Observation 221413: Agaricales sensu lato
When: 2015-11-01
No herbarium specimen

Notes: These are very tiny—the largest about 2mm. They were growing on a decaying stick. There are some even tinier mollisias growing among them.

Proposed Names

-18% (2)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight
-41% (4)
Eye3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Thank you!
By: Ann B. (Ann F. Berger)
2015-11-17 04:32:02 CET (+0100)

That was exceptionally helpful. You gave me a much better background on why what I did was wrong, and it helps me know what I need to do to continue to grow in my study of fungi. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this out so clearly. Thanks again!

Ann
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-11-16 23:55:21 CET (+0100)

Forgive me if the previous comment came across as rude. This was not my intention. I do not mean you any disrespect.

If your goal was to name what you believed to be a new species of fungus here in this observation, and have that name proposal serve as the basis for the scientific and general communities to hereafter refer to the fungus pictured here by that name of your creation, there are many, many things wrong with that assumption.

1. Mushroom Observer name proposals/creations are only valid in the Mushroom Observer universe. They do not carry anywhere near the same weight as the names and information published in peer reviewed, academic literature. The publishing of names used to describe new taxa is a regimented process bound by a complicated set of bylaws contained in the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (often referred to as, simply, “The Code”). The “rules” for proposing names on Mushroom Observer are extremely loose by comparison, and are subject to voluntary enforcement by any member who chooses to uphold or change them as they see fit. It is but a thin layer of balloon rubber order which separates us from the ball of hot anarchic air beneath our digital feet; a consensus based construct, nothing more.

2. Giving a name for a new species is done on the assumption that the species is, in fact, new. That is to say, the describers of that new species have demonstrated their material’s uniqueness, macro- and micro-morphologically (and increasingly molecularly), ecologically, phylogenetically, etc., sufficient to warrant designating it as a new organism to science. What we have here is something which you, personally, have been unable to identify, represented by a few pictures, very few notes, and no microscopic or molecular analysis. This makes your fungus a presently unidentified one, not a definitely new one.

3. While there are some names on the site appended with the suffix nom. prov. (an abbreviation for the latin nomen provisorium or ‘provisional name’), these are often tied to a mention made in a validly published reference, unpublished data, or the personal correspondence of specialists. In the case of Rod Tulloss, for example, he has migrated his own alphanumeric provisional naming scheme from his website, Amanitaceae.org, into Mushroom Observer, which has been met with no disagreement, as he is the world’s foremost authority on the family. For a variety of reasons, including but not limited to those already mentioned here, your proposal of “Retexens eriocephalae” does not qualify as one of these exceptions.

Hope this helps, and sorry, again, if you found my previous comment off-putting. Sometimes nuance gets lost in translation over the internet.

Unfortunately, my adequate skills with a microscope
By: Ann B. (Ann F. Berger)
2015-11-15 20:49:41 CET (+0100)

do not provide me with the thousands of dollars I’d need to purchase one, nor do they make one readily accessible whenever I might need one.
Respect, courtesy and truly helpful instruction cost nothing, and are readily available to all of us. Familiarize yourself with those, and use them when you comment.

Ann,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-11-11 02:11:57 CET (+0100)

you may come up with as many names for this and any number or other fungi as you wish, just please do not propose them alongside real ones. If you would like to officially name a fungus, I would start by familiarizing yourself with the microscope.

The name
By: Ann B. (Ann F. Berger)
2015-11-09 22:25:28 CET (+0100)

I’m sorry if I’ve made a mistake. No one has been able to ID this mushroom. I wanted to give it a name. I’m sure it’s not that simple, but IF (a big IF) this is a newly discovered species, I feel that this name suits it.

Again, I’m not sure what to do, so I’ve probably done something wrong. Please educate me kindly — thanks.

Retexens eriocephale
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-11-09 01:29:41 CET (+0100)

is not recognized by Index Fungorum or MycoBank, nor any combination with the epithet eriocephalae.

Created: 2015-11-01 21:38:04 CET (+0100)
Last modified: 2015-11-17 00:41:01 CET (+0100)
Viewed: 94 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 03:21:08 CEST (+0200)
Show Log