oluna puts the specimens into the dryer. Alan Rockefeller, on the other hand, marks it yes only when he get his specimens into the official herbarium (when he drops it off in front of the herbarium door, or when it is really accessioned?; I don’t know).
It is an irony that I have been trying to explain you how to use Mushroom Observer properly, when it was you, who introduced Oluna and me to MO in January 2011! MO would be an ideal system for storing all the auxiliary material (jpegs etc.) that goes with the real herbarium specimens, but the MO gurus strongly reject my proposal to create an MO subset that would accept only those observations that would be supported by herbarium collections.
I have been cataloguing [spelling?] Oluna’s collections for getting them to the UBC herbarium and so far I managed to enter 5,600 specimens from the years 2006 through 2013 (82 shoe boxes). Only a fraction of them would be documented with MO observations. It does not like that we would have depleted the mycoflora of the site where were have collected. Unfortunately, MO does not know what “herbarium” is, since whenever type that word, it is marked as a misspelling.
Cheers,
Adolf

There is an herbarium specimen
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-06 20:41:54 CST (-0600)

I assume we would have to shoot/collect/voucher every organism in Nature to identify it?
Also, what should I look for to identify this Cortinarius, since a voucher does exist? Can you say definitively? Or do is it separated reliably only by DNA sequences?

Without a herbarium specimen
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-06 20:03:37 CST (-0600)

Without a herbarium specimen one cannot identify Dermocybe. Too cheeky! Adolf

Created: 2014-10-16 15:32:52 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2014-11-06 20:52:19 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 134 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 12:02:21 CDT (-0500)
Show Log