Observation 97981: Agaricomycetes Doweld
When: 2012-04-24
No herbarium specimen

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
OK Danny…
By: James Baker (cepecity)
2014-03-17 20:46:49 CDT (-0500)

I quite agree that with only the information from my out of focus photos and no additional information the ID beyond Agaricomycetes is just a guess, though I really do appreciate the thoughts given by you, GALL Alain (GALLA-TAHITI), and the others who commented on this post.

James
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-26 15:50:14 CDT (-0500)

How are you 100% sure it’s Mycena, with Marasmius at a close second? If the guide couldn’t be bothered to slow down enough for photography, you yourself probably only got a precious few seconds to see these fungi before hurrying back to the group. I can count on one hand the number of mycologists in the world who would be able to make genus determinations of Galapagos mushrooms with 100% certainty based on a few seconds of rushed observation. Neither Alan nor I fall into that category. Do you? If so, perhaps you can tell us why this is, unmistakably, Mycena, or quite possibly Marasmius, and doubtfully Agaricomycetes — the most specific classification which encompasses all agarics — without so much as a spore color reported.

There is a tendency on the site for observers who previously knew very little about their observations to vote overwhelmingly in favor of name proposals made by more experienced users, regardless of their accuracy. I simply wish to caution you against that leap of faith, especially given the relatively uncharted mycological territory in which these particular specimens were found. If you’re eager to get even halfway to the bottom of these Ecuadorian observations, we’re going to need more information. Failing that, these posts Could Be many things, of which Marasmius and Mycena are but two possibilities.

Thank you Danny and Alan
By: James Baker (cepecity)
2012-06-26 01:59:27 CDT (-0500)

Danny, Thank you for expressing your reasoning behind your choice of name for the mushrooms posted. I apologize for the poor photography. It was the best I could do being required to stay together in the group following the naturalist guide who didn’t stop walking while passing the mushrooms. I agree the photos don’t show enough information for a positive ID even to genus, but I really do appreciate those like Alan Rockefeller with a lot more ID experience than me expressing their impression of the best fitting genus based on what they can see.

James
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-06-25 21:10:32 CDT (-0500)

your photos unfortunately don’t convey enough essential characters to make a very educated guess on the identity of your specimens, even to genus level, hence my proposal of Agaricomycetes, the broadest classification available for gilled fungi whose ordenal placement is uncertain. bear in mind that even Agaricales is iffy, seeing as gilled fungi also occur within the Russulales and Polyporales, among others. Mycena is a possibility, but so are too many other genera to merit giving that vote so much confidence. The same applies to your other two observations (97996 and 97989).

Created: 2012-06-22 15:45:40 CDT (-0500)
Last modified: 2014-06-03 19:05:48 CDT (-0500)
Viewed: 193 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 05:32:41 CDT (-0500)
Show Log