Observation 6540: Cerioporus varius (Pers.) Zmitr. & Kovalenko

Proposed Names

8% (8)
Eye3
Recognized by sight
38% (9)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: Current name according to Index Fungorum

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
what’s really amazing to me …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-20 20:40:16 CDT (-0400)

is that there are over 500 views to this page!!!, whaddya think, in the last couple of days? It’s not like people are all hot for Hinton polypores or one of Mike’s fab photos! Is it the humanity loves a train wreck syndrome?!

Hey Mike, your best post ever, popularity wise! How ironic that it didn’t have a photo.

OK oK, I’m leaving, but not quietly.

gosh …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-06-20 19:35:10 CDT (-0400)

since I am getting trashed by number (!) on the MO Facebook page for being on one side of this long-standing argument, one that I have only just entered into, I thought I should surely post to this ridiculous, long-winded, brand new argument!

plus, one of my fave posters. right up there with “Psycho” Bojantchev (to borrow HIS phrase about me!), altho he never really posted here, just criticized others posts.

so lets see, if someone disagrees with your point of view, they are therefore a psycho? wow, who knew?

I read Igor’s original post. I thought it was funny! but i guess humor is such an individual thing. why not ban humor here too, while we’re at it? too easy to get your feeling s hurt.

We all seem to have a bee on our bonnets over this topic. but opinions are like assholes (to paraphrase from Mike) … everyone has ’em!

yeah, imageless obsies are of limited use. yes, it was probably properly IDed by someone or another at NAMA. the saving grace here is a specimen … if you really want to argue this ID, request it! the reason that a PHOTO is helpful, is that one can look at the photo and then make a reasonable call. Even NAMA IDs can be wrong. without the data here, who knows, really? or are we saying that NAMA identifiers never make mistakes?

Yes, it is great that NAMA is starting to put up photo observations here. Most of the NAMA obsies that Mike put up here did have photos, altho he probably should have credited them to NAMA, not himself, just like other NAMA photo posters did.

But whatever, small potatoes.

AS adults, we should be able to work this out ourselves. That means talking to each other and not running to some authority figure any time our feelings get hurt. No one is innocent in this game, and everyone has something to contribute.

Some of us have strong voices: that includes Mike and Dimitar and I. We don’t always carefully watch our words, and we all speak our minds, which makes it especially amusing to me to see them all fluttery and blustery over a bit of conflict here (see the MO Facebook page recent flurry).

AS you sling, so shall it be slung back, or something.

No MO isn’t dead. If you want it to keep on living Mike, contribute here, and help make it even better! We’d love to see and hell even file share some of your real mushroom photos. NAMA voucher photos are kind of … not so pretty? But certainly useful, when they get posted with an observation.

Remember, not only is MO a repository of sightings, but it is also a place to share information, learn from other experts who aren’t ourselves and even borrow great photos, with attribution. You used to be pretty good about sharing your work, Mike. But whatever, your work, your call.

Options 1: Ignore the BS and steady as she goes. Photo free obsies are less valuable than ones with photos. who can argue honestly that is not true? Hell, I want more, way more, than most obsies here, even ones with photos, but I gotta live with what I have.

2. Post whatever the freak you want, and let those chips fall. But here on MO, you might get some flack from others who disagree. No one in authority is taking down these photo free obsies (other than maybe the original posters, in a huff), so go ahead, post a list, with nary a bone to throw to your colleagues who really would like to see that obsie photo depicted here.

But in a free country and a free discussion, we don’t have to like it, any more than you have to post it.

If you want to work in a vacuum, write a book, and hope no one reviews it!

Viess out.

Yes, you were addressing me and everyone else by posting on here.
By: P. Hill (phill)
2016-06-18 05:00:45 CDT (-0400)

Apparently you show us again how we are supposed to do it the “professional way”. I don’t take directions from you about whether I should comment or not.

Based on your “logic” Michael W. wasn’t “talking to you”, so you should have kept your opinions to yourself. You left a general comment FOR EVERYONE TO READ with your sarcastic comments on this photoless entry and then continued to post about it.

If you wanted to it take up it with Christian or Michael you could take it offline, but no, you post in the observation as if your opinion matters to the world or at least everyone who’d come to this observation. Everyone can and should reply to you and call you out for your ridiculous and unsociable behavior.

The site owners and many who make such entries agree there is a place for photoless observations. Why don’t you stop being the site policeman and let them be. Yes, Please keep your promise and stop “wasting your time” with such busy-body comments in the name of your personal definition of a good field observation.

To P. Hill
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-18 03:14:44 CDT (-0400)

Ravings of a nutjob – that’s my impression of your drivel. Besides, I wasn’t even talking to you to begin with, so go away.

But whatever you do
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-06-18 02:04:57 CDT (-0400)

Please keep your promise, Igor:
“I don’t need to waste more of my time on the topic of imageless obsies.”

Hallelujah!

Suggestions from who? No one!
By: P. Hill (phill)
2016-06-18 02:03:24 CDT (-0400)

Waste time? What in the world? You post ridiculous remarks because you, not the owner of the of the site want photos with observations

“Refrain from giving others courtesy lessons — this is not your area of expertise”
“This gang is yanking your chain”

From a guy who has started this whole waste of time with
“What a remarkably useful observation. I cannot take my eyes off it. I am learning so much from it already … etc. etc.”

I won’t be taking lesson from you on how to be professional. Oh he didn’t actually provide a real bibliographic reference. Ohhhh, we should be offended when you personally attack and talk down to people. Sorry, you are last person to be giving anyone advise.

You have demonstrated you are one who gets to “yank peoples chain”, “make it personal” by talking down to Christian. You seem to be delusional.

The issue is your posting unprofessional comments all, because there is not a photo. Go cry yourself to sleep, or build yourself your own site. Don’t quit your day job. Your editorializing on observations without photos are meaningless, and have no place on this site.

Alan,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-17 23:37:01 CDT (-0400)

I’ve been patient and understanding on this issue long enough. I even suggested a simple solution to remedy the situation with this particular obsie (posting a picture of the dried specimen that was recently added to this observation), but to no avail. That’s fine – I don’t need to waste more of my time on the topic of imageless obsies. As far as I am concerned, this emperor never had any clothes on.
However, judging from your last post, I am somehow left with a feeling that you made this whole thing somewhat personal, and I don’t think it’s really cool. So, here are a few friendly suggestions, Alan:
1) Learn to call people by their actual names, not how you want to call them. Hint: you do know who I am.
2) Refrain from giving others courtesy lessons — this is not your area of expertise
3) Reference scientific papers by the authors’ names, i.e., Smith et al., not by the nationality/ethnicity of the authors

There is an image somewhere
By: John Plischke (John Plischke)
2016-06-17 20:39:41 CDT (-0400)
If I remember correctly there is an image of it somewhere and there is a voucher. I believe Mike, Noah and I took photos of all the mushrooms that came in there in Alberta at the NAMA foray. What bothers me about this is that a huge percentage of the mushrooms that came in at the display never made it out to the display. Some of the NAMA people on here have recently complained If it does not have a photo basically the report of it is garbage. What are we supposed to take from the foray. If it was not out on display The collector could not see what they found when it was identified and learn from it. If it was not out on display at the foray and no one that paid good money to come to the foray to learn mushrooms and the people there could not learn from it there. What does that say about the value of the foray. If there was a voucher but no one could see it……. The last several years I was so happy to see NAMA photos up here on MO. What about the rest of the many years that NAMA photos were taken and we can not see. I will check to see if I have a photo of it from the foray and if so I will post it.
Ivan
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-06-17 20:23:20 CDT (-0400)

I appreciate your courtesy to others, that is really cool.

I just think that courtesy to others should extend to ignoring MO observations that you don’t find convincing.

It’s a personal decision which data to accept – but when I am mapping the distribution of a species, if Christian Schwarz or Byrain or Noah Siegel said they found that species in a certain place, I want it to show up on the map.

If it shows up in some crazy place that I wouldn’t expect, i’d vote it down and propose something ending in sensu lato.

But that’s not the case here. Experienced people said that they saw Polyporus varius. I believe them, however I think that it should be called Cerioporus varius due to the recent Russian paper.

Watchcat,
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-17 20:14:13 CDT (-0400)

I keep what’s useful only to me to myself. I don’t pollute a public database with my junk just because it’s convenient to me. Haven’t you heard of courtesy to others? Apparently not.

Mr. Safonov,
By: Jon (watchcat)
2016-06-17 20:04:55 CDT (-0400)

Imageless obs and species lists are valuable to the creator, as you say. Isn’t that enough and why can’t those who don’t find them useful just ignore that set? I don’t get it.

Byrain
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-17 19:22:18 CDT (-0400)

Don’t get emotional here and don’t waste your energy. This gang is yanking your chain; it’s a provocation, pure and simple. They want to get you off balance and use it against you. You, I et al. know that these imageless observations are as useful as tits on a bull. Same goes for species lists; these are of value only to those who created them. Getting rid off these nil-value posts, making them forbidden on MO, like they are on bugguide.net, will take some doing, but it probably can be done. Will MO benefit from it? Absolutely. You will just have to decided if it’s worth your time and effort fighting the opposition as well as the prevailing inertia of the MO community.

What the hell is wrong with me:
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-06-17 18:52:56 CDT (-0400)

I want to make observations without images.

End.

That’s all.

This makes me a “dishonorable” “tard” with “no self-respect”
- Byrain

PS – I mean put this site out of its misery by moderating effectively.
The site is already mirrored, but thanks for another one, I guess.

“please put this site out of its misery” – Christian Schwarz
By: Byrain
2016-06-17 18:26:09 CDT (-0400)

What the hell Christian? Are so butthurt that someone does not agree with you that you would advocate throwing away everything we have accomplished here? Seriously what the hell is wrong with you? Stop being such a tard already, you were much nicer the first time we met.

Luckily since this site is free software and fully available on github your wish will never be granted. I’m going to clone the entire repo right now and add a update script to cronjob so that it will always be mirrored somewhere.

For the sake of preservation here is a simple shell script that will cd to a directory containing the MO git repos (You will have to clone them yourself) and then pull each one if there are any new updates.

#!/bin/sh

MO=~/web/stuff/Mycology/MushroomObserver

for i in $MO/{mushroom-observer,developer-startup,thrash-me,developer-build,config-script,chef-mushroomobserver,taxoneval,mo-chef}; do
cd $i
if [ $(git rev-parse HEAD) != $(git ls-remote $(git rev-parse —abbrev-ref@{u} \
| sed ‘s/\// /g’) | cut -f1) ]; then
git pull >> ~/.git.log
fi
done

Summary of Mushroom Observer
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2016-06-17 17:59:26 CDT (-0400)

YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
[site creators/administrators affirm YES]
…momentary pause…
Byrain: … NO.
Community: please put this site out of its misery

No.
By: Byrain
2016-06-17 17:56:22 CDT (-0400)

This database belongs to all of us.

Neither Photo nor material is required, please stop the snarky comments
By: P. Hill (phill)
2016-06-17 17:00:46 CDT (-0400)

There is no rule in MO that says all records on the site must be backed by a photo or dried material, nor does the poster have to listen to another MO user about what they should add to an observation.

The observations weren’t put here for Alan, I.G., Byrain, me, or anyone else, they were put here by those who put them here as a record of what they observed. That has its uses. I’ve seen many a species list from a foray created over the years, before and since the existence of MO.
That IS a permissible use of MO.

Of course, there are many things others can NOT do with such an observation, but really, if you don’t like particular style of use that is your problem to deal with not the original observer.

If dried material does not exist
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-06-17 16:18:29 CDT (-0400)

It’s still a valid observation.

What’s the problem?
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-17 15:57:39 CDT (-0400)

If dried material for this collection indeed exists, take a picture of it and post on MO. Then we wouldn’t have to call this obs “Imageless”.

Who cares?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-06-17 15:57:01 CDT (-0400)

It was still there.

Because none of use have seen or studied it.
By: Byrain
2016-06-17 15:54:49 CDT (-0400)

This is not a matter of trust, please stop trying to make it so. Thanks. :)

Why not change names on imageless observations?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-06-17 15:49:47 CDT (-0400)

They are almost as valid as imaged observations. And I trust Mike Wood – if he says he saw Polyporus varius, he probably actually saw Cerioporus varius. That’s my guess anyway.

I don’t think…
By: Byrain
2016-06-17 09:10:45 CDT (-0400)

Proposing new taxa for imageless observations is a good idea, sure I have been guilty of this in the past too…

Byrain
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-06-17 08:46:10 CDT (-0400)

Why don’t you think this is Cerioporus varius?

On second thought…
By: Byrain
2016-06-17 07:53:05 CDT (-0400)

There is a specimen for this?

Can someone pull it out and photograph it?

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-06-17 00:19:51 CDT (-0400)

What a remarkably useful observation. I cannot take my eyes off it. I am learning so much from it already that I must have it bookmarked at the top of my list for future reference. And look, there even exists a diligently collected sample from a precisely defined location, to go along with a breathtaking, award-winning image of the polypore bearing an up-to-date scientific name.

Created: 2008-02-06 20:42:06 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2016-07-29 13:28:35 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 575 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 06:29:25 CDT (-0400)
Show Log