A pair were growing among wood debris in Zone 45 (aspen, birch, maple, pine, fir).
|I’d Call It That||3.0||40.63||9||(CureCat,Noah,ham,...,...,...,...)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.98||1||(shroomydan)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.02||1||(Pulk)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
This observation is still getting votes, comments, and other activity after two full weeks!
I don’t know what’s up with them. :)
what a bunch of crotchety!
state of the ID debate on one of shroomydan’s recent observations? :)
Though I didn’t notice anyone saying “they were growing FROM WOOD, you DUMBASS” or equivalent …
“I have just as much a problem with being overly quick online as the next guy over.”
Perhaps we all do.
“And if someone does make a good response mixed with a mildly insulting statement it is totally up to you to take the good and let the bad roll off – I disagree that you have to respond with all you can muster.”
Well, for someone whose brains are pretty much his only asset “brainless” isn’t exactly what I’d call “mildly” insulting. And there’s a problem, as I pointed out, with accepting a statement that seems intended to derive such a thing as its conclusion.
“Anyway, apologies for unwarranted insults real or perceived.”
You, refreshingly, haven’t been the source of much in that regard, but thanks anyway.
its a good point that we should definitely strive for. I agree that the environment we’ve come to can be intimidating and I’m glad that you have stuck around, Paul, despite these occasional blowouts. I have just as much a problem with being overly quick online as the next guy over.
But you should at least take responsibility for the fact that you incited some of this response – people really are acting in good faith and reminding them to provide rationale or asking what caused them to propose another name can be done without accusing them of being contrary.
And if someone does make a good response mixed with a mildly insulting statement it is totally up to you to take the good and let the bad roll off – I disagree that you have to respond with all you can muster.
Anyway, apologies for unwarranted insults real or perceived.
“you of all people know this site can be harsh at times.”
That’s what I’m trying to correct. You seem to think it’s fine and dandy for people to behave that way, but it’s not. Certainly it’s not compatible with one of the site’s goals, that of attracting new users. How many people might have been deterred from posting at all, or “taken their ball and gone home” after a few observations, after deciding that some people here played too rough? I notice we haven’t heard from forestwander in a long time — his observations from Japan included some unique and interesting fungi. Did he just lose interest? Or could it be that he was (inadvertently) driven away?
As for conspiracy theories: I never said I believed any. In fact at least once I said I don’t. On the other hand I pointed out that some odd events seem at odds with more innocent explanations, but that I fully expected there to be an innocent explanation I was not aware of (e.g. for my being blasted after “following the crowd” — double standard? Or … what?)
I am sorry, I am sorry for saying “This one is a no-brainer”
Like you I get annoyed. I get annoyed that people disagree with my ID’s and I got annoyed by your comment “Have you two got an actual rationale for your voting patterns or do you just do it to be contrary?”
I looked at the thumbnails and ID’ed it, it’s one I have seen enough to throw the name on it and not even think twice.
At times I will say why I think it is what it is, but I didn’t in this case, in the future I will try to do so on your observations.
“orange stipe with twisting striations”
but something makes me doubt that we all missed the only two magic words ‘twisted stipe’ that would have helped you recognize a new mushroom.
I’m not saying you’re brainless – it’s obvious can identify some mushrooms, but having a little thicker skin ain’t a bad idea – you of all people know this site can be harsh at times.
If you don’t want to appear foolish, don’t construct implausible conspiracy theories.
“Noah gave you a great rundown on the characters. Rather than take them as good advice from someone who is really knowledgeable about macrofungi of the Northeast, you made quibbling arguments about woody debris.”
First of all, he gave a rundown on the characters while suggesting I was “brainless”. That means I have to read his comment as an argument against my person and respond with as strong a defense as I can muster, since if I instead simply accede to whatever else he says, that would mean acceding to the implicit conclusion as well — and thus I’d be telling everyone “hey, guess what, I’m brainless!” That, obviously, would not be a very good idea.
So, if Noah wanted me to consider his argument carefully, he’d certainly have to phrase it in such a manner that it wasn’t a premise from which he was deriving such a conclusion!
At the same time, it actually was the case that most of what he mentioned was equivocal in regards to the observation at issue. The part he left out, and which apparently does clinch the ID, is the stipe.
“You cast aspersions long before anyone called you brainless: do you have any actual rationale or are you just being contrary…?”
Voting down a proposed ID without any explanation is at least as much an “aspersion” as suggesting the mere possibility that someone is being contrary, particularly when that someone has on several past occasions seemingly done something purely to be argumentative. The votes made were quite strong, and thus could be argued to carry an implication not much less severe than “brainless” regarding whoever might vote a different way.
Regardless, I don’t particularly like being contradicted without explanation, particularly in public. It creates the public appearance that I’m foolish in some manner, for one thing, if I’m constantly being overridden, and if those doing so don’t feel that any explanation is warranted. Debate and argument are preferable to just saying “No, it isn’t, it’s this instead”, which is merely gainsaying whatever the other person said without supporting it. The least he could have done is propose Inocephalus with “recognized by sight” checked and “twisted stipe” in the little box — I’d have probably dropped the matter right then and there if there was a clear and specific argument for that ID that I could check.
Nice photos Twizzlers. It’s clear from the photos that you have some salmon unicorn entolomas. Nice find.
Noah gave you a great rundown on the characters. Rather than take them as good advice from someone who is really knowledgeable about macrofungi of the Northeast, you made quibbling arguments about woody debris.
You cast aspersions long before anyone called you brainless:
“do you have any actual rationale or are you just being contrary…?” Yeah, that was the first stone thrown.
Here is a field photo of the marginate gills http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/150216?q=6oyw&size=huge. In the specimens of Mycena leaiana i have observed it is very distinctive – im sure this is not always the case.
“you were resistant to good advice” — where? At first, all I saw was an unexplained vote against a name, with no rationale.
“casting aspersions” — stones, glass houses, etc. would seem to apply. In particular, I was called “brainless” by someone and “clueless” by another one before I cast anything even remotely resembling an aspersion myself.
“you were wrong” — I am not supposed to be. If I am ever wrong, then I did something I should have known better than to do, so either I did know better but did it anyway (but that never happens), or I didn’t know better, though I should have, which means someone else apparently didn’t tell me some information I was apparently expected to know (in which case I am not at fault). I therefore am never at fault, and should therefore never be subjected to punishment, ridicule, or similarly negative feedback; such things should be reserved exclusively for people that do something despite knowing that they shouldn’t. If I ever am observed doing something that you think I shouldn’t do, then either a) you’re wrong or b) I didn’t have the information. In neither case is it appropriate to act hostilely towards me.
Now I shall repeat a salient point from my previous comment that seems not to have gotten noticed: People posted frequent observations of very similar looking things, consistently naming them one name, on this site over a time and then blasted me the moment I saw something very similar looking and proposed the same name. I have the distinct notion based on this (though, no proof) that I’ve been treated unfairly in some manner — since I copied other people, but got treated differently than they did for doing the same thing, it sure feels like some kind of double standard is being applied. If that’s not actually the case, and I actually don’t really believe it is, I’d very much like to know why it sure looks like it is!
you were resistant to good advice. Also, a thicker skin can be useful when you start casting (ultraparanoid and wildly narcissistic) aspersions on people’s reasons for proposing an alternative name. Here’s the reason:
You were wrong.
To think that people are taking time to trick you is just… way, way, way out there. But you may have given some of the less-judicious trolls a new hobby.
Christian: if no one knows them in advance, then why was I subjected to namecalling and other unpleasantness? That suggests that people consider me to have done something wrong. Yet you seem to think that I could not have avoided this, save by having information that only seems to be encountered by a user of this site alongside the selfsame rude behavior. (Certainly none of the widely available field guides has Inocephalus quadratus in it, or Inocephalus at all — in fact, they don’t seem to have Mycena leaiana either.)
That seems to be a contradiction. And I’m not liking the distinct feeling I’m having that people set me up or tricked me in some way, with frequent observations of very similar looking things consistently named one thing appearing on this site over a time and then blasting me the moment I see something very similar looking and propose the same name. I have the distinct notion based on this (though, no proof) that I’ve been treated unfairly in some manner. (And it’s not clear how exactly someone could have set me up in such a manner. If there are indeed two similar-looking species widespread in the northeast, then I should have encountered a smattering of observations of both instead of lots and lots of only one when checking up on the site. So, someone would have to have been stacking the deck? Which, if true, would be disturbing, as it would mean that either the observations I’ve seen have been biased, or some have been misnamed. On the other hand, what other explanation is there for my having had such an experience, aside from extreme bad luck?)
Alan: if you weren’t trying to be helpful then you should not have commented on my observation. I note further implied insults and other unhelpful material in your newest comment. I suggest that if you don’t have anything constructive to contribute here then you should go browse some other observations, or do something else entirely.
Twizzler – you don’t have to know them in advance. Taking the detailed advice that Noah and others have offered sincerely goes a long way towards learning them.
“Alan: comments like that are not helpful.”
I wasn’t trying to be helpful. I was attempting to smack you on your head with a clue hammer. Appears to have worked. Sort of.
Ham: Ah, okay then. If that stipe is clearly diagnostic, then I guess it’s Inocephalus. Though I would like to know how I was supposed to have known that in advance.
vjp: A magnified image under soft, even lighting makes it much clearer than it could ever likely be in a field-taken photo.
Here is a picture of the marginate gills of Mycena leaiana
Twisted striations. M.leaiana don’t have that. Spore print would be the super clinch. Looks like Inocephalus quadratus to me Paul.
On the one hand, the Mycena observations on this site mostly seem rounder. On the other hand, the Inocephalus ones mostly seem pointier, narrowly conical in most cases. Everything else seems equivocal as well: habitat (wood debris plus leaf litter so they could be growing from either), "marginate"ness of the gills (lighting in the last photograph makes that hard to determine), etc.
Now, either there’s something else that clinches it or the votes represent ganging-up more than they represent anything meaningful. If there is something else that clinches it, I’m all ears. The stipe, perhaps?
else for the definition. The gill edges here sometimes look darker, sometimes lighter depending on the angle of the gill to the light. So it’s hard to be sure whether they’re truly darker, lighter, or the same.
Alan: comments like that are not helpful.
marginate means having a margin, and the term is mostly (but in my opinion wrongly) used to indicate that the margin (more correctly the edge) of the lamellae have a different colour than the sides of the lamellae.
You are either a successful troll or nearly blind. Probably both.
what you mean by “marginate”. You emphasized that, as if considering it to have particular importance, but did not bother to define it.
As for habitat, these mushrooms were growing among small pieces of wood; it’s unclear whether they’re arising from wood or from litter. Both seem possible.
I am finding the tendency of some people here towards being insulting to be problematic. Calling your proposed ID a “no brainer” amounts to calling anyone who thinks or ever thought it might be anything else brainless, in particular. There’s no call for such namecalling; even if you genuinely do hold the opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is brainless, there’s a difference between merely holding that opinion and using this site as a platform for loudly and publicly expressing that opinion.
The fact remains that the mushrooms in this observation bear a strong resemblance to ones identified on this site as the Mycena. Perhaps they’re nonetheless not that species, but that does not make anybody brainless.
And that last photo is a Nolanea, is it not?
Come on Paul…
This one is a no-brainer.
Orange conic-umbonate cap, orange gills, orange stipe with twisting striations and a whitish base and growing in leaf litter.
Mycena leaiana has an hemispheric to convex cap that is bright orange, viscid and translucent striate when young, fading to pale orange, sun or rain bleached specimens can be whitish. The gills are bright orange and marginate; the edges are blood-red to dark orange. The stipe is slender, covered with bright orange granules and can be almost translucent, (similar to some Glilophorus)
It also grows in clusters on wood, almost always beech.
I didn’t vote “As If!” on your proposal to be nice, not because I thought it had ANY possibility of being M. leaiana
and my rationale is based on comparing online images and descriptions with what you have posted here.
take it easy man
that sharp umbo…….or a depressed one…..caught my eye.
or do you just do it to be contrary?
Created: 2011-09-06 21:04:09 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-05-24 08:09:27 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 539 times, last viewed: 2017-09-17 08:33:21 PDT (-0700)