This is a provisional name (latinized version of the common name “blob”) that the current users established for white, gelatinous blobs growing on wet dead wood. This was done in order to maintain some stability of the MO name. It is a provisional name until some more sophisticated techniques would reveal this fungus’ true identity.
We have plenty of approved provisional names – why is “Blobus albus” any more wrong or inappropriate than any of the others?
tell me how MO defines analogy? Adolf
I really hope you don’t actually expect a response to that entirely invalid analogy…
Why is “Blobus albus” any more wrong or inappropriate than any of the other provisional names in the database. No one complains about all of Tulloss’s unpublishd Amanita names.
More than 3000 MO users know that those our 3 MO observations are unidentified fungui. Why do you think that we do not know it. This is in fact, why I call them Blobus albus.
Note also, that this MO observation is Called Undescribed.
What better description would you need than this
I was told that MO sysnonyms are not synonyms, but what are they?
MO has to be drastically revised, especially it’s Naming part.
Please, accept that MO Naming is a fallacy. It is an amateurish mixture of identification and assigning the names.
We have quite a few Cortinarius species that have equally strange names as Blobus albus. Never mind, let them to us to change them once we get them identified:Cortinarius “oc2150223” 1
Cortinarius “oc2150325” 
Cortinarius “oc2150409” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160326” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160409” 
Cortinarius “oc2160416-A” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160416-B” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160416-C” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160416-D” 1
Cortinarius “oc2160416-E” 1
Cortinarius “sp-OC2150404-A” 1
Cortinarius “sp-OC2150404-B” 1
Cortinarius “sp-OC2150404-C” 1
Cortinarius “sp-OC2150404-D” 1
Cortinarius “sp-OC2150404-E” 1
If you use wrong or inappropriate names users should feel free to correct them. Expecting anything else is a serious personality flaw on your end.
ad 1) We will have to identify ir first, before we can give it a better name than Blobus albus. Don’t put the cart before the horse!
ad 2) Even with your deprecation, we still will have 3 collections whuch we call Blobus albus.
ad 3) Your comments are great, but we are not interested in how should we name these three collections. We would like to know what those three collections really are. “You are in a hot air balloon.”
1. If “Blobus albus” is more specific than Fungi then please give a better name.
2. Without fixing the bug concerning Fungi approving “Blobus albus” is more confusing than leaving it deprecated.
3. This name should be destroyed and left in the Notes section of any applicable observations, as a species list or if someone really wants to bother as a “Common name” field that would have to be coded.
“Blobus albus” is not synonymous with Fungi. “Blobus albus” is much more specific.
“Blobus albus” is not synonymous with Fungi. “Blobus albus” is much more specific.
What have you deprecated? Give me the MO naming rule on which base you have done that. In fact, it is the deprecation that should be deprecated, but don’t do it before you deprecate the Consensus.
This name is useful because there are so many things in Fungi….It helps to be able to separate out the white blob observations.
get rid of the consensus. You helped us with identificfations before (see http://mushroomobserver.org/64185 ), this time you should not change our names unless you have better idea about what it is. You can discuss how to name it, but only once you know what it is. The name Blobus albus is not a provisional name, just a label that keeps our three collections and related MO observations together. If you think that Blobus albus is synonymous to Fungi, stay away of making any MO name changes. Those people who don’t know what provisional names are should not touch somebody else’s names. (I repeat, Blobus albus is not a provisional name!) Don’t tell us, how we should call our non-identified collection, tell us what it is! If you think that it is "Fungi, we do know that as well. Otherwise we would not have posted it on MO.
it is at least a bug.
There are several reported bugs in the MO development issue tracker for Name synonymize, unsynonymize, deprecate, and undeprecate. There’s no harm in reporting them again (and it may be helpful).
There also may be special issues with Fungi Bartl.
It plays a special role when an Observation is created with no suggested ID. (Cf. Location “Earth”). I haven’t looked at the code to confirm this.
I sent a message as well for a different name.
The problem is the few people who are both willing and capable of fixing it do not have to the time to do so.
Otherwise the code is on github, anyone with the proper skillset could fix it….
This does not really change anything for the debate concerning “Blobus albus”, we still seem at a deadlocked split of consensus on how to handle these names. I have a feeling it would persist even if someone properly identified these “White blobs”…
Last night, with the site’s admin contact link. I imagine it is not the first message on this topic to be submitted for admin review. Is this a glitch, or is the synonymy for Fungi Bartl. deliberately coded for administrative access?
Much better to call something Blobus albus than Fungi. When we figure out what it is, we are going to want to be able to find all the Blobus albus easily. Right now this problem is pretty much solved by Myxomop’s species lists, but we shouldn’t always rely on him when we can just use provisional names.
You cannot insist on the MO name be correctly named, if they cannot be put into some smaller category than Fungi. Blobus albus seve well to us and when we find out what it really is, I will use the Index/Species Fungorum for it.
How do you call your MO observations if you cannot identify them, or if you don’t have a name for them? If you call them “Fungi”, you will lose them among the 611 MO observations also marked “Fungi”. How can I keep those 3 our observations together and still retain the link of those 3 MO observations to our herbarium specimens that we provisionally labelled “Blobus albus”.
Don’t teach your grandma, how to suck the eggs!
Yes, I have been beating this issues for more than five years, but ut’s not fault that MO has not attended to this serious glitch already.
Save the theatrics, I’m not interested.
“Blobus albus” is a provisional name. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you don’t get to decide its validity.
When it comes to correcting misspelled, improperly cited, and invalid names that have not been published, and are not provisional, the appropriate course of action is to destroy the name. This can be accomplished by simply editing the name and author to be identical to the correct taxon, accepting the taxon, and saving the edit. The incorrect name will be destroyed. In the case that observations were associated with the name you are destroying, the action will require admin authorization, after which all associated observations will be be merged in to the correct name.
The only circumstance in which it is ever appropriate to deprecate a name, is when it is a real, published taxon that has been replaced with a more appropriate published taxon. Is that clear enough? Stop deprecating names that are not synonyms. It’s so simple.
Rocky, your attitude is bad and your inability to grasp the situation is just insult to injury however I like you so I am trying to look past this.
Let me spell it out again.
1. This name is for an unknown fungus and not a valid taxonomic name, it is neither described, holds any real taxonomic value or demonstrates any natural evolutionary relationships.
2. The only way the system allows to disregard names like this is to deprecate them and the only somewhat appropriate name to use is Fungi as this is what this name represents. Solving this will require fixing the code and that can be found at github.
3. Blaming me for the bug concerning synonymy around Fungi is not cool, appropriate, realistic and will not get us any closer to fixing it.
4. All these points are beside the point because the name should be outright trashed.
5. This horse was beaten to death by early March…
Byrain recommended that I approve this name.
Regarding the quality of this name is completely irrelevant, and your edits to the taxonomy are invalid. The synonymy with Fungi Bartl. needs to be removed altogether, a problem that wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been improperly deprecated in the first place.
All you are doing it rehashing old crap no one wants to see and making others clean up after your mess.
There is only one sub par (“Good”) place for this name and its already there, the only better alternative is to destroy this sorry excuse of a name already.
Because it is not a synonym to that taxon. If Adolf wants to have a provisional name, he’s free to do that, regardless of how nonsensical it is. I do not know if the addition of quotation marks fits the criterion for provisional names.
If we keep “Blobus albus” in the database, the only good place to have it as a deprecated synonym to Fungi as that is what it is, an unknown fungus.
Nom prov will never be a good solution as even the genus is outright bullshit.
Is deprecation, which implies just as much legitimacy as approval. Herb had to approve it to establish that it is not a synonym. The only two real options for this name are 1) outright destruction, and 2) removal of the quotations, and addition of ’ Nom prov.’.
“Blobus” can’t be a synonym for anything, because it isn’t real; it’s just two made up words that don’t mean anything.
Is not a synonym of Fungi Bartl.
He should leave it be if he did not know any better.
This is still a useless name for something we only know is a fungus….
Please do not play this stupid game and just leave it be, thanks.
Another variance on the bullshit name from Adolf because he can never let his tantrum stop.