Notes: Looks like A. volvata or A. pseudovolvata, but a ring may be observed on the stipe of the larger specimen. This ring was very fragile and disappeared as the mushroom was handled. When the smaller one opened up (while drying in my attic) a ring showed on this stipe, as well.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.70||2||(Dave W)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I wouldn’t worry about that. I think it’s too fine a point to try to make the voting percentage come out to be close my informal comment about my own feeling of my own personal accuracy with regard to ameidellas. The MO is percent is about a collective vote result rather than an approximation of one person’s view on the possibility of field ID. Two different things altogether in my judgment.
By the way, thanks for the dried material you delivered to Cristina and I at NEMF. We’re happy to have it.
I just updated the proposal % by clicking “I’d call it that” before reading Rod’s latest comment. Would it be a good idea to repost the “Amidella” designation?
The materials are dried and now available.
that they are so doggone similar…and the small ones can sometimes be big…and the big ones can sometimes be small…and…
I don’t think I get more than 75% of field IDs correct (including this ID from a photo)…after a goodly bit more than 30 years of trying…sometimes trying rather hard.
…for that quick guide to telling the eastern amidellas apart, Rod. You are a treasured resource.
Created: 2011-08-15 04:52:46 CEST (+0200)
Last modified: 2011-08-15 17:59:37 CEST (+0200)
Viewed: 72 times, last viewed: 2017-02-04 15:23:57 CET (+0100)