Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Rhodocybe mundula (Lasch) Singer
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F31829
|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||4.83||1||(Pulk)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.22||1||(firstname.lastname@example.org)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
without having a closer look at the original collection. Mind you, this is just a tip of the iceberg, since Oluna has 12 more specimens labelled Rhodocybe mundula in the UBC herbarium. They should be also investigated. Herbarium practices have quite a few ways to express the uncertainty of identification (?, cf., affin., resembling?, etc.), but none of these would be allowed in MO.
Has crowded decurrent to sub decurrent gills and a cracked cap. Not striate.
Davide – if you scroll down through the comments that the suggestion that this is not Clitocella mundula has been made. I still think that this is a Tephrocybe species.
Davide asks a valuable learning question. The striated cap is very unusual. I also think that the lack of a cracked cap is unusual. I just would like to know how often you see this. I never have. Like Davide being very respectful and not voting for anything else just as you asked. Just wanting to gain a better understanding of this species,
I just wanted to know what lead you to this ID since the one you posted is an highly striated one.Nevermind.
Anyway i didn’t vote for anything and didn’t change anything about this observation because you seem to hate that and i promised you to not vote . Control yourself.
I don’t think accusing people with your prejudices is a good idea.
I know what the Moser and the Breitembach are and i think they are very good books for Europe.
In her specimen documentation, Oluna puts the literature used for identification an the brackets behind the name. This way she can go back if there are any doubts about her original ID. In this particular case, “(Swiss p. 166, Moser p. 195)” means that she used the “Swiss book” and the “Moser” for ID. Many times, those abbreviations are just notes that only Oluna understands (“Jim” = Jim Ginns, “Ian” = Ian Gibson; etc.). Pay no attention to them.
I noticed that you changed the MO observation name to Agaricales. There is a glitch in MO and you fell into that trap. If you do not agree with another user’s ID, you should tell them that in a Comment. In the collection data processing, such comments are called “Annotations”. The Annotations have a special format: you should offer the alternative name, supporting information (reason for the change, pertinent literature), your name and the date. There are several symbols used in Annotations, such as ! stands for conformation, ? expresses the doubt, = offers more current name, etc. After that, leave it at the original user to check the supporting specimen and correct the ID. You have to realize that the change has to be made not only on the MO observation, but also on the specimen’s label, and in the collecting notes and lists. With Annotations the life would be much simpler, otherwise we really don’t know why you would have to tell us that this is Agaricales.
You wrote “swiss p.116” in your drawing and it is the exact page of the description of R.mundula in that book. what a coincidence.
You refer to your own drawing of the species?
I mean that i want to know why this is labeled under that name, if it is possible.
and don’t know what you wanted to say. What do you mean by our conclusion? If we referred to an image, we had this one in mind:
Have we ever mentioned Champignons de Suisse here?
To determine where your species belongs you probably don’t need those three primers – for a first try you can just use ITS.
if you want to make a good solid phylogeny, yes, different markers (pieces of DNA) are a must, but for identification purposes for most agarics ITS will suffice.
for this reference. In the UBC herbariums there are 14 collections of “Rhodocybe mundula” and 13 of them are Oluna’s. It is a pity that the article did not include them, when the authors did not have too much from the west coast of NA. It is also interesting that the authors questioned synonymising of Rhodocybe mutabilis with R. popinalis. The authors used three different primers and I will ask he UBC people if those primers would be available there.
It should be possible to download the full version from the above link and includes a key to the different possible genera. It makes me wish we had more details on the ornamentation and basidiospore wall thickness.
How often do you find them with the non cracked caps vs having cracked caps? I like your photos. The caps are so different than when I find it. I will have to keep my eye open perhaps I am overlooking them when they look like this.
we would like to keep our herbarium labels, MO observation names, and the names in our collecting notes in tune, i.e, the same. Byrain, pulk, and other mycologists can change the MO observation names, but not the names on all the other our places. The “Original Herbarium Label:” feature was added by us (Oluna and I) that we would not lose the link between our MO observations and our voucher specimens.
Interactive ID is a great feature of MO, but it should be done by notes (in the herbarium practices such notes are called “annotations”) and not by crossing out the name and replacing it with the new suggestion.
In MO observations supported by herbarium voucher specimens it is the original users who should get name changing privileges.
I think this is an argument on semantics? The problem here is that Adolf wants a “label” for the collection, that is a solid link to the hebarium, and naming of the collections goes into comments. What Byrain is saying is that the “label” goes in the notes, where it doesn’t change, and no one else will effect the given “label” for the collection. The “names” here are proposed names for the collection, and proposals can change. The proposal features, are just comments on the collection.
Would it solve things, and separate the semantics of what is needed, to put in a separate field called “label” where you put a name for the collection, that does not change? And then have the proposed names be comments on the collection like there are now?
A given “label” with a name that the poster sets and no one else can change, and this is linked to the herbarium collection, and the labels there.
A proposed name and contribution system, where other people can comment and propose names for the collection.
Two separate things.
I don’t take it from you, but make your suggestions in the Comments, not by changing the original MO names. Leave that on the particular user. Over 3000 MO users know that this MO observation is a mushroom (Fungi Bartl., I mean), and only few of you think that we don’t know it. MO “naming” is a citizen science, few drops of ad hoc identifications combined with a lot of nomenclature. On the other hand, it is a great touch stone of the MO users’knowledge and professionality. Have you noticed that the professional mycologists, who are lurking in MO, are not using this game?
Get over it.
You keep properly filling the notes field like this:
“Notes: Original Herbarium Label: Rhodocybe mundula (Lasch) Singer
Herbarium Specimen: UBC F31829"
This will always be linked to the supporting specimen no matter what you or the community decides to label this observation.
Here, click “Advanced Search” at the top of the page and then enter “Rhodocybe mundula (Lasch) Singer” in the “Content” field. You will find this observation along with one other.
Now lets try that one more time, go to “Advanced Search” again, enter “UBC F31829” into the “Content” field this time. You will find only this observation.
I hope if we continue to explain this to you over and over again you will finally understand? The observation name field should not be used for keeping track of observations and will probably never be ideal for such a task. You have other more useful tools at your disposal, please use them!
Yes, Rhodocybe mundula indeed belongs to the Agaricales sensu lato. (Why do you have to tell us this, and why sensu lato?) Please, don’t change our observation names without examining the supporting herbarium specimens. The herbarium contact is in our MO profile! Many thanks, A. & O.
i was wondering whether this could be a Tephrocybe with ornamented spores. Did you test for siderophilous basidia?
The photo here doesn’t look much like Rhodocybe popinalis…
Created: 2011-05-23 07:55:28 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2016-06-16 06:17:09 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 401 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 01:56:48 CEST (+0200)