Observation 131384: Conocybe Fay.


Proposed Names

61% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Thomas Laxton (Tao)
2013-04-06 09:15:54 PDT (-0700)

I do appreciate all the help I can get. I research through fungi keys, websites and images on the web to make my assumption of what I have found. So I designate it as “it could be” or it is “possibly”. If you have a more valid assumption I would appreciate you posting it as “it could be” or “possibly” so I can research your assumption and make a more educated guess to what I have found. If you believe I have the wrong identification please post why you think it is wrong so I can learn to better identify the fungi. I am working on getting a microscope of my own so I will be able to make a more valid assumption. Thank you for all your help.

It’s simple
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-04-06 09:03:21 PDT (-0700)

The more information, the better possibility to get an ID.
DNA alone doesn’t help immediately as long as there is no other (preferably type) collection with a name to compare it with. Then it can only rule out a lot of other possibilities – but can be useful in the future if it is matched with good photos and a collection.

By: Byrain
2013-04-06 08:54:00 PDT (-0700)

I’m not sure what you are trying to say, I’m not even sure what method you are using that I am trying to make invalid? This is not a competition, if you don’t want my help you just have to say so…

By: Thomas Laxton (Tao)
2013-04-06 08:42:54 PDT (-0700)

You have your methods and I have my methods. I agree that the microscopy is a better way to classify these fungi but that does not mean my methods are invalid as you would make them. There was a time before microscopes and a time before DNA testing. All are examples of a level of triangulation. That is why there is a “it could be” and “possibly” option here.

DNA testing
By: Byrain
2013-04-06 07:57:59 PDT (-0700)

Is not magic, its triangulation. You still need good macroscopic and microscopic information to make it useful. You should read Kuo’s Strophariaceae page, he explains it well there.


My piont is.
By: Thomas Laxton (Tao)
2013-04-06 07:49:38 PDT (-0700)

This open-sorce website is not really scientifically valid anyway. If it was there would not be a “it could be” or “Possibly” options. There would only be, it is or it is not. Microscopy would be invalid because the only way to truly make that distinction is if you have DNA testing to prove it anyway.

By: Byrain
2013-04-06 07:37:57 PDT (-0700)

I have them and they are near the top of the pile of dried specimens to scope, microscopy is a time intensive activity and getting through the countless specimens I need to scope won’t be fast unfortunately. I’m a bit spacy and forgot to let you know they arrived though…

As for Conocybe, you really need to see what kind of caulocystidia it has to even get into the right group. I think C. tenera is one species that really needs microscopic confirmation.

By: Thomas Laxton (Tao)
2013-04-05 23:59:48 PDT (-0700)

I did send you some Peziza specimens and I haven’t heard back from you. Of course I know these require microscopy. I don’t own a microscope at this time. I try to research online to find the closest fit to identify my specimens. That is why I indicate my observation is “It could be” to “Promising” and not “I’d call it that” unless I’m definitely sure I have the correct identification and can’t find any other description that fits. I try to build a collection of references to strengthen my proposition. Please have mercy on the microscopeless.

By: Byrain
2013-04-05 23:22:44 PDT (-0700)

You do realize that most of these lbms require microscopy and field guide names are often not correct? Not to discourage you, I’d scope some of your collections when I have time, but I haven’t received any replies from you…

Created: 2013-04-05 22:58:14 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-04-07 15:31:54 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 123 times, last viewed: 2018-04-22 11:53:05 PDT (-0700)
Show Log