Observation 65527: Amanita porphyria Alb. & Schwein.
When: 2009-10-27
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Amanita brunnescens G.F. Atk.
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F27090 [as "Amanita brunnescens "]

Proposed Names

19% (7)
Eyes3
Recognized by sight: is that a dark gray annular remnant that I see??
porphyria seemes to be a more reasonable ID choice here.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Thanks Christian.
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-11-18 16:46:59 PST (-0800)

Noted.

Restoring my original votes.

The usefullness
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 16:32:37 PST (-0800)

of the A. brunnescens name on the tag, and the link to the original herbarium label are already preserved by Adolf’s commendable and consistent placement of that data in the Notes field (where as Adolf noted, no one else can change it).

It is just as easily located using the search instructions I posted below.

This allows the consensus name to vary so that what is clearly not the first record of A. brunnescens from the west coast (but rather a taxon much closer to A. porphyria as you note, Dave) does not have to appear as such.

Just a suggestion, Adolf…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-11-18 16:16:36 PST (-0800)

With materials I have sent to professional mycologists, the MO observation numbers have functioned as reference IDs for the collections. It’s both convenient and does not require the approval of Consensus to maintain the usefulness of the reference.

Although voting does occasionally devolve into the battle of “as if”, the many things I have learned here on MO far outweigh any such related frustration. Although not perfect, it’s a good system for debating fungal IDs.

Even though I doubt the mushroom seen here represents A. brunnescens, and probably does represent some species closer to A. porphyria, I shall adjust my vote in accordance with maintaining the usefulness of the “Amanita brunnescens” reference.

It is the LINK I am concerned with,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-18 15:39:10 PST (-0800)

the link between this MO observation and the herbarium specimen or the Observatory Hill 2010-2011 report. I am not criticizing your IDs, but rather the MO annotation procedures or the lack of them. Adolf

What I don’t understand
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 10:09:03 PST (-0800)

is why you would “prefer the name “Amanita brunnescens” since it stands up and does not get lost in among the Amanita porphyria observations.”

As far as I can tell, it should be in amongst the Amanita porphyria observations, since that is what it most resembles, and as pointed out earlier, A. brunnescens is not know to occur in the west.

What I don’t understand
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 10:08:58 PST (-0800)

is why you would “prefer the name “Amanita brunnescens” since it stands up and does not get lost in among the Amanita porphyria observations.”

As far as I can tell, it should be in amongst the Amanita porphyria observations, since that is what it most resembles, and as pointed out earlier, A. brunnescens is not know to occur in the west.

Taxonomy is not a childish game
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-18 09:29:09 PST (-0800)

but it cannot be based on MO photos alone. Thanks for your instructions on how to find the original name; I have a better way: I am punting the “Original Herbarium Label:” into Notes:, where only I can change it. For this particular observation, I prefer the name “Amanita brunnescens” since it stands up and does not get lost in among the Amanita porphyria observations. The name “Amanita brunnescens” also links the MO observation to the herbarium specimen as well as to our Observatory Hill write-ups.
I know that quite a few professional mycologists are using MO, some of them with a grain of salt. I greatly appreciate the interactive feature of MO, you alone helped us to catch some obvious misidentifications and mismatched photos. However, without changing the MO annotation rules, MO will remain a childish game.

Adolf
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-11-18 08:50:11 PST (-0800)

the specimen link is preserved. I sent you these instructions some time ago:

When searching for online representations of Oluna and Adolf Ceska’s collections on Mushroom Observer:
1. Click on advanced search link to the right of the search bar.
2. When it loads, type the species name of the specimen as it appears on the original label in the Content field (the fourth field).
3. Type "aceska@telus.net " (you can use autofill) in the Observer field (the second field).

If you want, you can add the location data in the third field.

Hit search, and look for the observation that matches the specimen.

This is exactly the same as a normal search, but you are entering the species name in the content field instead of the name field.

Professional mycologists and even advanced amateurs do not uniformly ignore MO. Many of them choose to use the wealth of data, images, and taxonomic insights contained here. If you choose to ignore it, so be it, but that’s your own loss.

The name changes reflected here simply reflect our attempts to identify your mushroom. If you think taxonomy is a childish game, I would agree with you, but it is the one we all appear to be playing…

Whatever this is
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-11-18 08:40:24 PST (-0800)

Whatever this is, it is unlikely that it is Amanita porphyria. Never mind, we would like to retain the link between the real specimen (that is waiting for accessioning in the UBC herbarium), our Observatory Hill reports – see page 15 in
http://www.goert.ca/...
and the corresponding MO observation.
We have been using MO as a virtual herbarium and we have been posting here all the jpegs etc. that should go with the real herbarium specimens. In real herbaria the change of name is being handled by annotations and nobody (not even “Consensus”) is allowed to scratch the original name (except the original author) and put their new ID there instead. This is one reason why the professional mycologists and advanced amateurs ignore Mushroom Observer, since they consider the MO name changes to be a childish game.
Never mind, I may sound like a broken record, but I hope you understand what I mean. We will have a second look at our herbarium specimen, but by that time, keep your hands of our MO label, please. Adolf

Seems unlikely…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2014-11-18 04:31:46 PST (-0800)

that much confidence applies to this weathered specimen on the basis of macro traits. But, in addition to the gray collapsed ring, the basal bulb also looks like porphyria.

A. brunnescens
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2011-04-15 06:48:54 PDT (-0700)

Amanita brunnescens is an eastern species, it seems rather unlikely that it occurs on the west coast, although anything is possible.

Created: 2011-04-15 00:45:31 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-02-16 16:03:38 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 351 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 23:14:53 PDT (-0700)
Show Log