|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||16.43||3||(Twizzler)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.01||3||(myxomop,Beñat)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
As Beñat said, there is enough evidence for Scutellinia. There us not enough for any one species of that genus without microscopy. Is it really that hard to grasp? Put all the words in my mouth you want, I haven’t argued against S. scutellata any more or less than I would any other species proposal, since there is not enough information to make any species proposal. My “Could Be” confidence level for your S. scutellata proposal is not a negative vote. It’s a neutral one.
I don’t want to force anyone. I say only my opinion : with this two photos, we can say Scutellinia. It’s not possible to say more with macroscopic photos in this genus (except perhaps S. setosa).
It’s necessary to have a right angle to say a triangle is rectangle. Similarly, it’s necessary to make a microscopic study to give a species name to a specimen of Scutellinia. It’s a scientific reality.
Arguments are following : apothecia on wood, cupulated, orange-red (carotenoid pigments) with brown-black hairs around the margin >>> Genus Scutellinia.
So, I don’t vote against scutellata, I vote for what it is : Scutellinia sp.
It’s possible to propose an alternative but it’s necessary to study the specimen. Could you send me one or two apothecia ? I can try to determinate it but keep in mind that’s not give always a result… Study on this genus is being…
I can prove anything without anything.
If, as has been claimed, the evidence rules out neither S. scutellata nor an alternative, then there is no evidentiary basis for voting against either. On the other hand, nobody has proposed an alternative; rather than propose an alternative and vote for that, he instead merely voted for “not scutellata”, without any basis for doing so.
It’s also ironic that one person has accused me of making an “argument from ignorance” whilst praising someone who made an apparent argument from force (“we can’t”, “it’s necessary”, etc., thereby presuming to speak for every user and asserting restrictions on what the users can do — nothing so crude as “it’s not scutellata or I’ll beat you up” but using the language of authority in places rather than the language of persuasion-with-evidence).
Twizzler, this is what they call an argument from ignorance, if you’re going to argue logic you may want to reavalute your own position first.
“That a certain test was not performed does not militate against it being a particular species; indeed, it cannot. So your claimed reason for thinking it’s something else instead is not logical. If there is some field character visible in the image that points away from S. scutellata, then by all means point it out. Otherwise you’ve no rational basis for downvoting that identification.”
Beñat, thanks for taking the time to share your informative comment, please don’t take the resistence some here have towards discussing taxonomy as reason to hold back on your opinions. Many of us here enjoy the opportunity to learn from more experienced mycologists. :)
In first, sorry for my poor english, I hope you will understand.
In second, I don’t want to impose my opinion. All of it differs between persons and view on necessity to propose correct name or not.
My opinion is following :
Scutellinia is a genus of Pyronemataceae, therefore ascomycete. Except a very little number of ascomycetes which could be recognized at the naked eye, all of them require microscopic studies. And, even with this study, it happens that we can’t give species names.
In Scutellinia species, it’s obligatory to make some different preparations :
- In water, to verify guttulated spores, tissues, form of hairs, difference (or not) between marginal and receptacular hairs
- in blue cotton, heated at boiling point (verify if perispore is separating), to verify sporal ornementation.
- Measurements of spores and marginal hairs.
In a lot of cases, even with those preparations, it’s not possible to propose a “good” name.
Because a lot of misinterpretations, a lot of determinations with naked eye, a lot of certitudes not demonstrated…
For example : S. scutellata is a name commonly adopted since several years all around the world and given on a lot of photos on forum, on a lot of herbarium exsiccata without scopic studies.
In fact, I have seen typus and a lot of collections, I have seen DNA results and I continue to send specimens for DNA study. And globally, the results are : the most common species on wood in the world is S. crinita (even in North America, I have study a lot of collections from US) and S. scutellata is a great complex but, often, rare species.
So, give the name scutellata is an error at 99%. In fact, today, I don’t know the borders of this species and I’m unable to put this name on a collection. I call it simply “S. scutellata complex”.
But, I can understand that’s taxonomic discussions and it doesn’t interest everyone.
Except give any name is not trivial, it bothers the study.
So, if you search a little serious contributions, please prefer only the genus.
And even this it made, it’s possible to make another error. For example, without scopic study, certains species of Cheilymenia could be confounded with Scutellinias (like C. fraudans or C. rubra) at naked eye.
About contributions on ascomycetes and particularly on Scutellinia, we don’t use photobooks like Thompson or Medardi. It’s necessary to use monography and keys, scientific articles…
For example, today, the only work around the world is Schumacher monography, in Opera botanica. And, since this, it’s necessary to read all of the following contributions because taxonomy has evolved.
Personnally, I have made a working world key on this genus… but always under construction and in french… Perhaps later, I will translate and propose it, but always keeping mind that’s it in evolution…
A last thing : if you want, I’ll be very glad if someone want to send me Scutellinia’s exsiccatas. I’m always on research of new correspondents around the world and I’m passionated.
Did you read what I wrote before?
Why are you claiming, confidently, that my identification of this was wrong, while more or less admitting that you have no specific evidence that it was wrong? And what triggered you to suddenly start doing so two days ago, after these observations had sat in peace for, in some cases, years?
did you scope this?
That a certain test was not performed does not militate against it being a particular species; indeed, it cannot. So your claimed reason for thinking it’s something else instead is not logical. If there is some field character visible in the image that points away from S. scutellata, then by all means point it out. Otherwise you’ve no rational basis for downvoting that identification.
Further to that, it looks exactly like S. scutellata, and in particular clearly has real “eyelashes”, unlike the one “lookalike” that shows up in the six or seven field guides I have here.
Also, what triggered this? These observations are months, in some cases years old, but you suddenly went through all of my Scutellinia observations and systematically voted against their being S. scutellata yesterday. What triggered you to do this yesterday, after all that time? Particularly if nothing in the observations suggests that they’re unlikely to be S. scutellata, which you have more or less admitted is the case? I’m curious as to your motivation here.
Created: 2009-10-09 02:39:16 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2013-08-04 15:06:38 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 372 times, last viewed: 2017-10-11 20:03:39 EDT (-0400)