Observation 25992: Sordariomycetes O.E. Erikss. & Winka
When: 2009-09-26
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

-7% (3)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: This observation is for the black fungus visible in, among other places, the upper left; it was identified as Daldinia by Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale). The Bisporella citrina has its own observation, which can be reached via the image’s page.
85% (1)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: referring to the black resupinate fungus in the upper left.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
monticola/citrina
By: h.baral
2013-12-04 14:55:42 CST (-0500)

I do not see the answer to my comment, but I try to answer it:

The most important character is the shape of the amyloid apical ring of the ascus (viewed in the dead state): Calycina-type in Bisporella, and Hymenoscyphus-type in Phaeohelotium. I have figured these types in my paper:
Baral, H.-O.: Der Apikalapparat der Helotiales. Eine lichtmikroskopische Studie über Arten mit Amyloidring, Z. Mykol. 53(1): 119-136 (1987)

You can download the pdf under the webpage of the journal:
http://www.dgfm-ev.de/sites/default/files/ZM531119Baral.pdf

Zotto

h.baral
By: Byrain
2013-12-04 14:42:11 CST (-0500)

Can you explain how someone would differentiate B. citrina from P. monticola & other possible lookalikes microscopically? Maybe can you weigh in on observation 87637 which has microscopy too? :)

Bisporella and Phaeohelotium are easily confused macroscopically.
By: h.baral
2013-12-04 14:28:26 CST (-0500)

Hello. It is difficult to help in this conversation. The macrophoto may show B. citrina. But I want to mention a mistake that happened with that species. American mycologists sequenced a collection and placed it in GenBank under the name B. citrina, but this turned out to be Phaeohelotium monticola. That sequence matches one which was gained from my personal material, and after I had asked for microphotos of that American collection, I saw that it cannot be B. citrina but fits P. monticola quite well. The two species actually belong in two different families.

Zotto

Paul
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-04 13:34:56 CST (-0500)

“No matter how aggressively you wish to defend your belief that B. citrina is not the species pictured in this and any number of my other observations of yellow, cupulate/discoid fungi, the simple fact remains that you have pointed to no feature of the observation that contradicts that identification,”

That’s your same untenable argument from this observation all over again:

Observation 26456

I am not voting against B. citrina. I am voting for the exercising of caution in assigning names to a group of fungi whose differentiation is primarily microscopic.

" nor is any similar species listed in guides for the same geographical area"

This is a problem with guidebooks, not proof of low ascomycete diversity. Most guidebooks on NA fungi, aside from being basidio-biased, are, intentionally or incidentally, not taxonomically comprehensive. In wanting to describe a little bit of everything, the common mushroom guide seldom if ever digs sufficiently deep into any one thing.

“Meanwhile, the “best” alternative you’ve managed to propose to B. citrina is a very broad and polyphyletic group that to my knowledge is no longer even recognized as a proper taxon, namely “Discomycetes”.”

http://mushroomobserver.org/comment/show_comment/72238
http://mushroomobserver.org/comment/show_comment/62792

“I am curious as to what sets off these ID-dispute binges of yours, where you’ll suddenly latch onto a random observation and then start systematically pooh-poohing some proposed ID on every similar observation, working chronologically forward through as far as I can tell every observation on this site…”

‘Species A’ is shown to be identifiable only with macro characters. The overwhelming majority of observations matching the ‘Species A’ name on the site are without microscopy. Therefore, the specific identities of all micro-less observations currently listed as ‘Species A’ cannot be known with any certainty until or unless microscopic analysis can be conducted.

Note that on not a single observation containing the B. citrina name proposal did I downvote that name. It is a possibility among possibilities.

“Perhaps the strangest thing is that you are not the only user of this site to exhibit similar strange behavior…”

Logic is contagious.

“…triggered by no discernible thing and likewise lacking any evidence beyond, apparently, a gut feeling that some ID is wrong (and not just wrong on that observation, but wrong on any observation, as if questioning whether the named species actually exists).”

You’re continuing to conflate conservativism with denouncement. I have run out of ways to explain the difference between the two.

I will ask Hans-Otto Baral and Nicolas van Nooren to weigh in.

Danny
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-12-04 03:45:50 CST (-0500)

No matter how aggressively you wish to defend your belief that B. citrina is not the species pictured in this and any number of my other observations of yellow, cupulate/discoid fungi, the simple fact remains that you have pointed to no feature of the observation that contradicts that identification, nor is any similar species listed in guides for the same geographical area, with the sole exception of Anthracobia melaloma, which only grows on burnt substrate and thus isn’t it.

Meanwhile, the “best” alternative you’ve managed to propose to B. citrina is a very broad and polyphyletic group that to my knowledge is no longer even recognized as a proper taxon, namely “Discomycetes”.

I am curious as to what sets off these ID-dispute binges of yours, where you’ll suddenly latch onto a random observation and then start systematically pooh-poohing some proposed ID on every similar observation, working chronologically forward through as far as I can tell every observation on this site, invariably with the proposed ID matching those observations to a T without even the tiniest discrepancy to act as a seed of doubt.

If it was a sporadic or random thing, your occasional unshakable, but faith-based, assertion that something was certainly not species X (despite being an exact match, as near as could be determined, to species X) would be perhaps explicable as just one of those things, like when someone was sure they left their car keys elsewhere than where they found them. But it’s not; every few months you suddenly get a bee in your bonnet and become determined to rename every single observation on the site with a particular identification, for no discernible reason and with no discernible trigger, and one has to suspect some kind of an obsession.

So, out of curiosity: What sets off these binges of yours where you suddenly become utterly convinced that no instance of species X, for some particular-to-the-occasion value of X, actually exists, so any observation on MO claiming to be species X must be changed (and really really urgently, or the world might end or something) to say **any**thing else that plausibly might fit (even if very broad and generic, rather than some specific other thing you think is likelier than X, and any disagreement will be met with condescendingly-toned comments devoid of any actual concrete evidence against that observation being species X)?

Perhaps the strangest thing is that you are not the only user of this site to exhibit similar strange behavior, triggered by no discernible thing and likewise lacking any evidence beyond, apparently, a gut feeling that some ID is wrong (and not just wrong on that observation, but wrong on any observation, as if questioning whether the named species actually exists).

I could see someone doing something like that if they stumbled upon a load of observations with a seeming consensus of “Bigfoot” as the ID, but short of that …

Paul
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-04 02:33:29 CST (-0500)

No matter how aggressively you wish to defend your belief that B. citrina is the species pictured in this and any number of you other observations of yellow, cupulate/discoid fungi, the simple fact remains that a species ID is virtually impossible without microscopy. we went through these same motions for Scutellinia. think of the taxonomy. B. citrina is but one possibility. spore measurements, among other microcharacters, could classify your observations as an altogether different species. without any micro data, there is no way of knowing 100%.

Created: 2009-09-29 22:59:00 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-05-31 17:16:29 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 196 times, last viewed: 2016-11-22 14:24:12 CST (-0500)
Show Log