When: 1995-01-15

Collection location: San Jose, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Nathan Wilson (nathan)

No specimen available

The date is only accurate to the month.

Keyed out in Mushrooms Demystified.


Loaded from Pseudoclitocybe/cyathiformis/1995-01-slide-1.jpg.
The date is only accurate to the month.

Proposed Names

78% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Byrain
2014-03-08 13:26:03 CST (-0500)

How about the instances when you know the genus, but you think someone else could come up with a better specific name? I usually vote “Promising” then, if I were to vote “ICIT” someone who does know what species it is would have a more difficult time changing the name and would have to resort to silly negative votes on the genus. I don’t always notice right away when I should update my votes… Do you think it would be better to vote “ICIT” in those cases?

Also the way some genera are being/will be split up makes proposing “ICIT” on some genera not very appropriate without a closer examination, Psathyrella is a good example. I’m not sure about Clitocybe.

Thanks for details…
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2014-03-08 11:48:49 CST (-0500)

That helps a lot with revising my internal understanding of these.

Regarding “I’d Call It That Votes”, as I’ve been saying for a while, scaling back on ICITs breaks the system. It is better to say what you would call it based on the information you have (even if that’s just a genus or family name), than just voting “Promising” on that name because you aren’t sure or don’t have enough information. The problem is the system is unable to tell the difference between cases where the identifier is not confident in their opinion and cases where the identifier clearly sees something that in their opinion calls that name into question. The first name should not count against the name, but the second should. As a result the system is conservative, so voting “Promising” as your highest vote in effect counts against that name. In this case, there is clearly information you had that in your opinion called “P. cyathiformis” into question. However, as far as I can tell you would call it a Clitocybe based on the information you have.

If I had the time I would revise the system and make it explicit when users are recommending that this observation be listed with another name, but require that an explanation be provided when they do that. Users would still be able to suggest names with no explanation, but such names would never become the recommended or “consensus” name.

I agree
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2014-03-07 12:46:53 CST (-0500)

with what Jacob said, and a lot of this was the reasoning for my vote.

Yes, I do think it’s a Clitocybe, but I haven been trying to scale back my “I’d Call it That” votes based on a picture alone… If I collect it, have it in my hand, have collected from the same area I am more likely to use ICID.

There are a few Clitocybe that Bigelow described from CA that are similar to this, but I would have to look them up.

Why would it be P. cyathiformis?
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2014-03-07 12:09:58 CST (-0500)

large cluster
very not consistently circular cap margins
very not consistently straight stipe
disc depression isn’t abrupt
gills are very not adnate

Noah- Why not P. cyathiformis?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2014-03-07 11:55:08 CST (-0500)

It looks like you recently applied Clitocybe as a name for this observation without any notes about why you think this is a better name. Also you only gave it a vote of “Promising”. Is that really what you think is the best name for it or if not, what would you call?