|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||6.32||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
that the documentations are great! They make the obses worth while to look closer at..
And thanks for the reference to the Code! C. variicolor is correct according to the rules, but I still don’t like the fiddling with old original names..
but Oluna’s fine illustrations are ALWAYS a delight to see!
We agree that this collection needs another look and we will send our Cortinarius collection(s) to the Cortinarius specialist. However, as the name might indicate, the colour of individuals of this species varies and the size of the spores is well within the range given in Breitenbach (Fungi of Switzerland).
Whoever changed “variecolor” into “variicolor” followed the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Article 60.8 and Recommendation 60G1. According the Article 61.4 these orthographic variants are “to be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form,” hence there is no change in the author(s) of the corrected name.
what this is, but it’s not Cortinarius variecolor. Too pale stem, the cap is too pale after the blue has faded, the spores too small etc..
And I must ask again, why the falsification of Persoon’s and Fries’ original naming – Cortinarius variecolor? None of them described any “variicolor”.
I know that both Mycobank and IndexFungorum use variicolor, but I haven’t seen an explanation.
In my opinion, if someone claims that it should be spelled differently, then that person’s name should also stand as author!
Created: 2012-01-04 01:16:03 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2013-05-16 20:17:52 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 92 times, last viewed: 2017-06-10 08:00:27 CDT (-0400)