|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||5.88||1||(Christian Schwarz)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Say it isn’t so! Yet it seems to be trending in that direction. In the mere two years since I “discovered” mushrooms, I’ve had a nagging suspicion that DNA may not turn out to be the be-all and end-all we are all counting on for definitive mushroom identification. The abstract linked to the one you provided, which discusses Eidonomy, is fascinating. It reminded me of a reference I used for a post of Fusicolla merismoides (ob. # 236126).
Throughout the history of science, every time we peel back one amazing layer of knowledge we find yet another … and another … and so on. As with the field of Physics, just in my lifetime our accumulated knowledge has gone from the macro to the micro to the nano. Guess we shouldn’t count on carving any of the new taxonomies in stone just yet=)
At least — as a species ourselves — we’ll never run out of new things to learn no matter which field of interest we study … fungi included. Aaah, science! Never stale. Never static. Never boring. Always something new and mind-expanding! Thanks for sharing that interesting link.
Do you have reason to believe horizontal gene transfer is much more prevalent in fungi than other organisms? Between what? ……Might account for the high diversity in some fungi DNA samples that one would expect to be much more similar than testing reveals?
in fungi! ….… and fyi, I’m still waiting for the earthquake my comment is sure to call forth.
we are calling it a group and not a species.
lots of diversity out there, and always a pleasure to see what it looks like!
Gills are much paler than what I saw here last week
Created: 2015-10-20 16:26:25 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-10-20 17:02:58 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 83 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 12:11:52 PDT (-0700)