Crepidotus mollis (Schaeff.) Staude on MyCoPortal
Crepidotus mollis on MycoBank
Alternative Names: Crepidotus fulvotomentosus Peck, Crepidotus calolepis (Fr.) P. Karst.
More Observations of Crepidotus mollis (Schaeff.) Staude (133)
More Observations of Crepidotus calolepis (Fr.) P. Karst. (9)
More Observations (all synonyms) (142)
Similar Observations (32)
List of species in Crepidotus (Fr.) Staude (73)
Public Description (Default) [Edit]
|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||10.61||2||(Noah,Christian Schwarz)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Lol@ your request to “prove” that it was positively identified from CA.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE DEAL IS WITH SENSU CA NAMES
We understand that you want the site to operate at a higher level of taxonomic accuracy
than most users. A strict interpretation of names is not always the most useful approach for my purposes, nor for the general purposes of this site.
(although I don’t think they’re off topic) but I would request that you lay-off changing observations to Imageless when I have provided a pretty logical line of reasoning as to why I am creating
observations without images.
In observations where I have provided an image and you think I am incorrect, I have NO PROBLEM
with you providing alternate IDs. But in cases where there is no image, you have no data on which
to base an alternate name one way or the other. Assume (because I am telling you that it is the case) that in these cases I am doing it for a good reason, and for my own records. You can choose to trust them or not.
And seriously, lay off with the bs off-topic insults.
Edit: Also lol @ Noah’s kneejerk vote, if you guys can show me where this common taxon was positively identified as C. mollis at least once I would love to see it. :)
but there are many good reasons not to change it to imageless.
This is a name used by many people in our area to refer to a very common taxon with
a pretty well-established concept (as used in MD and in many other references online).
I understand that this is a way for you to show us how much you know, but in instances like these, it’s really not useful for the site.
For you to single me out (as someone who photographs and vouchers hundreds of specimens per year) is a bad use of your time if your goal is to make this site better. There are a lot of other problems to address.
I tried to acknowledge the concerns you have (that I share) regarding the possibility of multiple
taxa and misapplied names by giving it something less than my most confident rating. However this opened it up for Danny’s “Section 3” rule, which then cascaded into changing an observation from a useful, broadly understood, and certainly compromised record (due to the imprecision) in Californian mushroom taxonomy to a totally useless “Imageless” designation.
Without spores or even images should not be trusted.
Rather than back down on confidence levels on imageless observations whose identities you appear to be confident in (at least most of the time) just because they are “sensu CA,” I would keep them high, if for no other reason than to retain the ability to call Imageless what someone saw but did not photograph and could not confidently ID. I’m essentially equating, perhaps hastily, that lack of 100% confidence with the solicitation of the MO community for ID assistance; assistance we cannot give in the absence of an image (or a really good description).
Section 3 does not seem to apply here, or indeed to any of your imageless observations, if the only reason for your less than “I’d Call it That” confidence levels is the fact that so many fungi, Californian or otherwise, are hiding cryptic species. If you truly are not sure, that’s another story.
This is all presupposing, of course, that observations with less than the highest confidence levels and without images deserve to live in the doghouse of Imageless; an opinion everyone may not share. It’s where I decided to set the bar, but the bar is movable, so by all means, let’s make it better. I created the name for it to be shaped into a collectively useful tool, but so far no one has put forward much input on the name page other than myself.
Section 3 – while I understand the reasoning, I would submit that maybe Section 3 should be removed or amended – I use the species list generator to make these observations, and when using that tool, observations generated are given one confidence level at the beginning. I default to “Promising” because I don’t like giving everything my highest confidence rating… I understand that many names are implied to be “Sensu CA” and I like acknowledging that with a bit of modesty in the confidence level. If you and others think the content/wording should not be changed, I will in the future use “I’d Call it That” as my default, since I understand that in a literal sense, I am in fact calling it that.
Created: 2014-11-11 13:42:06 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-07-29 13:48:48 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 67 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 16:57:32 CDT (-0400)