Observation 73041: Tetrapyrgos E. Horak

When: 2011-07-30

Collection location: Big Branch, Saint Tammany Parish, Louisiana, USA [Click for map]

Who: Chaz (tripper1445)

No specimen available

Species Lists


Proposed Names

5% (2)
Used references: A raccoon
61% (2)
Recognized by sight: dark stipe with white scurfs, wavy gills, sulcate cap, larger size and apparent toughness of stipe, some species develop green tones
9% (3)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
so much blue
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2014-06-03 20:02:13 CDT (-0400)

seems off for Tetrapyrgos, but I have no better suggestion. could be a photographic artifact I suppose…

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-03-19 11:24:29 CDT (-0400)

Rocky made one of the most important points about observations like this – they guide future exploration! Not to mention, they inform our ideas about diversity in an area (see the idea of RTUs if you are unfamiliar), and allow us to revisit past records when more information is gathered and a better understanding is achieved.

As for:
“Clicking a bird photo on your iPad is not science. It is pseudo-science.”

I don’t know what that means… it’s not science of either kind. It’s data collection. It’s the next step (what you do with that data analysis-wise) that can either be credible or sloppy science.

I never advocated that the Mycoflora should be based on low standards. I think if you were under that impression, your were standing on your own.

Well put, Christian.
By: Rocky Houghtby
2014-03-19 11:12:30 CDT (-0400)

records without vouchers are quite useful for preparing foray checklists. At the very least, such an observation will indicate a location or habitat in which one should attempt to collect a voucher in the future. As to wether or not a voucherless observation is ‘satisfactory’, would objectivism not play a large part in assigning that value?

ah, sarcasm!
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2014-03-19 11:09:49 CDT (-0400)

just another service that we provide here at MO!

If y’all really feel the need to bitch slap each other, why not just take it off-line? Is it the entertainment value that we are seeking here?

I have been a birder far longer than a mushroomer. Different standards for observations, and mushrooms, even in hand, are not even hardly so easy to ID on the (so to speak) fly. Even then, rare birds must be documented and pass through a committee before getting accepted into the record.

Clicking a bird photo on your iPad is not science. It is pseudo-science.

By the way, are not university trained Scientists also Citizens? That entire smarmy concept rankles me no end.

MO already allows any bit of myco-garbage to post, all the way up to beautifully photographed, vouchered, micro-checked and DNA determined species.

If you are advocating the same low standards for the Mycoflora Project though, I think that you are standing on your own.

On the other hand, Chas, this is a beautiful and interesting mushroom that you have posted here. It would have been more valuable, however, if you had a specimen to back it up. I think that you realize that, and I also think that it is not always possible to do.

Damn, we live in an imperfect world!

what a cool fungus!!
By: Jonathan M
2014-03-19 11:06:19 CDT (-0400)

hope you will get a name for it, last time i found a odd guy in the south (florida) took me weeks of research to get an ID I was about happy of but… it was an african specie!

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-03-19 10:52:53 CDT (-0400)

Mushrooms are unequal to birds in many ways, yes, but from a citizen-science database perspective the similarities in recording them are much greater than you’re accounting for.

I didn’t disregard any of the mentioned points, so don’t worry, you don’t have to feel any sense of shame. I understand the limits of an unvouchered specimen, believe me.

Beyond that, your stance has been wrong, and continues to be wrong.

What it appears that you and Adolf don’t understand is that we agree.

It’s what I spend a lot of my time teaching and doing, and I spend even more of my time dealing with all the specimens that pile up.

But an unvouchered observation is frequently really useful. But it’s up to the algorithms used for analysis, the data ‘allowed in’ by those researchers doing the analysis, and your own judgement when exploring the data.

Every citizen-science database architect I’ve spoken with follows the same general practice: allow in lots of data, use only the data you feel confident in. It’s liberal acceptance of people’s observations, and conservative use of observations.

Birds =/= fungi
By: Byrain
2014-03-19 02:07:26 CDT (-0400)

Just because birders do not need images or specimens to be happy, does not mean we don’t. We discussed this already, shame you just disregarded all the mentioned points.

I did not want to continue
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-03-19 00:06:26 CDT (-0400)

in our old dispute. I am madly cataloging Oluna’s collections of fungi for getting them into the UBC herbarium and I have just come over her 2010-10-05 collection of Pseudobaeospora sp. originally misidentified as Cystoderma subpurpureum A.H. Sm. & Singer:
That shows that you don’t need a specimen to see a wrong ID, but we definitely need it as a voucher of a record new to ? [British Columbia?, Canada?] but for sure new to Oluna’s Observatory Hill. Adolf

Who said anything about animal tracks?!
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-03-18 20:06:54 CDT (-0400)

For the entire time you have held to this diatribe, you’ve had a legitimate point that you repeatedly and loudly carry beyond the bounds of its utility…

If you need something to feel superior about, just rest on the laurels of your extensive work with Oluna. You do great work.

Animal tracks work quite well
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-03-18 20:04:08 CDT (-0400)

but not for fungi! Wake up! Adolf

Thanks for your input, Adolf!
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-03-18 19:53:09 CDT (-0400)

Always a great help.

You should probably go over to www.ebird.org and inform them of your
important discovery regarding the nature of citizen science observations.

Just forget it!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-03-18 19:52:04 CDT (-0400)

If you don’t have a herbarium specimen, it is useless to discuss what it is. Adolf

By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2014-03-18 19:43:59 CDT (-0400)

I have to agree with Danny. You have been coming up with ‘stunners’ for years. Spore print is not hard (alright, maybe not as fun as taking pictures) It is also fun to page through some ID guides late in the evening so that you know when you have got something unusual…, But whatever don’t listen to me, you have got to do what you have got to do!

By: Hamilton (ham)
2011-08-09 15:22:49 CDT (-0400)

That’d be my guess.

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2011-08-09 13:37:57 CDT (-0400)

your finds are too captivating and unique not to devote more time to simple field notes. when the subject matter is as far from ho-hum as yours tends to be, practically without exception, it’s well worth the extra effort. I went looking for a Louisiana field guide based on how similar some of your obs are to things seen in the neotropics, so for me their identities have a special significance.

spore prints, tastes, smells, substrates and potential mycorrhizal partners. it’s all pretty painless with a notepad and a piece of tin foil.

I didn’t do a spore print.
By: Chaz (tripper1445)
2011-08-09 06:51:38 CDT (-0400)

I wish I could dedicate more time to other aspects besides just a photograph.

white spores???
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2011-08-02 10:42:12 CDT (-0400)

Created: 2011-08-02 01:09:26 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2018-02-02 12:35:24 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 255 times, last viewed: 2019-10-28 17:03:44 CDT (-0400)
Show Log