A light freckling on the cut top of a stump in the ruins of Zone 16.

Species Lists


Proposed Names

28% (4)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-05 04:14:46 EST (-0500)

I give up, dude. you can have your stupid observation.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-12-05 03:38:58 EST (-0500)

“The idea you seem to be floating” … “You seem to be saying” … “I gave an example to the contrary”. Interesting that what you are actually attacking is the words you put in my mouth, rather than my own exact words as originally written.

“Remarking on what I believed to be your hastiness in dictating how taxonomy works is not name calling.”

Perhaps not, but saying that I, the person, was “incorrect” (not just something I said, but I, the person) certainly is name calling.

Of course, you seem to be strongly convinced that various things I’ve said are “incorrect” even without a shred of concrete evidence to back that up, and this seems to happen with you often. I don’t know what your beef with me is — now you’ve escalated to questioning all my past observations of polypores as your latest petty retaliation for not just acceding to your peculiar convictions about this observation — but there is surely a more mature way for you to handle it than by trying to smear me in public by converting half of this website into your portrayal of me as having made some huge number of blunders and mistakes (for which, again, you have failed to produce any evidence).

Your Morchella example, meanwhile, is a poor one; it’s one thing to claim that a black morel in North America (except maybe if it’s “northern boreal”?) is definitely not M. elata in light of genetic studies showing that species to be absent here, but quite another to claim that none of my observations are B. citrina without any comparable genetic study saying that that species does not occur here. Your Morchella example, in short, is apples to oranges. Unless, of course, you can point to sequencing (and mating studies!) that show unequivocally that no yellow B. aff. citrina in North America is that actual species.

As for your last paragraph, I suspect projection on your part. If you were “here for the facts” you would have no reason to question many of the IDs you’ve questioned, where nothing in the observation is inconsistent with the ID you questioned, and certainly no reason to start acting like a bull terrier.

In any case, if you’re looking for someone here who is showing signs of pursuing a “personal vendetta”, I suggest you look for the one of us two who, in response to this debate, started going through all of the other’s observations of some other completely unrelated group of fungi and nit-picking them (again without evidence against their pre-existing IDs). Personally, I would tend to suspect the first person in a dispute to start cyber-stalking the other of being the one who’s most guilty of taking things personally.

I’ve merely defended my claims that you have suddenly decided to publicly question without furnishing any evidence against them. I’ve done no more than that. You on the other hand have clearly both initiated and escalated things.

I was responding to this:
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-05 02:26:27 EST (-0500)

“Usually if it’s a proxy war for some rival taxonomists’ ego struggle in some journals somewhere then observations with a specific name get carpet-bombed with votes for a specific other name, not for something highly nonspecific like “Discomycetes”…”

The idea you appeared to be floating was that of the non-existence of general vs. specific renaming campaigns in the face of new taxonomic revelations. You seem to be saying that taxonomic progress never moves in the direction of newfound uncertainty. I gave an example to the contrary. Remarking on what I believed to be your hastiness in dictating how taxonomy works is not name calling. I brought up Morchella as an example.

Paul, you can take anything as personally as you want. I don’t care. I’m here for the facts. Refute me on those and we’ll have an interesting conversation. Continue to flatly ignore the basic principles of what I’m proposing in favor of seeking some imaginary personal vendetta and I will have no choice but to ignore you.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-12-05 02:12:41 EST (-0500)

So, now you’re resorting to name-calling? Sorry, but I am not “incorrect”. Particularly not for asking a question. You seem to be suggesting that I claimed that some Morchella observation was renamed as part of some taxonomist’s ego struggle; I don’t believe I mentioned any Morchella observation.

In any event I am beginning to find your somewhat bullying-ish behavior to be tiresome. You have evidently convinced yourself that I am wrong about something, despite by your own admission having a complete lack of proof for such a contention; gotten a bee in your bonnet about it; and apparently cannot let the matter go. Why?

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-05 00:33:49 EST (-0500)

that’s where it started.

you’re incorrect to assume that texonomic revelations do not result in the backing off of formerly embraced species names. once we knew that Morchella elata, M. deliciosa and M. esculenta were not NA species, every NA observation by that name on the site was renamed Morchella sp.

By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-12-05 00:21:41 EST (-0500)

Dave W. makes an excellent point.

@Elsa: you were the first person to use the T-word. And Dave W.’s point is equally applicable to someone saying “sounds like” vs. “is”.

There seems to be some confusion here, of uncertain origin. I am still also uncertain what has suddenly cast all of these B. citrina observations into doubt in certain people’s minds many moons after any of them (and many years after many of them) were initially posted. Usually if it’s a proxy war for some rival taxonomists’ ego struggle in some journals somewhere then observations with a specific name get carpet-bombed with votes for a specific other name, not for something highly nonspecific like “Discomycetes”…

The highest level of MO confidence…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2013-12-05 00:12:09 EST (-0500)

is “I’d call it that”, and not “what it is.”

ah ah ah Paul
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-12-04 19:55:24 EST (-0500)

I’m not saying that, please don’t put those words on my mouth (fingers). I’m saying it’s just possible to do that IF WANTED.

What I mean
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-12-04 19:31:02 EST (-0500)

is that this kind of scale of votation allows us to give “inaccurate” names to specimens. I’m not different from everybody, so I think everyone would like to give a complete name to his/her specimens. Of course that I agree that the name should be accurate but, correcting what I said previously, even the “I’d call it that” means that we feel that the proposed name is the correct, and doesn’t mean that the name is comproved and accurate. I think that is very good to participate and vote our feelings about specimens, share opinions etc, but this has nothing to do with accuracy, those are just our feelings, thinkings and/or own experience, if no microscopic analysis is done. I’m speaking in general, not about this particular obs. Should exist some informatics solution for this.

What do you think about the use of “I’d call it that” and “As if” to name the observations as wanted? And what the meaning of that?

Sounds like…
By: Paul Derbyshire (Twizzler)
2013-12-04 19:27:41 EST (-0500)

…unspecified users are being accused of falsifying the microscopy on unspecified observations on this site, and maybe it’s an al Qaeda plot.

<shakes head>

By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2013-12-04 18:38:56 EST (-0500)

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

As you see Danny
By: Elsa (pinknailsgirl)
2013-12-04 16:24:55 EST (-0500)

this is not easy at all. People doesn’t talk but do what I can call “recalcitrance” or “terrorism”. Thinking better, even when there are many people voting on some names based on macroscopic characters, we can reach just a strong probability that do not have nothing to do with accuracy, but that’s the soul of this forum isn’t it? Unless “I’d call it that” could only be used with microscopic analysis evidences of it, at least, this accuracy won’t be achieved. Thinking even better, micro descriptions doesn’t prove anything, that and even micro photos can be arranged…