|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
This is small? I don’t know I must be spending too much time with lbm’s, 4-6 cm seems rather large to me. Plus this one was rather beat up. I just wanted any photo from Europe on this species in the system, since it is supposedly a common spring species around here.
Then I beleive the pore size is within the range for squamosus too, so I can’t argue against it :-)
I’m not really the biggest Polypore type of guy, and esp. these guys which don’t appear in California, either rarely or not at all. This one was on a tree, about 3 feet of the ground on the side of the trunk. It was 4-6 cm in diameter there. I’ve never seen P. tuberaster, and I’ve only seen P. squamosus a few times, so I could believe that I can’t tell them apart.
Unless the pictures are extreme closeups, I would have called this Polyporus tuberaster. The pores look way too large for squamosus.
Created: 2009-05-12 13:43:28 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-01-16 10:05:54 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 78 times, last viewed: 2017-11-22 16:03:21 EST (-0500)