Observation 157267: Bonomyces sinopicus (Fr.) Vizzini

Notes:
Original Herbarium Label: Clitocybe sinopica (Fr.) P. Kumm.

Herbarium Specimen: UBC F31669 [as Clitocybe sinopica]

Images

396837
AC022122a.jpg
396838
Clitocybe sinopica drawing 2.jpg

Proposed Names

45% (4)
Eyes3
Used references: O&A Ceska, this obs

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
The chief disadvantage of knowing more and seeing farther than others,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-01-13 13:02:16 EST (-0500)

is not to be generally understood. [William Hazlitt 1823 or so]
I know that I cannot win, but I like to provoke MO users in order to test their mycological IQ. I do not know why it would not be possible to allow only the original user to change the names of the MO observations they posted. When you use MO for documentation of the supporting herbarium specimens, you cannot play this Ludo game. Still, nothing would prevent the other users to voice their name changes as Comments.
Nathan had a great vision when he proposed Mushroom Observer as a mycofloritics tool, but he made only one major mistake. MO observations without supporting herbarium specimens are useless as a proof of the fungus occurrence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxySE56sJgQ
Watch this video and in 2-3 minutes you will see that Nathan was pleased that as much as 17% of MO observations are supported by the herbarium specimens. It’s only those 17% of MO observations that have some meaning for the mycofloristics. The rest (i.e., MO observations without supporting herbarium specimens) is garbage and cannot be used for any more serious work.
If you don’t understand what I wanted to say, just ignore this, but at least for our MO observations don’t change our MO observation names! If you want to suggest a different name, put it in the Comment: and leave our original name intact. Only the original MO user who posted that observation should be allowed to change that MO observation name!

Well commented, Martin
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-01-13 11:27:20 EST (-0500)

Ranchor is definitely present here. A&O Ceska are anomalous in failing to grasp the community-based dynamic of MO – it isn’t contentious anywhere else here.

I don’t think “I’d call it that” votes are worrisome in debated observations, but I agree that “As if!” shouldn’t have to be used here. However, the observers in question make a habit of that aggressive voting, requiring an aggressive response.

(In this case I’m not sure whether they changed their vote up from As If, or I assumed it was such because that’s the habit. Anyway, I’ve changed my vote to Doubtful, matching theirs.)

If you don’t understand why I am calling for NOT changing the original names,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-01-13 10:12:07 EST (-0500)

DO NOT CHANGE THEM!!!*

Is ranchor part of this observation?
By: Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
2017-01-13 06:06:10 EST (-0500)

MO provides the observer with the protection of ‘Observer preference’ so that the name is always preserved for the observer’s own records. MO also provides members of the site with an opportunity to state their opinion on what the name should be. This dynamic is good for citizen science.

There should not be a contest where one side marks the other opinion with ‘As if’ and it’s own opinion with ’I’d call it that’. But that is IMHO, just an idea; you guys do what you want. It is an open site. My suggestion is to use the term ‘Could be’ as often as possible.

Whatever we call it, this is a cool mushroom, one that I have not seen before, and for that, I thank the MO team for making this possible. Nice job Oluna on the drawings, nice job Adolf on the photos! Thanks to Pulk and Alan on the suggestion of an alternative (or better) the name! Nice job and thanks to the mushroom on a beautiful life!

It is difficult to deal with analphabets!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-01-13 02:45:23 EST (-0500)

Boy, boy, Mushroom Observer is a nice piece of the Citizen Science.
Check MyCoPortal that says:
Bonomyces sinopicus not found”

Don’t touch our original names!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2015-07-16 23:56:14 EDT (-0400)

Please, correct our ID if you are sure that it is wrong, but do it as a Comment, NOT by changing our observation names. Thanks! Most of our MO observations are supported by the herbarium specimens and we have to use the name that is used on the specimen and by the herbarium that hosts our collections. We hope you understand. If you want to suggest different identification or different name, do it in the Comments, not by changing our MO observation names. O. & A. C.

Created: 2014-01-05 23:12:34 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2017-01-13 11:28:08 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 146 times, last viewed: 2018-10-26 04:25:35 EDT (-0400)
Show Log