Observation 62795: Cladonia macilenta var. bacillaris (Genth) Schaerer
When: 2011-01-23
No herbarium specimen

Notes: did I mention that I don’t know anything about lichens?
This one is neat looking. So I took a photo.

Proposed Names

-13% (2)
Eye3
Recognized by sight: Shiny red rounded bits at the tip… I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LICHENS
56% (1)
Recognized by sight: C. cristatella (British soldiers) is appropriately only on east coast; C. bellidiflora is the western version. But this is powdery, not scaly/corticate, therefore neither. You want the powderhorns. On the coast your best options are C. umbricola (large divided basal scales) and C. macilenta (small inconspicuous scales).

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Oh I know…
By: Tim Sage (T. Sage)
2011-01-25 13:14:04 CST (-0600)

And I get what you are saying, but it seems to make a lot more sense to search for what you are interested in than to complain about/filter-out what you are not.

If it is simple and ideal to incorporate a filter-out tool, than I am all for it; I just don’t see it being vital to the site. As said below, the auto-completion freeze is much more disruptive to the average user.

Easy for you to say
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-01-25 12:38:06 CST (-0600)

Since you like all of the above! We poor lichenologists, on the other hand, have our sparse observations of lovely sunburnt crusts getting buried under mountains of garish mushrooms all the time. This is all about personalization: we want our users to be able to find the information they are interested in as efficiently as possible. (I grant we are very far from that not-so-lofty goal, but it is our intention, believe it or not!)

I personally…..
By: Tim Sage (T. Sage)
2011-01-25 12:24:30 CST (-0600)

Think the lichen-filter is unnecessary. If someone isn’t interested in a particular observation it is not too difficult to just scroll past it.

I think the system is fine right now while it includes all of the broadest forms of fungi and fungi-like organisms. I enjoy seeing them all, as I imagine many do.

It seems simple to me. If you don’t like it, don’t look. Complaining often makes adults look like children, and is also often a waste of time. If one spent more time scrolling past lichen instead of bitching about them, they could be studying the species they wish to study.

Oh bother
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-01-25 12:13:22 CST (-0600)

Yeah, must’ve been a glitch when the photo didn’t show up. I was afraid of that. Sorry about that. (Not my fault, really, but I feel like someone should apologize…)

The fabled “lichen screener” is high on the list of (my) priorities, just below changing our deployment software and fixing the autocompletion-freeze bug (sorry that’s taking so long!) I’ll be actively working on MO development again shortly.

Question for you lichen-hating sourpusses out there:

It’s easy to screen for lichens (I’ve already flagged every genus that contains lichenized or lichenicolous fungi), but screening for mushrooms is actually somewhat ambiguous. What sort of options would people like? Include rusts? Slimes? Weird-ass yeasts and shit from Tom Volk’s students :) ? Just “fleshy mushrooms”? And who gets to decide what’s fleshy enough. (And no, Noah, you don’t just want “not a lichen”, because that throws out Multiclavula, Lichenomphalia, Dictyonema/Cora and a number of odd genera like Tremella(!) because there is apparently a lichenicolous Tremella out there. Sorry, we have to be cleverer than that.)

This feature will definitely require some effort on the user’s part.

Noah enabled this photo
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-01-25 11:09:36 CST (-0600)

with the generous donation of his camera battery when mine pooped out.

Round of applause for the sourpuss, ladies and gents.

Damn
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2011-01-25 11:03:38 CST (-0600)

I was hoping the lichen screener was finely on MO, but I guess not :(

yes…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-01-25 10:47:46 CST (-0600)

Jason – I tried to, but it doesn’t show up when I click on the observation?
I will try adding another photo right now.

That worked

Glitch?
By: TimmiT
2011-01-25 07:28:08 CST (-0600)

The photo seems to be there on the home page but not on the observation page.

Ah, but are you going to share that photo with us?
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2011-01-25 02:17:40 CST (-0600)

Created: 2011-01-25 01:13:52 CST (-0600)
Last modified: 2011-01-25 15:54:11 CST (-0600)
Viewed: 122 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 15:14:12 CDT (-0500)
Show Log