Observation 184534: Non-fungal
When: 2014-10-20
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

-47% (5)
Recognized by sight
46% (6)
Recognized by sight
-17% (5)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
So, has “P. graffitioides” now become…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-12-20 22:36:15 CST (-0500)

part of the taxonomic canon? I would think that any serious index would filter out such stuff.

Let’s not forget
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-10-23 18:44:36 CDT (-0400)

that anyone who forms too firm of opinions, much less carries out scientific research, on the basis of Google results, is not really “doing their homework” as well as they could.

I mainly just want my hilarious pun taxa to be more visible
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2014-10-22 20:08:33 CDT (-0400)


I do see why someone would want to see all this stuff under a “Non-fungal” search, but the proper way to do that, of course, would be to view “More Observations (all synonyms)” from the Non-fungal page.

If anyone is going to write a script to run through MO observations and gather data for some legitimate biostats purpose… the script is going to have to take deprecations into account in order to, e.g., avoid overcounting species found in a given genus.

Google bots don’t know what’s going on ofc, but I don’t think these non-fungal goofs cause any problems, because no one is going to think a shirt is an Entoloma. The real potential problems are with Google picking up mushroom photos with overconfident names. (I think MO shouldn’t change to encourage lazy googlers in that case either, but it is a more important and separate question.)

The original name is still there…
By: Byrain
2014-10-22 18:20:59 CDT (-0400)

I don’t see the issue? All that has changed for this observation is someone can easily find it if they search “Non-fungal”. I also don’t see why any script would necessarily take into account deprecations, that is something that you would have to add to a script… I’m not sure if google bots are capable of doing that already?

Should be OK to leave the original name
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2014-10-22 17:38:10 CDT (-0400)

If it’s deprecated in favor of Non-fungal.

- Anyone looking through observations “by hand” sees immediately it’s not an actual Cortinarius specimen.

- Any script algorithmically going through MO collecting data is going to have to take into account name deprecations regardless.

Created: 2014-10-21 16:43:31 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-12-21 06:25:14 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 140 times, last viewed: 2017-06-19 04:19:40 CDT (-0400)
Show Log