Observation 54497: Agaricales sensu lato

Dried specimen obtainable with permission from el Herbario Nacional de Bolivia

Species Lists


Proposed Names

-2% (2)
Recognized by sight
-32% (3)
Recognized by sight
54% (4)
Recognized by sight: can’t comment on substrate I’m afraid, not unless Sir Evans chimes in.
47% (2)
Recognized by sight
Used references: Guzman, Gaston and M. Piepenbring. Los Hongos de Panama. Introduccion a la Identificacion de los Macroscopicos. 2011. 798 col. photogr. XIV, 372 p. 4to. Hardcover.
56% (3)
Recognized by sight
5% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2014-06-25 16:20:58 JST (+0900)

Sorry about the messy writing.

Didn’t mean that Wikipedia would programmatically detect unreliable images… But that they would be unacceptable/minimally acceptable by their guidelines for humans. In this, MO is a (somewhat) questionable source — MO is (somewhat) non-authoritative. MO might not currently make that clear enough. (Also fits under “Self-published sources” – incl. “any website whose content is largely user-generated”)

Same with (2)… MO doesn’t claim to be an authority on mushroom names (e.g. as Dave pointed out, it’s “I’d call it that” instead of “That’s what it is”). It makes more sense to me to (A) keep this major aspect of MO intact, and (if it’s definitely causing problems) dampen its apparent claims, rather than (B) restrict the site to DNA-confirmed observations, cutting off 99% of users.

Yeah, you’re probably not saying everything has to be DNA-“confirmed”. But any extra requirements beyond a photo are going to make the site significantly less accessible.

That’s probably obvious so your details are probably an elegant compromise, can you link a more specific comment about what you want to change?

and about all the bold

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-06-25 15:03:26 JST (+0900)

your comment is difficult to understand, but I assure you that:

1. wikipedia has no built-in detection for “non-authoritative” fungus images.

2. how images get scraped based on the agreed upon name of an observation is not Google’s problem. Google doesn’t cater to Mushroom Observer. Google has no vested interest in promoting honest/responsible/conservative fungus naming on the Internet. If we want more honest/responsible/conservative naming of pictures of fungi coming from this site, we will do it ourselves.

The MO voting system has been in need of change for a long time. I would like to see that change come to fruition, if not help facilitate it myself, rather than continuing to rant about it in comments.

@myxomop re: votes
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2014-06-25 14:18:44 JST (+0900)

Cautionary naming seems super cool but I wanna question the degree (even though I was just bothering Gall Alain about not being cautionary enough…) (Maybe I don’t get what you’re saying though.)

- I think people be allowed to use the whole spectrum of votes to a non-trivial extent. Yeah, should way mostly be toward the conservative end. But requiring much of that extra info you mention for a vote beyond “Could Be”… that much info is rare… almost everything on MO would have to be shrunk to the smallest confidence, chopping off the rest of the spectrum.

- Titles are determined by votes, so seems like observation titles aren’t supposed to be really authoritative.* Not that it’s a free-for-all; they should be, like, decent most of the time. (Trying to say the top two comments on obs 74623)

- Google not getting that is their problem, unless the titles are unreasonaby boldly presented on MO*

- I would assume that using a pointedly* non-authoritative image is against Wikipedia rules

- MO users are supposed to understand how the site works.* All the names are at least slightly questionable, internal citations aren’t supposed to make an extra claim. It’s useful even if it’s wrong — find out a better name for one obs, go correct the others. I think it’s fine for names to transiently be “MO names”.

Reminding people to vote reasonably based on their real confidence level is great, yeah, maybe you shouldn’t use “Promising” if you really think it could be totally wrong… I’m just Doubtful that that confidence is always be “Could Be”.

*!!! Could everything be fixed by just displaying names a little less boldly?? Smaller font… adding a little runner-up name… weaker confidence => lighter grey font… putting it somewhere google’d give it less weight…

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-06-25 09:15:51 JST (+0900)

that’s rough.
i agree.

It’s ok, Richard.
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-06-25 09:06:58 JST (+0900)

I don’t want to get on anyone’s case. The comments that might come across as antagonistic on this site, be they mine or anyone else’s, are so often just frustration over an imperfect system. What I’m advocating is that when one “could be totally wrong” in their naming proposal, they accompany that uncertainty with favorable voting toward the more conservative name, or propose a conservative name where there is none to begin with.

As for the corresponding material, a long and tragic comedy took this and some 600 other specimens out of a box destined for SFSU and placed them back on their home shelves at the Bolivian National Herbarium. I doubt I will ever see them again, at least not in the US.

By: Richard Kneal (bloodworm)
2014-06-25 08:29:50 JST (+0900)

im not really sure why you are getting on my case for thinking this looks like a faded Gerronema.
maybe, more people need to vote…
i could be totally wrong.
i agree with you about the lack of information.
still doesn’t change what i “think” it looks like atm.
you also voted down proposed names.

can’t you get access to the material and take a look at it?

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-06-25 04:39:24 JST (+0900)

Go ahead and upvote/propose whatever name makes you happy, but please resist the urge to downvote names purely to give your preference priority. This observation, like so many others, doesn’t have:

dna analysis
substrate info
field notes
more than one photograph
the input of the original collector

and the specimen itself may or may not a: exist, or b: ever be liberated from the shelf it lives on. What’s more, these don’t appear to be particularly fresh, and they were collected in an area known to contain vast amounts of undescribed fungi.

The case for cautionary naming is overwhelming. I could go on and on. The names here affect what’s scraped by Google Images, can go on to be featured in (or spur their own) Wikipedia pages, or serve as internal citations just within MO. I have personally sent corrections (or made them myself) to multiple websites due to careless and overconfident MO identifications; websites which serve as reference points for other people and other sites. We have a much greater informational ripple affect here than some of our membership may appreciate.

The mushrooms shown in the Hongos de Panama image for Pleurotus albidus are compellingly similar to what’s shown here. Unfortunately, both of Guzman’s latest large format, bound, color volumes (Quintana Roo and Panama) contain questionable names and, in many cases, poor or insufficient photography. Leaving the P. albidus name proposal at “Could Be” establishes it as a possibility without continuing a potentially erroneous line of thinking which then hopscotches across the internet.

And don’t worry, I’m not “telling you what to do.” You vote however your heart desires. I’m telling it like it is, for whoever cares to listen.

Created: 2010-10-02 19:37:37 JST (+0900)
Last modified: 2016-09-24 00:43:28 JST (+0900)
Viewed: 291 times, last viewed: 2020-02-14 21:33:41 JST (+0900)
Show Log