Observation 223372: Agaricales sensu lato
When: 2015-11-16
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

34% (3)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight
4% (2)
Recognized by sight
-81% (1)
Recognized by sight
13% (2)
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
one more reason
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-07 18:12:17 GMT (+0000)

to vote without explanation, is when the explanation is ignored, again and again, for months to years on end:

http://mushroomobserver.org/observer/show_user/4941

There is another reason
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-07 18:02:11 GMT (+0000)

to vote without explanation, or at least without an explanation every time:

Time.

As far as I can tell, I am the only user who both combs the entire activity log, and digs back through the stockpile of older observations, in order to bring everything to as realistic a state of identification/naming as possible, given my own very limited expertise, and provide some fine sorting that the site does not natively provide. Often it’s as simple as changing Fungi to Agaricales sensu lato for something gilled, or Polyporales sensu lato for a reflexed poroid, or Poria sensu lato for a resupinate one. Often a family, genus or species is easily proposable, or several of them, but when too many possibilities come to mind, I tend to leave it for someone more specialized. Many times, an ID needs backpedaling up the nomenclatural ladder due to insufficient info. Some IDs have to be pried away from people, people certain as death and taxes that their picture book of mushrooms is the inviolable, universal, taxonomic gospel. At the time of writing, that’s resulted in 33156 votes on existing names and 24268 new proposals. No one on MO comes within 4500 of either number, and most are upwards of 10,000 behind.

Then there’s species lists. Everything non-fungal goes on this list, every truffle or secotoid on this one, basidiolichens here, bioluminescents there, or whether something is especially yellow, blue, red, green, growing on dung or seeds or cones, and so on. That has resulted in, at the time of writing, 93 separate species lists.

The sum of these activities are useless or invisible (or both) to many people. Furthermore, I’m often wrong. My familiarity with fungi and fungi-like organisms is still pretty low in comparison to many here. I do not intend to mistake my quantity of involvement for quality. I do wish to illustrate that as MO’s self-appointed janitor, I definitely do not stop to explain myself each and every time, nor could I if I wanted, and still keep up with everything. The more all this manual sorting becomes an automated, integrated part of the functioning of Mushroom Observer, if it ever does, the more that I and others will have the luxury of explaining our thought processes and making more personalized connections with observations and observers alike.

Adolf, I agree with you…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-01-07 15:06:52 GMT (+0000)

about the relative usefulness of comments vs. voting. Voting on a proposal is, perhaps, just too easy a thing to do, accounting for why members often vote in the absence of providing any potential information. From an educational point of view, I think it’s more useful to provide perspective and/or an alternative ID as opposed to simply downgrading confidence. (My own approach is to initially avoid negative voting except for when a proposed name implies that a potentially toxic mushroom is edible.) Providing the observer with added perspective often results in the observer altering their own confidence.

But Danny’s point about MO potentially providing bad information that gets assimilated into other online forums must be addressed, and people can be stubborn about assimilating doubt, especially about something they believe to know. That is, if someone posts something as “I’d call it that” and there is good reason to doubt the credibility of the proposal, then downgrading confidence may end up being the only way to keep bad/doubtful IDs from being circulated.

Herbarium Specimen Box
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-07 05:13:04 GMT (+0000)

Nathan programmed the Herbarium Specimen Box on my suggestion. Unfortunately, as it is now, it cannot be used. You get the “Original Herbarium Label” name too deep. My “Original Herbarium Label” in the “Notes:” works well. The same is true for the “Herbarium Specimen:” and “GenBank #” that I post in our MO observations within “Notes:” I practically have all what I need for using MO as a virtual herbarium for all the auxiliary information and jpegs that go with our actual herbarium specimens. I love MO and I have nothing to complain about, except that it encourages novices and some experts to sloppy habits in handling herbarium specimens and the information associated with them. I also suggested to Nathan to award users with 30 bonus points if they have their observation supported by herbarium specimens. His counteroffer was 10 point; I found that ridiculously low. I am preparing an MO review for one of the coming BEN issues (BEN-Botanical Electronic News) where I will analyze MO in detail.

that’s a separate issue
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-07 04:40:21 GMT (+0000)

also trotted out at length elsewhere, and one with far less controversy. If I could code, I’d have written up an “Original Herbarium Label” subfield to the ’Herbarium Specimen Available" checkbox a long time ago. To me, this is a no-brainer. It also has nothing to do with the merit of specimenless observations.

Interactive part of MO is great,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-07 03:42:45 GMT (+0000)

but it should be on the original user to change the MO Observation name.
If everyone can cross out your original label and replace it with his/her own suggestion, it will mess up your filing system.
See our MO Observations # 64938
http://mushroomobserver.org/64938
when Consensus changed its name from Fungi to Basidiomycota and some months later into Ascomycota. It was done by the same expert!
We do recognize didactical function of MO, but when dealing with “naming”, it teaches the beginners really bad habits, such as wiping out the original label and replacing it with another suggestion.

For some observations of fungi…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2016-01-07 02:52:51 GMT (+0000)

it’s not difficult to attach an ID at the level of genus/species/species-group in the absence of micro. We see many high-confidence examples of this on MO.

We also see many examples where proposals applied to difficult material are questioned because not enough supportive evidence is provided. In such cases consensus supplies an appropriate level of doubt and/or alternative IDs via proposing/voting/commenting. Assuming a vote/proposal reflects the member’s best understanding of the material seen in the observation, somebody will probably learn something.

The only examples of “garbage” that I see here on MO are the votes that reflect a member’s own individual agenda, rather than a good-faith attempt to provide useful information.

i cannot force people to do microscopy on specimens
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-01-06 23:53:39 GMT (+0000)

it’s their duty to do it to get a proper ID
i only propose names , good or not good.but without micro it’s mere speculation

All valid points,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-06 23:28:33 GMT (+0000)

it’s just that they’ve been trotted out elsewhere at length, and I thought I’d give Adolf the perhaps long-awaited satisfaction of conceding to a certain portion of his grievances on the subject. I agree that there’s a lot of good that comes out of specimenless, even imageless observations. Others, vehemently, do not.

On a more optimistic note,
By: Ben Anderson (btanderson)
2016-01-06 19:49:50 GMT (+0000)

one might say that MO is a spectacular stepping stone for people with little or no knowledge of mycology, to get into it, aiding by a group of passionate professionals and experts. I didn’t know anything when I started, and I’m now recently drying specimens for an herbarium, and considering getting a microscope, now recognizing that a lot of what I see I can not really discern without better tools.

I see how it might be frustrating though, for people who really know their stuff to see ambiguous, dataless photos. Maybe I look at facebook mushroom pages similarly, and think they are trash because to me it is just a bunch of “forager” hipsters shouting “…yes yes, BUT CAN I EAT IT??”

at the risk
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-06 19:23:02 GMT (+0000)

of dignifying this well known and thoroughly debased tirade with a response, I’ll grant you, Adolf, that there is absolutely a level of futility present in so many observations here on MO, particularly those without microscopy. I feel it every every time I move about the activity log, wanting to know more about something for which there is only a photograph and a few notes, if that.

with or without a specimen, getting to see the entire organism, at all levels of magnification, is often what is needed to even begin a meaningful discussion about identity. having a specimen allows that conversation to continue by allowing more people than just the collector to study the material. it gives the observation a chance at having some substantive value outside this site. it’s the habeas corpus of proper mycology, something to which MO and her community always aspire but are not at gunpoint to achieve.

if nothing else, the less often that specific names get wantonly applied to underdocumented observations, the less MO contributes bad information to the big digital guide book in the sky, Google Images, which is constantly scraping names and pictures from observations.

Don’t waste your time
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-01-06 18:35:00 GMT (+0000)

Don’t waste your time on MO Observations for which there is no collection. Such MO Observation are garbage. AC

plus, i read here
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-01-06 18:22:38 GMT (+0000)

Pileus 5–15 mm, campanulate at first then convex with a prominent umbo on maturity; surface white, smooth except the disc with densely placed small brown (“Talavera” 12A12) to dark brown (“Alamo” 14A12) squamules, margin finely sulcate. Lamellae adnexed, membranous, very crowded, white. Stipe15–27 × 1–1.5 mm, central, cylindrical then slightly swollen at base in some specimens, with indistinct squamules concolorous to pileus, pale cream (“Polar Bear” 9B2) to pale brown (“Golden Wheat” 11D7); rhizomorphs numerous. Context thin, fleshy, white, unchanging.

Ripartitella (Agaricales) from an Atlantic Forest in Pernambuco, Brazil. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/... [accessed Jan 6, 2016].

Lepiotoid?
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-01-06 18:18:58 GMT (+0000)

It is in tricholomataceae and it looks omogeneous to me with adnexed gills. what do you mean?

not looking very lepiotoid,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-01-06 17:56:35 GMT (+0000)

and without much stipe ornamentation or ring.

i was searching for a file of fungi from brasil…
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2016-01-05 13:33:46 GMT (+0000)

today and i’ve found a picture saved from the web in my pc.I think we’ve got a good ID now.

you are right
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2015-12-28 19:02:52 GMT (+0000)

but i don’t know what is the brown i see on the cap right under some of the caps. i thought they were spores. Maybe Cyptotrama is not a wrong guess

an all white Cyptotrama
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-12-28 18:47:39 GMT (+0000)

would be new to me. I would guess that the brown/orange was part of the original pigmentation, and the white is the product of sun bleaching, age or albinism.

you are right
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2015-12-28 18:41:39 GMT (+0000)

but i don’t know what is the brown i see on the cap right under some of the caps. i thought they were spores. Maybe Cyptotrama is not a wrong guess

pretty shock white gills
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-12-28 17:12:25 GMT (+0000)

for a brown spore color

Flammulaster
By: Davide Puddu (Davide Puddu)
2015-12-28 04:04:00 GMT (+0000)

would explain also the brown deposit i think i see

Created: 2015-11-19 14:29:22 GMT (+0000)
Last modified: 2016-01-06 17:57:29 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 162 times, last viewed: 2016-05-25 23:10:39 BST (+0100)
Show Log