Notes: This is a stereo pair, which can be viewed in 3-D without glasses using the parallel vision technique (focusing close without converging the eyes).
|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||4.08||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.52||1||(myxomop)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.25||1||(email@example.com)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
a sweetheart. You should have been a diplomat.
so all I will say here is that what Danny said is true .. we cannot really tell this species by just the macro. it’s our best guess, and that is often good enough.
some mushrooms can be told by macro, or at least we think so. the more we can double-check our IDs, with micro or DNA, the better our eyes get, or the more humble we become.
but that’s a good thing, right?
Your comments and sincerity, and I thank you for the information which you have so generously provided. In my opinion, I believe that most people who post on MO realize that observations to species requires microscopic proof supported by photos, but there are many species that can be identified by one who has the appropriate information and the skills necessary to use them.
speak upon the intent of others who are not even involved in the conversation, its rude. Additionally thanks to the free license this site benefits from community control and its best that the community can correct mistakes so that everyone can learn more. Its not about ridicule or proving others wrong if that is what you are afraid of.
Lastly, as far as intent goes, there is as much functionality to propose incorrect names as there is for others to vote those names down and propose new ones. This is a good thing, making mistakes should not be a bad thing as long as you are willing to understand and learn from them.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
and there are many many ways to approach our passion for fungi.
there will always be chaff as well as wheat. that’s why we sift for the good stuff, and discard the debris. but debris does make good compost, future mushroom food, so it is all useful, somehow, to somebody.
ah uh yup, there is a bit of human ego showing, here and there. But so what? can’t have a mushroom website without that oh so challenging human element.
and we thought that mushroom IDs were difficult! :)
is that it is useful in many ways and in different ways to different people.
One can make up species lists, with or without photos, microscopy, etc and it is in line with the original intent of the site founder(s). These may be of limited value to some but serves a purpose for others. I wouldn’t call it egotistical.
The site gives you several options for ID confidence. At worst, these would be “Could Be” for Chlorociboria aeruginasens or Chlorocibora aeruginosa.
But at least a search would eliminate a lot of flack that only a genus designation would produce. Whether this particular observation is valuable to someone looking for absolute certainty is not really critical to the overall value of MO in my opinion.
And its up to the community to best maintain the site and the data collected here. Without that everyone who uses MO to educate themselves, others or add content to their own downstream sites will inherit our mistakes too. This would continue until either the internet is littered with incorrect mycological information or MO is discredited as non-reliable itself.
So, in what way is our questioning of a specific ID, esp. in the case of a species like Chlorociboria, the green wood stain, that often is IDed w/out even a fb to argue over, harm our species concepts or devalue our obsies?
The BEAUTY of MO, to me, is the depth of these posts. You can pull an image of a mushroom, and feel like there’s a good chance of it actually being that mushroom, or you can read discussions about how we got to that name, rejected that name or whatever the hell we were doing on this or any other obsie.
No, we will not end up with mere Genera to work with, altho if we are honest with ourselves, that is often in truth the best that we can do in many cases!
But still, here we are, struggling to find the truth. The process is every bit as interesting and informative as the result. And then, our concepts change and it’s back to the drawing board!
This IS science (hold that “citizen” smarm) … asking questions, sharing ideas and changing our theories as our knowledge base grows and older ideas get discarded.
Go Team MO!
Since this is mushroomobserver, what is most likely to happen is that the vast majority of observations, which are not adequately supported by evidence, will continue to reside beneath inaccurate taxon labels. This is the tragedy of citizen science: an utter lack of scientific discipline, and a grotesque fascination with egotistical dialogue, lead to arbitrary determinations, and profoundly contradictory data. The value of this site is inherently dependent on the needs and parameters of every individual that examines it.
Danny may be technically correct, but I also prefer
to leave these type of observations as is…or at least left to the discretion of the original poster.
Since this is Mushroom Observer, not Mushroom Microscopy, are all observations without spore images going to be demoted to genus, thus rendering the site superfluous?
I am not a professional and not really that well educated. The basis for my proposal is that C. aeruginascens and C. aeruginosa have variously been said to be distinguishable macroscopically by the fading/whitening of the more circular apothecium, smaller overall size, and centrally stipitate fruiting bodies (qualities of C. aeruginosa). C. aeruginascens has, conversely, been said to be more spathulate/laterally stipitate, larger, and not whitening with age/exposure. Alan’s Observation 123181, which microscopically checks out for C. aeruginascens, macroscopically matches these anecdotal traits of C. aeruginosa.
With these rumored macroscopic differences in doubt, the two species are back to being only differentiated by spores and smooth versus encrusted hyphae in the tomentum. this is to say nothing of the additional species which may be lurking behind the names C. aeruginosa and C. aeruginascens, suggested by the description of 13 new Chlorociboria species in New Zealand in 2005. as Alan points out on 123181, a quick and dirty tree formed from the current GenBank entries do not suggest that these names contain cryptic species, but that does not rule out the possibility, particuarly given how few Chlorociboria collections are represented there. IF recognizes the following spp.:
C. aeruginascens subsp. australis
only 8 of which have sequences in GenBank.
If Clorocyboria species can only be determined microscopically, what is the basis for your proposal. I realize that I’m an amateur, and you are a well educated professional, and therefore I would ask you to impart any macro trait not available in any references that I have at my disposal To differentiate between the species. Thanks
from Tom Volk:
Chlorociboria-stained wood for centuries. Dr. Robert Blanchette at the University of Minnesota showed that 14th and 15th century Renaissance Italian craftsmen used the wood to provide the green colors in their intricate inlaid intarsia designs. Using electron microscopy, he was able to show that green-colored wooden splinters taken from the Italian artwork were identical to Chlorociboria-colonized wood obtained in modern northern Minnesota. Click here for more of these beautiful inlaid wood pictures. In the 18th century, English woodworkers in the town of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, started using small splinters and veneers of the green-stained wood to form highly detailed pictures of animals, flowers, local landscapes, and geometric designs, which were often inset into the lids of small wooden boxes. These antiques are called “Tunbridge ware” and are very valuable today.
Looks good, but swap the left image for the right one. When I do the
stereo trick, the mushrooms recede instead of popping out. Maybe it’s
my eyes, but it seems to work better the other way.
Created: 2011-02-23 21:39:44 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2016-06-28 11:35:11 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 327 times, last viewed: 2017-01-09 19:31:59 PST (-0800)