|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.36||1||(paducahovoids)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.91||1||(bloodworm)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||15.56||3||(Byrain,Dave W,Mycowalt)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I think that stops all notifications, but I’ll follow your advice. thanks
You can change the option to receive emails on observations you commented on in the preferences link on the left. I’m not sure if you can do this with individual observations, that would be a good idea I think. You can suggest it with the “Send a Comment” link if you want.
however i don’t see the mushroom as the controversy here. And, since I proposed a name and made comments in this observation, I get the updates with all the new awful comments in my inbox. Even after I deleted my comment.
Lets get back to the mushrooms, there are better places to continue this terribly uninteresting drama.
paducahovoids, please let us know if you find out anything more and it’d be great if you could save specimens like this in the future so more work can be done, both microscopically and with DNA. :)
Macro information for difficult groups like this can only take us so far.
Riverdweller, that’s a horrible idea, we shouldn’t censor controversial things just because someone doesn’t like how it looks. If something bugs you so much, you are free to not view it. No one is imposing this observation on you. :)
that makes for a good candidate for the community to be able to delete. It’s gross.
i mean abusers of drugs. hallucinogens are tools, IMO, foe expanding ones consciousness. i suggest you try some, i would estimate over 75% of serious mycologists have tried it at least once. i think a mycologist owes it to himself to have personal experience in the area, especially if one plans to advise others on the subject.
where is this “most comprehensive guide”? i’d love to have a look. what’s it a most comprehensive guide to? Honestly, when i looked at your observations, i see that in over half, the consensus has voted down your identification, and proposed a more likely candidate. Of those left, the majority don’t even have a single comment or vote, leading me to believe they haven’t been critiqued.
Based on this, I doubt you are qualified to write anything definitive on the subject of mycology, unless maybe it is a guide to performing “mycroscopy”
certainly not a field guide. how many specimens in the underwoodii/validipes clade have you scoped?
I also have studied mycology for 5 years, and I don’t think i’m ready to write “the most comprehensive guide online”. I’m not here to build a reputation, I’m here to build a knowledge base.
2 byrain, certainly more work needs done, but vhis link is the preliminary dna result…i wonder what I can find out by blast comparison? maybe I’ll look into that now
“promising and doubtful? I can understand though, i imagine you are another shroomery kid, and you hope to look cool to your little buddies :)
did you know walt sturgeon gets paid to identify mushrooms @ oms? it’s all good, i’ll continue to believe my own eyes/tastebuds/experiences/references and experts, and continue to disregard the druggie kids uneducated guesses”
You cant possibly call me a druggy when I have never taken tryptamine alkaloids before. I have also written one of the most, if not the most comprehensive guide online and am co authoring a book right now with a very renown mycologist, I have over 5 years of education with mycology and have even performed microscopies on a broad range of Gymnopilus including many form the Gymnopilus spectabilis-imperialis group.
You know nothing about me and what I do, according to your statements you are more of a druggie than I. I love the people at the shroomery in the MH&I forum, they are kind, helpful, and willing to learn. Their aren’t many oblivious, rude, and ignorant people there. I agree with what my friends say because they are right. I dont know what you are trying to prove… your just building a terrible reputation for yourself…
Cool article, although reading it certainly doesn’t make me think this has been sorted out with DNA yet. Sounds like a lot more work needs to be done.
a variety of G. junonius, or a species in it’s own right seems like an open question to me. Has this all ben sorted out with DNA? Otherwise, sounds like splitters vs. lumpers.
We have two proposals here, with either one supportable by good arguments, and seemingly no other reasonable proposal.
but there is no other spelling @ dude either, i’m blooworming it ;0
the use of a microscope in the science of mycology; to veiw mycological details under a microscope
I realized my initial identification of the fungus was incorrect when i performed mycroscopy on the specimen.
i added it to the urban dictionary just now :)
*mycroscopy-the mycological use of a microscope
i have nothing more to say to you.
you have said enough.
implies a lacking knowledge or education. you abuse the vocabulary. I believe my persistence is appropriate. these specimens have all the trademarks, no distictive smell, occuranc only in the fall, not the spring or summer. your observation comments imply that nearly every gymnopilus out there is a junionius. every person who posts one is asked to prove it’s not. Common sense would show with all of the possible species in the genus, it is more likely that many are not.
your ignorance and persistance that every person has to prove their gymnopilus observation isn’t a junionius is really unbecoming. as previously mentioned scoping these specimens would have likely proved nothing, and i went with the discerning features the experts suggested to come to my conclusion.
i didn’t realize i needed to continually posses an illegal substance just to satisfy your criferia, before someone empowered you by giving you a ‘badge’, no one was disagreeing. 100’s of people on this site looked at it and apparently agreed.
jusf remember, when no one argues with your mycological work, if’s not because you are correct if’s because they don’f have time or desire to pour over 1000 pages of literature to prove 17 ways you are incorrect. a few ways never seems to be enough for you(case in point your g. aeruginosa observation, with the mis-matched mycroscopy).
i consumed over a pound of these at one time, good thing they weren’t junionius or i would have been in tor a hell of a ride, but no, got just what i expected, based on the published data for g. validipes of .12%
and continued persistence is really unbecoming.
you call us druggies and claim to have consumed over a pound of these (i still don’t know what that proves).
if you would have kept a sample or bothered to get them scoped, maybe you wouldn’t have to come off as such an ignorant flower-child.
promising and doubtful? I can understand though, i imagine you are another shroomery kid, and you hope to look cool to your little buddies :)
did you know walt sturgeon gets paid to identify mushrooms @ oms? it’s all good, i’ll continue to believe my own eyes/tastebuds/experiences/references and experts, and continue to disregard the druggie kids uneducated guesses
Made me sad. Im with gravija, River,and blood. G. junonius (or G. spectabilis) I would need to see the microscopy to be certain of anything though.
“Gymnopilus validipes is distinguished from G. spectabilis and it’s relatives by the ochraceus cap, yellowish white stalk and mild taste, it is not well known”-J. Ammirati
o·cher or o·chre (kr)
1. Any of several earthy mineral oxides of iron occurring in yellow, brown, or red and used as pigments.
2. A moderate orange yellow, from moderate or deep orange to moderate or strong yellow.
peck’s original description, Libri fugorum, 1908;
@ riverdweller. No, Neither do these gentleman possess the spores or basidiocarp in question, to doubt my observation. Also they never saw it, held it or ate over a pound of it. As far as I’ve seen they haven’t found anything in either of the species in question. Also 2 experts agreed with me. :) Also if I sent them a specimen, I doubt either could make any affirmations based on their own microscopic observations :( If you agree with them, then by all means cast your vote.
The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
I couldn’t have possibly slandered anyone. Slander is a term for ORAL defamation. I did neither of those things. Further-more, of course I’ve read Kuo’s writings on the taste of mushrooms and deficits thereof. I nibbled a t. felleus just the day before yesterday…..bitter :)
mycotaxon 86 http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/...
pg 298-399, speak of errors in Heslers research , specifically the absence of pleurocysidea and abundance of caulocystidia found in the type collection he himself studied,(of G. armillatus) I’m just quoting the literature, noe “slandering anybody” :) I don’t think anyone is perfect, everyone makes mistakes. and goes on to talk about the apparent differences between G. junonius and G. spectabilis… to wit; spore deminsions and pileus trama.
Gravija, You are close enough to go get some, come October, so go get them and have a bite :)
…by a majority of your comments in this observation, Paducahovoids. Foremost, I find your efforts to slander the work of Lexemuel Hesler to be deplorable. Hesler was a dean at the university of Tennessee for 24 years. His contributions to the sciences of mycology and botany are invaluable.
Why would you claim that G. validipes is not described in mycologia 3? Outside of that memoir, The only other scientific or academic publication for G. validipes that I am aware of was written by Charles Peck. When Hesler described G. validipes he took into measured consideration the work of Fries, Persoon, Quelet, Karsten, Murrill, Singer, Harding and several others. This monograph is not the half baked idea of some misguided amateur. Hesler’s descriptions are a culmination of hundreds of years of research by some of the most brilliant botanists in history. Do not make light of his work.
In regards to your comment about P D Orton’s “monograph”: Orton did not author a monograph on Gymnopilus. He authored a description of G. junonius collected in the BRITISH ISLES. Is this the description “you and everybody else on this site” prefer for identifying american Gymnopilus?
In regards to your comment about Guzman’s phylogeny on the Genus: Where on earth did you gather that this document defines G. spectabilis and G. junonius as two separate species? Is it because both names appear in her cladogram? How is this relevant to the currently accepted synonymity of the two species? The sequencing in that study was performed on herbarium collections labeled prior to the current concept of the species group. No assertions regarding that species group are even made in the study.
In regards to your comment “Walt has authored 547 descriptions….I guess you know better than he :)”: I do not presume to know more than any person. I have the utmost respect for Walt sturgeon. I do not believe that your collection is G. validipes, This does not mean that I believe myself infallible or superior.
Since it has been established that your collection lines up feature to feature with G. spectabilis, I would really like to know what basis you have for so strongly believing that it is instead G. validipes. Is it the taste alone that has driven you to be so inflammatory in defense of your observation???
Please follow the link below and scroll to the portion titled “Sensory Deficits”
the underwoodii-validipes clade.
do your research next time.
the monograph accounts for Gymnopilus spectabilis (which is considered a synonym by most)…
i used a lot of information, including personal experience to make the id.
is what G. validipes is in, thats what it has to do with it. Is Gymnopilus junionius in heslers monograph? NO….it isn’t, so tell me what Heslers 44 year-old monograph has to do with anything? Certainly you didn’t come to this ID using it, since it’s not in there :(
is indeed described in the monograph.
once again, i suggest you order it, READ IT and then get back to us!
“This group contains all the species with large, robust basidioma that have a thick, membranous annulus and fibrillose to slightly squamose pileus.”
-this describes your mushroom.
i don’t know what the lepidotus-subearlei clade has to do with anything.
44 years old :( thats like reading the Wright brothers memiors to build a plane :)
The spectabilis-imperialis clade. This group contains all the species with large, robust basidioma that have a thick, membranous annulus and fibrillose to slightly squamose pileus
The lepidotus-subearlei clade. Except for G. cerasinus, which has a fibrillose pileus and a temperate distribution, the species included in this group have erect, reddish squamules in the pileus and are restricted to tropical or subtropical environments.
now look @ the pic of the one upside down..it is a collapsed cortina :)
now look at the top of it…redddish squamules?
@ Brittany, I know, right?
perhaps a monograph from 1960 isn’t ones first choice when attempting an ID. G. validipes wasn’t even described yet (probably) and so it would have been called G. spectabilis :)
if you do not know what it is…you should consider looking it up.
the monograph treats “most” known species of Gymnopilus, not just the spectabilis/junonius group.
at this moment, it is the most definitive guide to Gymnopilus identification.
if you do not know what it is, maybe you should not be trying to id the genus.
IV seems I’ve not seen it but senso strico, there is no mention of him authoring any scholarly article refering to G. Spectabilis http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name_description/518
I and everyone else on this site prefers PD Ortons monograph :)
Walt has authored 547 descriptions….I guess you know better than he :)
Can and will feature either a submembranous or a cortinate veil. The veil of G. validipes is described as fugacious.
The stipe measurements of your collection are consistent with G. spectabilis as described by Hesler. 1-6cm thick.
Robust and swollen do not mean ventricose. Your collection dramatically tapers at the base.
the would validipes means robust stem :)…David Arora….“Gymnopilus Validipes of eastern N. America, a hallucinogenic species with a MILD to only slightly unpleasant taste and a FIBRILLOSE veil”
Gymnopilus juniorius.." The stem is 25 to 265 mm long, 8 to 9 mm thick, and often narrows near the base." As one can plainly see, my specimens range from over 10mm-30mm at the base :)
You are incorrect, about the veil on my specimens, look more closely and you will see 90% of them have a cortinate zone, not a membranous annulus. :)
G. validipes stem (7.5)10 — 13(25) cm. long, (1.5)2.5 — 5 cm. thick, equal or swelling in the middle, fleshy-fibrous, solid, elastic, fibrillose, concolorous, white within, the cortina leaves only a faint ring on the robust stalk. We’ve had this conversation before guys :( Also see Psilocybian mushrooms of the world
A concolorous stem means the same color as the cap, not white :)
Also Walt Sturgeon and Alan Rockefellar agree that these are G. validipes :)
Both species epithets(spectabilis and junonius) were published by Europeans, Weinmann and Fries respectively, and were based on collections made on that continent. I do not understand the assertion that junonius is a “north American” species.
Could you please link me to the reference you are using to establish the characteristics of the stipe of G. validipes? I have not read Peck’s description, but Hesler makes no mention of validipes having a ventricose or bulbous stipe.
has a stipe that is relatively equal and brownish below the ring.
G. validipes is described has having a fibrillose, whitish stipe.
also, the cortina on G. validipes leaves only a faint ring.
the ring on G. junonius is very sturdy and folds outward (like seen in this observation).
displayed plenty of ochraceus tones and it is present in some of these pics, the lack of bitter taste (many were bioessayed)North American distribution and bulbous stem rule out the European species G. Spectabilis, and the N. American G Junionius IMO. I’ll add more pics :)
The broadly convex pileus, lack of ochraceous coloration, sub-membranous to fibrillose persistent veil and ventricose stipe all point away from validipes and toward G. Spectabilis
But I have found large specimens of Gymnopilus (I think G. junonius) during the month of May. So at least some of the ones in the genus may have a split fruiting season.
Created: 2012-02-07 12:32:28 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2015-10-29 00:32:17 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 1843 times, last viewed: 2016-12-18 13:52:51 EST (-0500)