|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||13.18||3||(Noah,darv)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
For the most part, no there isn’t anything that you would confuse with this. I have seen shots from the top like these, in the live oak leaf duff, that were of M. californiensis, that look a lot like M. plicatulus. These you can see enough of the whitish sheen on them, but sometimes M. californiensis from the top can look like it. Although the gills are very different.
It turns out though, that when M. plicatulus get old, it looses its reddish colors, and goes all brown. I’ve seen brown ones, and didn’t know what they were, and put them under the scope, and they were only M. plicatulus. So, even when it doesn’t really look like it, it is still it…
I’m with you Doug… ’Cause I use sites like this all the time for reference photos.
Out of curiosity, is there any other known species that you can think of that this mushroom could reasonably be confused with? Not really, right? This is as Debbie said, pretty certainly M. plicatulus?
Yes, get the art shot, and the eye candy… AND… then get the shot of the gills, base, and other features.
You got it Debbie, art. I just started posting on this site and certainly wasn’t taking pictures for strict indentification purposes. I see that going forward I will be taking more shots for identification when posting here. I did think this picture was especially nice as eye candy.
and a pretty obvious slam-dunk to plicatilus. now if this was some gorgeous unknown, then yeah, overkill is good.
You should get a photo of the gills, need to get as many features as possible in the shot, cap, stipe, gills, base…
Created: 2009-03-04 06:58:28 EET (+0200)
Last modified: 2009-03-04 06:58:28 EET (+0200)
Viewed: 143 times, last viewed: 2016-08-17 19:18:29 EEST (+0300)