Observation 163124: Fungi Bartl.

Original_Herbarium_Label: White Blobs
Location: Canada, British Columbia, Victoria, Observatory Hill
Host/Substrate: On Acer macrophyllum(?) dead wood together with Patinellaria sanguinea (Pers.) P. Karst. – see http://mushroomobserver.org/163050
Date: 2014-02-28
Collector(s): Oluna Ceska
Comment(s): The same fungus as in MO # 64938 & MO # 192511

Species Lists


Whitish “blobs” are growing here with Patinellaria sanguinea
With Melzer
Whitish “blob” is growing here with Patinellaria sanguinea

Proposed Names

17% (6)
Recognized by sight
-44% (4)
Recognized by sight
-48% (3)
Recognized by sight
12% (7)
Recognized by sight
Based on microscopic features
-20% (2)
Recognized by sight: Most current name according to Index Fungorum
-22% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
I was a herbarium curator (V)
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-04-11 18:59:32 PDT (-0700)

I was a herbarium curator in the Royal BC Museum (V) for almost 15 years. I would kick out from the herbarium anybody who would cross out the herbarium label names and overwrite it with their own names. In MO, on the orther hand, you will get some points for this unethical behaviour. In normal herbarium practices, you suggest your name changes (or conformation) in Annotations, but you have to leave the original label intact. We have discussed this already between two of us and from the discussion, I got an impression that you did not know what annotations were. I need to protect our original names and if I cannot use (just because of you and Byrain) some provisional names, I use a bogus name in hope that you and Byrain would accept it.
People, who would cross out the original herbarium label and overwrite it with their own ID, would be kicked out from any herbarium and banned from all the herbaria in their vicinity. Adolf
P.S. MO gurus told me that MO is not a herbarium, but they themselves don’t know what the herbarium is.

bogus names?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-11 18:28:34 PDT (-0700)

you deliberately propose names you believe to be “bogus” and you want to talk about “stability” in MO? while the rest of us propose IDs in good faith? just what page of the Ceska Herbarium Handbook is that one from?

Bryce Kendrick’s suggestion was
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-04-11 18:03:47 PDT (-0700)

that this was wild yeast. I believe his suggestion is posted in one of the three MO observations. Read Notes: where you can get some additional important information on the posted collections. I proposed Hansenula polymorpha as a bogus name in order to protect our three MO observations from the name changes by users who would not be able to ID these collections. I just did not want to get our three observations lost in the pile of “Fungi”. All 3422 MO users can agree on that, but it does not help us to get any closer.
I still think that “Blobus albus” is the best label for our three MO observations and it is definitely better than what the other MO users suggested so far. Adolf

The person consulted
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-04-11 17:21:34 PDT (-0700)

was Bryce Kendrick, one of the authors of this

why his suggestion, originally made into a name proposal by the Ceskas, was erased, I don’t know. At this point, it’s probably best if he weigh in personally.

By: Byrain
2016-04-11 17:20:44 PDT (-0700)

So why was Hansenula polymorpha proposed? Can you please explain your reasoning? Anyone?

Oluna does not have anything to do
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-04-11 16:21:56 PDT (-0700)

with naming of this blob. With identification yes! You cannot imagine how much time the preparation of miscroscopic slides took and how much time it took to both of us to go through all the mycological literature. We posted it on MO with the hope that somebody would tell us what it could be. So far we are getting suggestions of what it is NOT! We don’t care about knowing what it is NOT, we would like to know, WHAT IT IS! If you cannot tell us something more specific than “Fungi”, please, stay away from this discussion. Thanks, Adolf

By: Byrain
2016-04-11 15:12:24 PDT (-0700)

I presume you are the one that included the name of who supposedly identified these as Saccharomycetaceae and then I would understand Oluna took it further to Hansenula polymorpha which you proposed for this observation and the others like it.

2016-04-10 07:07:33 PDT (-0700) Proposed name created by aceska@telus.net: Hansenula polymorpha Morais & M.H. Maia

But you then deleted that name and the information of who identified it to family which I do not remember anymore, does anyone else?

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-04-11 14:48:22 PDT (-0700)

would be the best name for these three observations. Who told you that this is Saccharomycetaceae? There are 3433 MO users and only you and motmop are perfect mycologists. Unfortunately, you two are terrorizing the rest of us! Don’t destroy MO by making it into MycoLudo game! Adolf

By: Byrain
2016-04-11 09:11:22 PDT (-0700)

Who was it that identified these as Saccharomycetaceae?

Now that the name Hansenula polymorpha was destroyed that information was unfortunately lost.

By: Byrain
2016-04-11 09:02:42 PDT (-0700)

Looks like this is jumping the gun and DNA should be checked. Ogataea polymorpha seems to be a species complex.


Oluna, what reference did you use to find this name? I’m not finding much of anything in regards to identifying these from morphology alone.

O & A, Your persistence in seeking
By: Judi T. (AvidAmateur)
2016-04-10 09:58:40 PDT (-0700)

an appropriate ID is admirable.

By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2016-04-10 08:48:11 PDT (-0700)

Nice to see these resolved. Well done.

Unknown, misidentified and undescribed fungi are common.
By: Byrain
2016-03-19 12:52:19 PDT (-0700)

Keep at it and you will surely find some. :)

By: Adam Syddall (adamwillbe)
2016-03-19 12:47:19 PDT (-0700)

I’m not at a stage to try and identify things like these, I just wondered how as yet unidentified things are identified. I think it rather exciting that one day I might find something that’s not been identified, I certainly need to start at the bottom… The common fungi I am ok with, anything rare or uncommon and I’d be struggling… at the moment.

Adam Syddall
By: Byrain
2016-03-19 12:38:30 PDT (-0700)

Yes, this observation and the others like it are unidentified and probably will forever remain so for two reasons,

1) This is a rarely collected thing that no one seems to know and could potentially not even be described.

2) Adolf has no interest in identifying it, but rather pushing his years old agenda…

If you are interested in finding out what this is, find a specialist that is actually interested in studying and potentially describing these. They should be able to request them from the herbarium Oluna uses.

By: Adam Syddall (adamwillbe)
2016-03-19 10:04:07 PDT (-0700)

If it is unidentified then how do you go about solving the problem of finding out what it is. Apologies for not understanding, as I said, I’m pretty new to this…

By: Adam Syddall (adamwillbe)
2016-03-19 10:00:57 PDT (-0700)

I’m new to MO and am trying to learn as much as I can about fungi, I’ve become quite obsessed. I have a genuine interest in as much as is possible and without wanting to get involved or cause further argument, what is the outcome here, regarding the observation? The specimen remains unidentified?

Ad nauseam, argumentum ad verecundiam and red herrring argument
By: Byrain
2016-03-19 09:35:04 PDT (-0700)

Here are three logical fallacies you commonly use, I would spend some time familiarizing yourself with them so that you don’t repeat them again. Thanks!


Let me spell it out for the other readers since I already know Adolf does not have the intellectual honesty to be worth conversing with.

A) This topic has been repeated to death in countless observations for years, its been asked and answered.

B) Adolf is not a mycologist and any authority he has on making up provisional names is highly irresponsible and misleading.

C) Oluna’s expertise does not have any relevance on the given topic on whether to call this a made up name “Globus albus” meaning nothing more than “Unknown white blob” which doesn’t even correspond to any actual current or future classification like provisional names should.

D) The functionality for Adolf to solve all his issues already exists and is easily accessible, but he chooses to not even try to use any of it and instead continue these tantrums. Its quite unfortunate that Adolf has chosen to act like an overgrown toddler and given his age it can only get worse…

it really depends on who’s doing the consensing, doesn’t it?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-02-16 17:17:55 PST (-0800)
Consensus naming is a good feature
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-02-16 16:08:42 PST (-0800)

MO is not a website that will be here for 5 or 10 years, then disappear. This website will be doing its thing for hundreds or thousands of years. Everyone who is now posting observations will be dead in 150 years, and the names should be able to be updated long after each observer stops caring about their observations.

It was a glorious day indeed
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2016-02-13 09:56:17 PST (-0800)

The first day that MO allowed changing the consensus name on other observations. It was a long time ago, but I remember it clearly – must have been 2008.

There were several MO observations which I knew to be wrong, but the observers couldn’t be bothered to fix them – they didn’t disagree really, they were apparently just being lazy. The instant the functionality came online, I went to these problem observations and proposed other names. It was so satisfying to see these observations labeled correctly – it wasn an end to the dystopia and a beginning of a new MO, where everything was properly labeled if people put the time into it.

I don’t think many want a return to the dark ages, where anyone can put any name on anything and it will stick.

There is no bug…
By: Byrain
2016-02-13 09:43:24 PST (-0800)

Or if there is its called Adolf.

I proposed a genus at ‘Could Be’
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2016-02-11 10:19:40 PST (-0800)

and reduced all other votes to the same confidence level on both observations of this fungus. This returned consensus back to you.

I too am frustrated at the “overdemocratization” of MO. There is much more potential for counterproductive activity, intentional or inadvertent, than there are users who are qualified and willing to sort through and correct that activity. Add to that the absence of any differentiation between levels of expertise, and MO begins to looks like a china shop with a “Bulls Welcome” sign on its front door.

Cool micrographs!
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-10-03 11:32:26 PDT (-0700)

Created: 2014-04-08 18:38:33 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2018-04-29 17:43:38 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 1361 times, last viewed: 2020-06-01 17:59:38 PDT (-0700)
Show Log