Observation 191450: Entoloma medianox C.F. Schwarz

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-22 06:41:25 CST (+0800)

it’s still twitching.

and I was responding to the comments here, which I had just seen.

but if you don’t like the comments … ignore ‘em, and don’t read ’em.

you can’t teach anything to the unwilling, but again, you are not the only eyeballs here, so it’s not just about you! I know, WTF?

I sleep great, but thanks for asking.

Great Job!
By: christopher hodge (christopher hodge)
2016-06-22 04:42:22 CST (+0800)

IG, Byrain, and Debbie!

You sure taught us a lot by beating that dead horse.

No one is asking for your faith, if you don’t this observation then ignore it.
Raise the issue of imageless observations with Nathan Wilson if it keeps you up at night worrying about the future of MO.

My two cents on imageless observations
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-06-22 04:14:37 CST (+0800)

The cold reality is that an imageless observation from Christian Schwarz is useful in exactly the way he describes, while one from Newbie McWillthismakemetrip is useless is exactly the way Debbie describes.

That’s the same ~issue as vote-based names. In practice, here, so far, people with more expertise vote more and more strongly, and those without withhold their opinion. In theory, in a future where MO has millions of users, ignorant votes would far outweigh informed ones.

For now, the voting system works… for now, imageless observations work.

dang, yet another imageless post that I missed!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-22 01:32:27 CST (+0800)

and yet, you would think that I was the only one who devalues imageless MO obsies, at least if you read the MO Facebook nut job rants.

Gosh, can Christian easily recognize our newly renamed but also incredibly well-known as a distinctive mushroom to many, for decades, Entoloma medianox/medianocte/bloxamii/madidum (did I miss any?)? Yeah, both him and a whole army of other people here in CA.

But yet and all, an imageless “observation” is of much less value than a documented one. And how does one debate a name if there is no proof?

Indeed it comes down to faith based mycology. Please do not ask me to trust anyone blindly. this is not about taxo ability, it is about human frailty. Youth may think that they are immune and perfect, but time is a great teacher. You found a great mushroom out there? Show me!

WE all do the best we can with the materials at hand and with the standards of the day. Now, with digital cameras, it’s easy peasy and cheap, too, to document everything. Plenty of bad science was reproduced in the old days, much of it unverifiable due to NO HARD BACK-UP DATA.

Do we want to move forward, or backward? Do we want people to trust us implicitly, or do we feel like just for everyone else, our claims are stronger and clearer when made with real, confirmable, repeatable data.

Maybe if these lower valued mushroom lists (as opposed to documented obsies) could just be moved out of the general flow into some delegated backwater, where folks who don’t care about exactitude and just want some possibilities on a plate, can just go and read their fish stories, well, fine then. But when my screen gets filled with posts of these no data non-obsies, I do get a wee bit irritated.

In other words, put them out of sight, out of mind and yet searchable for those who don’t care how solid their data base is. We call that anecdotal evidence, and it has its place, right below the backed-up data.

But please, don’t put lipstick on this pig.

No comment
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-04-28 23:59:00 CST (+0800)
By: Byrain
2016-04-28 21:43:47 CST (+0800)

myxomop made the guidelines without consulting anyone that didn’t already agree with him. In short if you are a cool kid with a high voting score you can post as many “Imageless” observations as you want where if you don’t have that high voting score they are “Imageless”… I wouldn’t consider any of those “Guidelines” rules, but more like a double standard or perhaps even mini-modding (Acting like a moderator when you are not one). “Faith” based observations don’t have any place in serious scientific work, its never been about being bored, doubting Christian or anyone else.

Nevertheless a compromise has been proposed in the github issue page as other users have suggested. Its truly a shame no one else is even trying to bring the conversation directly to the MO developers… Instead users like myxomop can’t seem to understand simple candor and resort to ad hominems. I really thought better of him.. :(

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-04-28 10:14:16 CST (+0800)

Honestly, I felt like receiving a postcard from the insane asylum after reading your last comment. :-)
I want to make one thing clear — your notion of me doubting the veracity of Christian’s observation is preposterous. It didn’t even enter my mind to begin with..
But, it IS an imageless observation. What struck me a very bizarre and insane was that there were three names proposed for the record that lacked any pictorial data whatsoever.
No, I am not aware of the Imageless Guidelines on MO. Perhaps I never bothered to read them because I always post my observations with at least one pic attached. And, mind you, mine are usually not very pretty, more like technical, so I don’t understand your repeated usage of “pretty picture” in your tirade.
I think you are being unfair to Byrain, Alain and me, and apology is in order given the fact that your have pages of observations you mercilessly deemed as Imageless:
As a matter of fact, you are the unchallenged master in the application of that term. Can you claim that you followed the guidelines for those thoroughly? I don’t think so. It seems to me that Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi applies here, though frankly I never aspired to abuse the Imageless proposal or ever embarked on MO expeditions looking for such observations.

you guys kill me
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-28 09:02:33 CST (+0800)

hundreds of years of biodiversity research took the specialist at their word, but you need pictures or drawings. if you can’t trust Christian to have seen a species he described, in season, near its type locality, where he lives and works, please proceed to your nearest mycological library with a big black sharpie and scribble Imageless over the thousands upon thousands of records or decsriptions not accompanied by a pretty picture. scrawl it over every field guide that talks about species it doesn’t specifically illustrate. when you do, send me a postcard from the insane asylum. i’ll be wanting to know how you’re getting on with the new medication.

no one disputes that the presence of said pretty picture adds value. anyone — with a sense for how biodiversity studies works — will dispute that ANY AND EVERY RECORD of an organism requires a pretty picture. the BLM disputes it when they take surveyors’ checklists to be accurate accountings of the organisms they’re paid to document. BioBlitzes dispute it when they accept species lists from their participants. Jason and Nathan and Joe Cohen dispute it, Mushroom Observer disputes it, mycology disputes it.

The conditions under which skepticism is merited are outlined in the Imageless guidelines. Those conditions are not “whenever Byrain and Igor and Alain get bored.”

bring me, bring us, anyone who means something in biodiversity studies, and watch what they say. you’ll all be eating shoe stew by supper time. i guarantee it.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-04-28 08:31:33 CST (+0800)

We both know that eBird is an unfair comparison for obvious reasons. However, if you are encouraged by the success of eBird (9.5 million bird observations in May 2015 alone!) and think it will work with fungi just as well, you are welcome go ahead and disprove my earlier point. One thing for sure, I wont’ miss imageless mushroom observations on MO.

ebird has last longer
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-04-28 07:41:21 CST (+0800)

for reals

Thank you, Byrain
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-04-28 07:10:19 CST (+0800)

I think obs such as this one is an insult to all MO users who post reals observations supported by least one photo or a drawing and other users who engage in proposing names, voting and commenting based on what they actually see on their computer screens. Here is an idea: if all Imageless observations were moved from MO to a new, separate website (call it what you want), I wonder how long that website would last. Hmm… let me take a guess — maybe half a day.

By: Byrain
2016-04-28 06:40:26 CST (+0800)

Some of us actually want a discussion on how to best resolve this for everyone and your bad attitude is not helping, can you please leave it at the door?

You are welcome to exclude it from your
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-04-28 06:33:28 CST (+0800)

important research on western Entoloma, IG.

Without a picture…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-04-28 06:25:09 CST (+0800)

…your observation is a RUMOR! Nuff said…

philosoflipflop all you want
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-28 06:03:51 CST (+0800)

the admins/developers/creators of this site have made it unequivocally and abundantly clear that observations like these are 100% grade A kosher. end of discussion.

Please continue this conversation
By: Byrain
2016-04-28 05:59:52 CST (+0800)

Here, thanks!


I would appreciate it if you could actually counter the arguments that have been actually used instead of some strawman you concocted.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-28 04:59:40 CST (+0800)

Your dislike of observations without images is not sufficient to make them Imageless ones. Familiarize yourselves with the rules regarding that name before wantonly proposing it across the site. This observation DOES NOT merit the application of that name. An experienced user and identifier has reported with maximum confidence the occurrence of a species (which he bloody described!) at a particular time and place when and where it is well, well known to occur. This is an acceptable record. It does not need an image.

Created: 2014-12-04 04:11:13 CST (+0800)
Last modified: 2016-07-30 01:49:19 CST (+0800)
Viewed: 253 times, last viewed: 2017-06-20 00:29:01 CST (+0800)
Show Log