Observation 285636: Inonotus glomeratus (Peck) Murrill

When: 2017-08-03

Collection location: Sanford, Maine, USA [Click for map]

Who: Erlon (Herbert Baker)

Project: Polypore Project

Specimen available


hymenial setae; subulate-ventricose, 16-28 × 5-9 μm
copious exudation; dripping unto the leaves below

Proposed Names

87% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
Used references: http://www.mycoquebec.org/... Ryvarden, L. 2005. The genus Inonotus, a synopsis. Synopsis Fungorum. 21:1-149
Based on microscopic features: Hymenial setae abundant, subulate to ventricose, thick-walled.

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
That’s not what I’m suggesting
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-09-19 11:05:09 CDT (-0400)

So please refrain from personal attacks. You make one assumption after another and cannot seem to have a civil conversation.

Not setae, nothing of consequence? Then why are they the same size and shape?

it is selfish, unrealistic and nitpicky
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2017-09-19 10:58:43 CDT (-0400)

of you to expect me or any other user to:

a: provide their reasoning in writing for each and every vote they cast, particularly those superusers who visit literal hundreds of observations per sitting

b: revisit old votes on the precise observations at the precise time of your precise preferences, particularly when the name you want to take priority already takes priority, and all you stand to gain is your observation’s thumbnail being featured on the name page, which is just about the tiniest trophy one could whinge over not having.

To the general lament of the lack of more people with more knowledge visiting more observations more of the time to get a more realistic kind of “consensus” in the Mushroom Observer voting system, you have my deepest sympathies. I have lamented the same for many years. That cavalry will probably never arrive. In the meantime, please forgive those of us with more important things to do than to return to observations which do not particularly interest us to satisfy the obsessive compulsions of their uploaders.

EDIT: Your micrograph shows nothing of consequence, certainly not setae.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-09-19 10:03:55 CDT (-0400)

I updated this observation with microscopic information some time ago, please reconsider your downvote.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-08-09 20:13:03 CDT (-0400)

I’m not referring to your fundamental rights. I’m referring to you lowering the voting ranks with absolutely no explanation. I plan on adding microscopy when I’m back home in a couple days; which I planned on doing anyway. I certainly appreciative your input; however, reducing people’s vote without explanation is irritating. The copious dark exudate in the resupinate-effused form of I. glomeratus is pretty distinctive and common. If you look VERY closely you will see a yellow mycelial core and bright yellow spores in several small areas.
Perhaps I should go through your observations and vote accordingly, this way you may understand what it feels like.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2017-08-09 16:12:28 CDT (-0400)

voting is an essential part of Mushroom Observer and a right so fundamental for all registered users as to hardly merit mention or explanation. Opposition to this is akin to complaining about the smell of burning meat in a proverbial carnivorous kitchen.

My vote and proposal were on account of the absence of a clear view of the hymenium, and my eye detecting something which was part Xylobolus, part Cystostereum, part Kretzschmaria, part crust; not “lowering the vote percentage” for its own sake.

By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-08-09 00:56:50 CDT (-0400)

Please don’t vote on my observations if your only goal is to lower the vote percentage. If you’d like to create dialogue regarding this observation, use a different approach.

Created: 2017-08-08 22:33:48 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2017-09-19 10:41:46 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 202 times, last viewed: 2018-08-15 21:48:46 CDT (-0400)
Show Log