Observation 64938: Undetermined
When: 2008-01-25
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: I found these small blobs on a cut face of an Arbutus menziesii log. When I tried to find more of it five days later, the log was gone. It was used for improving the trail. My guess is that it could be spore-bearing yeast.

WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? Oluna
This fungus is the same as in MO # 163124 & MO #192511:
http://mushroomobserver.org/163124
http://mushroomobserver.org/192511

Proposed Names

-30% (5)
Used references: sketch
-17% (4)
Recognized by sight
-71% (3)
Recognized by sight
-4% (10)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
32% (9)
Recognized by sight
-39% (2)
Recognized by sight
35% (3)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
no good deed …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-05 11:36:52 EDT (-0400)

goes unpunished.

Note to self: do not use hands when separating fighting dogs.

Good luck with this folks. At least the name calling has stopped.

As to the “purpose” of MO: I agree with both Byrain and Adolf: MO is in fact a place to learn and a place to share, with a wild west social aspect, too. Some of the Professional Mycologists are willing to dive in, others are not. Of course an obsie with everything is better than nothing, but that’s why we sift the wheat from the chaff.

It’s an imperfect world. Why rail against the universe?

Off to the mountains, where I can commune with civilized creatures like mountains lions and bats and beavers. We will not be dining on Hygrophorus caeruleus, though, no matter how low our stores.

Peace out.

Depressing outlook? No!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-05 11:03:03 EDT (-0400)

Oluna and I have been using Mushroom Observer for documenting our (mostly Oluna’s) collections. That was for what Nathan Wilson offered MO to the Mycological Society of America at their first mycofloristics meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxySE56sJgQ
We soon realized that MO cannot be used in mycofloristics, because any MO “without a collections is a rumour.” Only about every 5th MO observation is supported by the voucher herbarium specimen. Only a small part of MO observations is useful for this purpose.
Never mind, MO works well for us and our mycofloristics efforts, but only after we have done a simple correction: We are putting the Original Herbarium Label [Name] into the Notes where it is protected from the MO naming game. Byrain and I have discussed this issue already before, more than once
We have been asking MO developers to develop a better version of MO (we called it MO Plus) that would deal only with the MO observations that would have herbarium specimens marked on the entry sheet. Such a system would be exactly what Nathan offered to the MSA mycofloristics people.
The solution would be simple:
1) Only the original user should be allowed to change the MO observation name.
2) All the suggestions of a different ID should be done by “Annotations”. With the lack of this category, Comments would do. In the matter of fact, Proposed Name section of MO is already there. Only the Consensus and the Voting system would have to be dropped.
This should be done only to those MO observations that are supported by the voucher herbarium specimens. One does not have to do anything more than this, in order to make MO useful for mycofloristics. There would be some more tuning of this MO Plus necessary, but this essential change would do.
If you are interested in developing MO+, please contact us directly at aceska@telus.net

That is a really depressing outlook.
By: Byrain
2016-06-05 02:39:46 EDT (-0400)

Most of the people who I have met and have used MO do so mostly for educational purposes rather than documentation or some sort of game.

Educational tool?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-05 01:58:26 EDT (-0400)

No way, don’t use it as an educational tool! You will teach novices REALLY BAD practices. Mycological work is more than just playing naming games!

MO is a mycological database and educational tool.
By: Byrain
2016-06-05 01:38:15 EDT (-0400)

Can we leave it at that?

Re: MO is a game
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-05 01:19:42 EDT (-0400)

Walt, you said it right.This MO game has rules similar to Ludo and it is our fault that we did not play it according those rules. Never mind, with the exception of Blobus albus and several other postings, we don’t have any problems with this. This game aspect is why serious mycologists don’t touch MO. It is a pity, but we don’t blame them.

DNA sequencing
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-05 01:18:47 EDT (-0400)

Yeah, I know, it ain’t cheap. Maybe Alan can give you a price break for figuring out what Blobus albus really is. After all the Rockefellers are well-known philanthropists. :-)

We need money for the DNA sequencing
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-05 00:40:52 EDT (-0400)

This is not the only collection where we would like to have sequenced. We have a whole pile of specimens that would would need to be sequenced. Many of them we have not posted yet, because we knew that they are new, yet undescribed species. Your rhetorical question what Linne would have done, I think he would be moore than happy with the Blobus albus name. Look at his Lysimachia terrestris that he originally described as a terrestrial mistletoe, Viscum terrestre. He did not know Mushroom Observer, and had no idea about the DNA.

“We don’t want to call it Blobus albus forever.”
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-05 00:19:12 EDT (-0400)

Then submit this undetermined fungus for DNA sequencing already, as you have a sample – you will at least be able to get to a family or even genus. And stop crying about how there is no love for your Blobus albus label you’re so desperately trying to impose on MO. Carl Linnaeus must be spinning in his grave.

Over 3000 MO users know
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 23:58:20 EDT (-0400)

that this is undetrermined. So what? When we posted it, we hoped that somebody would recognize it, or at least would give us a hint where to look. Give us some lead in ID, we don’t want to call it Blobus albus forever. A&O

Not Undetermined.
By: Byrain
2016-06-04 23:32:59 EDT (-0400)

This is certainly a Fungus (At least).

I proposed Undetermined before, but in retrospect that was too far and we already have enough names in this observation so I deleted the proposal…

Do you know this one?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 22:57:17 EDT (-0400)

Two guys in a hot-air balloon made an emergency landing in a complex of strange buildings.
“Where are we?” they asked two guys in white coats walking by.
“You are in a hot-air balloon.”
The guys looked at each other and one of them said:
“We are in a scientific complex. The answer was perfectly correct, but totally useless!”

Undetermined?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 22:24:36 EDT (-0400)

Bravo! it’s great that you recognize that. Adolf
P.S. Walt, I thought that you would know better, considering your experience.
Again, we posted it in order to get it identified, NOT just named. Adolf

A game and a website
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2016-06-04 21:02:51 EDT (-0400)

Has rules. Play by them.

Don’t use the term Naming!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 20:26:12 EDT (-0400)

Naming does not mean anything! It is a special MO fallacy. Before you “name” it, you have to know, what it is, i.e., you have to identify it first! I am surprised that even some advanced mycologists (e.g., mycowalt) cannot get it.

don’t we normally give the finder naming priority?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-04 17:20:19 EDT (-0400)

until we can come up with an evidence-based better name, why not just let this
ride?

After all, Blobus albus is actually a clever quasi-latin coinage of white blob, which is pretty much all that we have here, right now, despite Oluna’s lovely micro details.

Are they ascos w/out a visible sac? Are they yeasts? Are they weirdo basidios? Is it an anamorph of a basidio? Who the hell knows? Apparently, none of us do!

Let’s lighten up a bit, eh?

I really don’t consider the voting on MO to be about who’s top dog of the moment, or a value judgement of contributors. C’mon, it’s a small sandbox. Let’s play nice. We all have something to contribute here.

And then, not to be ageist, let’s respect our elders, shall we? Ye too shall be old someday.

And elders, how ’bout a little respect for our youth? Were we not young and impetuous once (and again)?

And more importantly, do any of you even realize how difficult it is for ME to be diplomatic??!! AS IF indeed.

Hugs,
Rita

We would like to know, if any MO user can identify it
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 16:58:36 EDT (-0400)

It does not make any sense to discuss how it should be called before we know what it really is. We suspect that it is a Fungus, this is not what we want to here. Once we know what it is, we will used that name. If you dont like óur Blobus albus, we will be glad to change it to Mobby Dick, if it makes you happy. The bread won’t be any cheaper. Adolf

The consensus is split
By: Byrain
2016-06-04 13:32:21 EDT (-0400)

Both Fungi and “Blobus albus” have 4 “I’d call it that” and “As if” votes. The only reason “Blobus albus” is winning is because 3 heavy weight voters have voted “As if” on Fungi. If you think that means their opinions worth more than others than I’d rather not argue that rabbit hole…

And I will be honest even if it concerns inappropriate behavior by other users and ends up ruffling feathers, I hope no one would expect anything less?

so MO is working just fine.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-04 13:20:31 EDT (-0400)

and the current consensus disagrees with you, Byrain.
But that is the beauty of consensus.

We can’t win ’em all as individuals. We must convince each other as colleagues or endure what the majority decides. Until the next opportunity to make our point and perhaps win over more converts to our cause.

Expressing dearly held opinions is fine; trash talking colleagues is not, even if it does provide some personal satisfaction.

Peace out.

Clarification
By: Byrain
2016-06-04 12:58:21 EDT (-0400)

There is nothing wrong with calling this “Blobus albus”, “White blob” or even something as silly as “Mike”. I just ask that we don’t do it in the name proposal area, the notes section works great for that! The names we allow in our database as Rocky has already pointed out are already a big enough mess.

could we all please just have a time out here?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-04 12:44:35 EDT (-0400)

this is an interesting, well documented (thanks again for your careful work, Oluna!) and completely bewildering fungal obsie.

could we not all dissolve into name-calling?

altho the term “Blobus albus” is hardly a serious latin nom. prov., it does indeed act as a reasonably descriptive placeholder for this oddball fungus. I recently obtained a lovely little book on Tasmanian fungi. Quite a few of the collected and described species lacked published latin names, but specific descriptors were used so that these mushrooms could be known and talked about, in cases where at least the genus was known. It is the same case here, except we are even in the dark as to what sort of fungus this is, let alone genus!

At least when we hear the name “Blobus albus” we get a mental picture of an actual fb!

FUNGI alone is such a catch-all. I find it not very useful, myself. And as we all know, the very best way to get all eyes on your obsie is to put up an incorrect or
controversial name!

The point of this discussion is to find a good name for this thing, not to bitch slap myco-rivals.

Just sayin’.

MO is a great system. It is not perfect. The consensus usual provides insight, if it doesn’t devolve into personal battles. It is unreasonable to expect that obsies put here will remain forever inviolate. We are a very opinionated community, and that’s fine, as long as we don’t get all down and dirty in the mud.

Surely there are mushrooms to hunt, and good deeds to perform, somewhere?

C’mon folks we are all better than this.

Hugs to my myco-colleagues.

Be that as it may
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-04 12:13:53 EDT (-0400)

When I receive emails telling me to “shut my mouth”, I feel compelled to respond.

We’ve already had this discussion…
By: Byrain
2016-06-04 12:06:46 EDT (-0400)

Adolf will neither agree or understand, your choices are limited to trying to beat the dead horse some more, trying to appease Adolf’s unreasonable demands or just changing his names to the best our system currently allows until someone can spend some time to improve the code.

.
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-04 11:12:51 EDT (-0400)

Provisional name, interim name, label, it doesn’t matter what you call it; they all mean the same thing: Invalid taxon. You are free to create whatever “label” you wish, and the community is welcome to agree, or disagree with how that “label” is used.
Your defense of the use of “labels” reaches well beyond the observations of “Blobus”. You frequently contend that you should be able to use your original herbarium labels to categorize your observations, despite the fact that your original herbarium labels are often misidentifications.
The fact is, Adolf, the onus of organizing unidentified observations into an index for future use belongs entirely to the interested party. The purpose of public consensus in this space is to provide the most scientifically accurate taxon possible for each observation, not to curate your personal organizational system, which apparently relies strongly on invalid, and misidentified names.

Moshroom Observer’s Naming has two parts: Taxonomy & Nomenclature
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 07:31:37 EDT (-0400)

The Mushroom Observer’s ’naming’ puts TAXONOMY (identification) and NOMENCLATURE into a single bag. We are putting the cart before the horse, when we are trying to get the best fitting name on MO observations that have not been identified yet. Our “Blobus albus” is not a provisional name; it is just the label that keeps our specimens together with the corresponding MO observations and with other MO observations of the same fungus.
Mushroom Observer is a brilliant system, but needs a drastic revision. The naming part, the so-called deprecation, and the almighty Consensus are the Achilles ’ heel of MO. Do I sound like a broken record? Yes I do. I saw this problem shortly after we joined MO and started to post our collections there. The result? Zilch! Just the opposite is true. Read what Byrain wrote: “Suggesting anything else is outright disgusting, dishonest and despicable." (2016-03-31 22:38:42 PDT (-0700))
I am also surprised that Danny Newman (myxomop) could call this MO observation “poorly documented”. See his Comment of March 31, 2016, few lines below.
Deprecate the Consensus and then deprecate the deprecation! Those are the special anomalies that only few of you (old MO users, who grew up with MO) can understand. Instead of changing names, suggest your identifications as a Comment and leave it on the user who poste the observation either to accept or ignore your suggestions. Please, don’t change our MO observation names! If you accept our suggestion, I am sure that all of you in this discussion chain would be ashamed to tell us that this MO observation is a fungus.
Adolf (Retarded Toddler sensu Byrain)

Sigh!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-04 04:07:16 EDT (-0400)
Congratulations, Adolph and Oluna
By: Drew Parker (mycotrope)
2016-04-10 13:17:47 EDT (-0400)
That is not how MO works
By: Byrain
2016-04-01 01:38:42 EDT (-0400)

This is a community, if you do not want someone to participate in your observations then don’t come here, seriously.

Suggesting anything else is outright disgusting, dishonest and despicable. Not that anyone should expect anything less of you by this point.

Mushroom Observer
By: Byrain
2016-04-01 00:43:04 EDT (-0400)

The place where Adolf acts like a retarded toddler, the cool kids post imageless unverifiable non-collections and instead of trying to figure out interesting observations we spend time arguing over something as inane as “Blobus albus” while most who might have good information stay silent, have already left or decided to never join…

Sigh

this is perhaps
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-01 00:25:38 EDT (-0400)

the single most deserving observation of the name Fungi. despite all the detail and documentation (and arguments), it is still not known to which phylum it belongs. the differences between this and the other observations currently called fungi are many, particularly in terms of degree of documentation. this should be FUNGI, while the things too poorly documented to be identified should be fungi. i am a broken record on this subject.

as for being able to readily find this and the other “Blobus albi” sightings, a new name is not necessary, much less a name as deliberately goofy as this one. make a species list, enter a keyword in the notes of each observation, or record the unique observation numbers. Thingus ineedtorememberlaterus is not only not a valid naming convention, it is inherently self-serving and clutter-generating, not to mention it ignores the existing means of flagging and finding observations, imperfect though they may be.

Re: Provisional names
By: Byrain
2016-03-31 19:53:26 EDT (-0400)

Noah, you are putting the cart before the horse. A provisional name for some unknown white blob does not help here since we do not even know what family these belong in let alone order, class and phylum. Combined with how there is no such thing as “Blobus” it only can serve to confuse less experienced users and third parties that use MO as a database. The detrimental effects (Especially Adolf’s long running bad attitude and tantrums) far outweigh what little benefit there is in putting a name on these before we even understand what they are.

If you really want a non-useful provisional name I would suggest “White blob”, it would still be bullshit, but at least it would not add to the confusion as demonstrated by previous comments. Otherwise I would suggest any provisional name is entirely inappropriate until we have a more certain classification than Fungi and where only the specific epithet is provisional.

Additionally these observations are very easy to find with the search function no matter what they are named or even what the observation number is. This point has already been addressed and bluntly its disappointing that you are trying to rehash an invalid argument when you should know better given your time using this site.

do you have micrographs
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-03-31 11:04:30 EDT (-0400)

showing the spores loose in the medium? what about what you’ve labelled paraphyses or setae? they’re illustrated in the drawing but none are seen in any of your three observations.

fwiw, I read further into the helicosporus hyphomycetes paper, but the spore and spore-bearing structure morphology seen here seems to not fit into any of Goos’ categories. none of the helicosporus conidiogenous cells are so broadly clavate, nor do any of the conidia types disarticulate. some are septate, but they all appear to hold their shape. if the spores seen here all begin as bananas in a bunch, so to speak, then I guess they’re not really helicosporus at all, since they’re not really coiled, but the limited two-dimensionality of the light microscope does make them look as such at first glance.

Because
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2016-03-31 11:02:11 EDT (-0400)

a provisional name, to lump similar/the same unknown species is FAR better then applying “Fungi sp”. This way, one can easily find “Blobus albus” if they need to.

Noah
By: Byrain
2016-03-31 09:46:47 EDT (-0400)

How are we supposed to have a provisional name when we do not even know if this is Ascomycota or Basidiomycota? Oh yea, we can’t.

Adolf
By: Byrain
2016-03-31 07:50:02 EDT (-0400)

Deleting name proposals so that other people’s votes are removed is really lame, stop being such a degenerate.

Yep….
By: Byrain
2016-03-19 00:35:47 EDT (-0400)

I guess Adolf is just unwilling to use the search function.

“Why would I have to use the search function?” -Adolf

myxomop: There is no point in adding functionality to MO when the person with the issue is not even willing to use the currently existing features that would work fine.

This observation is already easy to find with the search function.
By: Byrain
2016-03-18 23:54:22 EDT (-0400)

Its not the fault of MO that Adolf either cannot or will not use the search function and I would suggest everyone stop feeding his temper tantrums, they have been boring and tired for years already….

there is a sort of silliness
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-03-18 23:41:18 EDT (-0400)

in calling anything by any name when it isn’t yet or won’t ever be identified. there is no site functionality to grade, incentivize or sort by a given observation’s level of comprehensiveness. in the case of this observation, it is different in so many ways from others simply labelled Fungi, and maybe this is the source of some of the Ceskas’ frustration. of course it’s locatable by number, but I agree that there should be much more that MO does to set it apart by default. this should be tagged as having adequate photography, microscopy, drawings, a specimen, good notes, and therefore given special designation as a good candidate for “expert” review. it maybe should not have a name at all until such a time as that review has taken place, or at least none other than the original herbarium label.

MO is like a spreadsheet with too many rows and not enough columns. to the extent that this touches upon the frustrations expressed here, I empathize.

Provisional names that don’t mean anything.
By: Byrain
2016-03-18 22:35:42 EDT (-0400)

Are not useful.

i suspect
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-08-21 00:21:39 EDT (-0400)

the answer lies somewhere in here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3807740

but my understanding of hyphomycete glossary terms is insufficient to run either observation (or those in Noah’s link) through either the dichotomous or synoptic keys.

“grey gelatinous blobs”
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-02-02 23:54:14 EST (-0500)
Adolf
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-02-02 23:28:03 EST (-0500)

1. your editorial on the authority following the name Ascomycota would be better placed somewhere on the Ascomycota name page itself, preferably in the ‘Notes’ section. i proposed the name based on Oluna’s drawing. i don’t pretend to know which authority is correct, or why, nor did I enter any of this information personally.

2. there are conversations all over this website which have cropped up around posts for which there is no corresponding material. i started collecting them into a species list some months ago:

http://mushroomobserver.org/species_list/show_species_list/394.

they exist within observations for which corresponding physical specimens alternately do or do not exist, but that hardly matters. exsiccata is not a prerequisite to idea exchange. as you and Oluna are among the more knowledgeable contributors to this site, it is unfortunate that you do not share in this view.

it is also unfortunate that you resent amateurism on MO, seeing as mycology (much less this website) would not be where it is today without amateurism and the amateurish amateurs responsible for it. it is still less fortunate to read this from the hand of a non-professional mycologist, who could be said to be an amateur himself, as could his wife, depending on your definition.

i am not sure this is an ascomycetes…
By: Jonathan M
2014-02-02 15:27:39 EST (-0500)

I think this could be some sort of basidiomycetes, it a shame it is gone forever….

I recently saw a picture
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-04-25 19:06:01 EDT (-0400)

of something very, very similar which I can’t remember the name of. i’ve been systematically going through all the potential candidates in IndexFungorum’s list of genera beginning with ‘H’ with no luck so far…

why not L. compressa?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-09-07 23:57:32 EDT (-0400)
Agree with Nathan
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-05-22 02:24:02 EDT (-0400)

Don’t think it should be default. Most folks are not sensitive to the fact that there are differences in interpretation of genera depending on authority.

Dropping ‘sp.’ would be fine and appropriate.

Authors on higher level taxa are important
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2012-05-21 21:45:21 EDT (-0400)

I would like to understand from Adolf why “To put an authority after [Genus] sp. is nonsence [sic]”. I appreciate that it may not be conventional, but it has significant practical value and makes perfectly good sense in my opinion. The most common taxa with homonym problems are genera. This is a fact that I would be happy to illustrate with hundreds of examples. In addition, different authors can have different definitions of various higher level taxa. Providing the author can serve to disambiguate which definition intended if users are sophisticated enough to actually be aware of these distinctions.

I have not checked to see how many legitimate homonyms there are in the system and I would expect it to be small since the Fungi are only governed by various versions of the ICBN (or now the ICN as it’s known) and it is rare that people are even aware of the homonyms. However, I would point out that other computer-based systems such as Index Fungorum and MycoBank provide authors for higher level taxa to disambiguate homonyms. For example, look up the genus name Amanita in either of these systems.

A few other people have mentioned that the convention is not to list authorities for non-species taxa, but when I have explained my reasoning it has been sufficient to convince them of the value. What is the problem you have with it?

Similar the use of ‘sp.’ is unconventional, but I think reasonably clear and I don’t see a particular problem with it. Personally, I wouldn’t mind dropping the ‘sp.’ if that made folks happier since it serves no technical purpose (unlike providing the author), but I also don’t see it as harmful in anyway so spending the time to change it does not seem especially urgent. I also agree with Jason’s argument about leaving the taxa above genus plural.

No one other than Adolf seems to have this problem or is confused in anyway by what any of this means. I do have a problem with people intentionally breaking the system that is in place for no reasonably explained purpose. I’m OK with folks using the author field for sections until either Jason or I get around to cleaning that up because it serves a clear purpose. ‘Fungi sp. Charles Dickens’ does not.

Thanks to Jason for providing an option which may make Adolf’s experience more satisfying, but I refuse to make it the default.

Oluna & Adolf Ceska
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-05-21 18:40:49 EDT (-0400)

Just because it is followed by ‘sp.’ doesn’t mean Fungi is ranked as a genus. You’ll notice that every name is appended with that abbreviation. It’s meant to denote that the proposer believes the species pictured to be a member of a particular group, from genus to kingdom. Agaricales sp. should be read as a species within Agaricales.

This brings up an interesting point though; whether classifications broader than genus should have ‘sp.’ attached to them or simply be left alone. It may be misleading for people unfamiliar with what suffixes refer to what hierarchical levels seeing ‘sp.’ following every name proposal…

My two cents
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2012-05-21 17:20:26 EDT (-0400)

Note that names for all ranks above genus are plural (Xxxaceae, Xxxales, Xxxineae, Xxxmycotina, etc.) Why in the world would we make an exception for Fungi??

As regards authors, everyone – MO admins especially – will be pleased that there is now a user preference that tells MO to hide the offsensive authorities from you for genus and higher. Look under the “appearance” section in your Preferences page.

Agreed, but
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2012-05-21 14:17:21 EDT (-0400)

I think it should’ve been argued directly on the Fungi sp. name page.
Now we just have some really weird, oblique, even-less-sensical names.

I agree
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-05-21 13:21:44 EDT (-0400)

with “Fungus”!
It is a latin word, so “Fungus sp.” is OK too, which would be in harmony with “Lichen sp.”. I don’t think anyone have thought about naming a lichen “Lichens sp.”.

I haven’t thought about it before, but “fungi” in latin means discharge, so “Fungi sp.” makes no sense at all :-)

Oluna & Adolf
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2012-05-21 11:18:37 EDT (-0400)

OK, I’ll bite. A babylonian king, Dickens, and Mary Queen of Scots? It’s not April fools day and I know you do good science so please explain.

Created: 2011-03-30 01:47:33 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2016-06-07 01:50:33 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 2044 times, last viewed: 2016-11-22 14:29:43 EST (-0500)
Show Log