|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.94||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Mushroom Observer is great as an educational tool, if it wasn’t for this site I doubt I would be scoping mushrooms and making actual collections now, even if that means some of my old obs are pretty useless.
Do you beleive that the herbariums have capacity (or interest) to receive and store everything that is sent to them if all obses had voucher specimen?
I’m sure they don’t (it’s actually a huge problem in Sweden), so should the obses not be reported then?
I did not mean that every specimen should have a photo on MO, BUT that (ideally) every MO observation should have a herbarium specimen going with it. Yes, it would be ideal if the MO observations would be also supported by the DNA sequencing, but again, you cannot do the DNA sequencing without having the specimens. Oluna has the DNA sequencing done of 574 Inocybe specimens and of 210 Cortinarius specimens. The University of BC (UBC) Prof. Mary Berbee received the grant of >$64.000 and had two students working on this project. Another more recent student interested in Russula got 173 Oluna’s Russula specimens for the DNA sequencing this summer. Your 6 sequenced specimens is a good start.
The DNA sequencing results were used in several publications:
Ammirati, J. F., Barlow, T. E., Seidl, M. T., Ceska, O., Berbee, M., Harrower, E., & Liimatainen, K. (2012). Cortinarius parkeri, a new species from the Pacific Northwest of North America. Botany, 90(4), 327-335.
Harrower, E., Ammirati, J. F., Cappuccino, A. A., Ceska, O., Kranabetter, J. M., Kroeger, P., … & Berbee, M. L. (2011). Cortinarius species diversity in British Columbia and molecular phylogenetic comparison with European specimen sequences. Botany, 89(11), 799-810.
Matheny, P. B., Norvell, L. L., & Giles, E. C. (2012). A common new species of Inocybe in the Pacific Northwest with a diagnostic PDAB reaction. Mycologia.
Matheny, P. B., Vellinga, E. C., Bougher, N. L., Ceska, O., Moreau, P. A., Neves, M. A., & Ammirati, J. F. (2007). Taxonomy of displaced species of Tubaria. Mycologia, 99(4), 569-585.
Dimitar Bojantchev detected the DNA sequnces of his newly described Cortinarius xanthodryophilus in Oluna’s collection from BC:
Nothing of this would have been possible without having real collections.
Mushroom Observer may have quite nice observations, but the observations without the real collections are close to useless. Even for the distributional maps, you need the real collections.
Think about it! Adolf
The purpose of MO is not a database for photos of herbarinum specimens. It’s one of MANY different reasons to use this site.
Yes there are many “useless” observations, including some of mine. But they aren’t useless because they don’t have a herbarium specimen to back up the observation. In the case of this observation, I would call it useless (sorry Patrick) because it doesn’t give enough detail about the fungus. If it was a clear closeup photo of the mushroom and not a table with a mushroom on it from s distance it would be worth more.
Yes, if there was a specimen to back it up it would be “worth more” to some people, but for most people an observation of B. curtisii like these; http://mushroomobserver.org/79245 http://mushroomobserver.org/110686 http://mushroomobserver.org/110831 is far better than this one (with the herbarium specimen) http://mushroomobserver.org/110093
If I need a specimen I can go to Mycoportal and find out where they are http://mycoportal.org/...
However Adolf, I think all of your observations without sequences are Incomplete (=useless)…
If you look at any mushroom monographs or any taxonomical treatment, they cite only those records that are supported by herbarium specimens. Find the closest mycological herbarium and offer them your collections. They will tell you, if you are collecting your fungi properly. Only around 15-20% MO observations are supported by herbarium specimens. The rest is silence! Adolf
I see Mushroom Observer as more of a survey tool. Researchers can contact any member, and ask them about any finds that look like what they are interested in from the hundreds of thousands of observations. They are then likely to get samples the next time the member finds them, without having to go all over the country themselves. For those who do collect and save their samples, it simply saves time for the rest.
Identification by gross morphology visible in photographs may not be one hundred percent scientifically reliable, but as Hamlet said, “I can tell a hawk from a handsaw” — and so can the majority of members. Additionally, the voting function enables anyone to correct identifications, a simple version of peer review.
That’s a good advice, Adolf.
What I mean by the last paragraph, is that a picture with a name of a mushroom with a voucher specimen/collection isn’t more reliable than any other picture.
Even if the name (eventually) gets corrected in a herbarium, there’s no guarantee that it ever will be done at MO – and certainly not everywhere else on the internet where it has been spread.
I agree with your second paragraph, but I don’t understand the third one. “Voucher specimens” in one’s shoe boxes make no sense either, I agree. Co-operate with a mycological herbarium close to you and I am sure that they will be willing to take care of your collections. I think that whatever poor herbarium specimen is better than the best photograph. Adolf
P.S. Before you post your photos (those that would have voucher specimens), make a deal with a mycological herbarium, send them few specimens and listen to their advice, how they want the specimens and especially the data going with them “filled in”.
I don’t think your remarks about the lack of voucher specimen are necessary.
Of course it would be even better if everyone has the opportunity to get their collections saved at a university herbarium for further studies. Collections at home in people’s drawers and shoe boxes don’t do much good either.
But in any case, I do not agree that good photos without voucher specimen are TOTALLY USELESS!
MO as a photo reference for herbarium collections, is excellent, but that is not the only use for it.
And all those misidentified voucher collections, what use do we have of them, except spreading desinformation on internet about the species? Who will manage to correct them later?
BUT TOTALLY USELESS without a voucher specimen. With less than 3% of observations supported by voucher specimens, you are not doing too well. Adolf
From the stature, yellow stalk, yellow cap, and yellow pores. Look at the full-sized image.
Created: 2009-07-23 18:22:40 BST (+0100)
Last modified: 2013-03-10 15:54:11 GMT (+0000)
Viewed: 472 times, last viewed: 2016-12-19 01:11:22 GMT (+0000)