|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.41||1||(email@example.com)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
When I heard/saw Nathan Wilson’s presentation at the MSA 2012 Mycofloristics workshop, I saw that Mushroom Observer could be a powerful tool for handling all the graphic information that complements the real herbarium specimens:
There are numerous MO features that are superior to the existing herbarium database systems. On the other hand, I consider useless all the MO observations that are not supported by the corresponding herbarium specimens. From my point of view, all the MO observations without the supporting herbarium specimens (i.e., ca. >80% of MO observations)are, if not useless, then much inferior than those that have the supporting herbarium specimens.
I would like to suggest that a sister version of MO, e.g., Mushroom Observer Plus, be developed for those observations that have supporting herbarium material.
Consequently, Mushroom Observer Plus would have to accept some well-established herbarium practices, i.e., the users would not be allowed to cross out the existing observation names and scribble there their own names. Once, I posted an observation and the name of the posted fungus was changed within 2 min. 04 sec.
There are many other cases where MO policies go against the usual herbarium practices, but never mind, the positive features of MO vey much overweigh its negative features.
If you are coming to the Key Council foray this spring, I would like to discuss this with you. Adolf
As far as I can tell, Adolf’s needs are all covered by existing MO features
that simply need to be implemented correctly when he searches for them.
If he does so, we can keep voting and proposing names on Oluna’s observations
as we do on the rest of MO.
I’m still trying to figure out MO best practices for use by the Oregon Mycological Society Mycoflora group. So a few questions:
1. If the UBC Herbarium applies a different name to this Observation 164401, will you change the Name in MO?
2. In general, if there is a later determination of the identity of a taxon (not merely a Name change), of an MO Observation which has an associated MO Specimen whose Herbarium Label includes the original determination, what is the best practice for the MO Name?
3. It appears to me that if the MO Name changes for an Observation which has a Specimen with the original determination listed in Specimen, Herbarium Label, one can find the Specimen with a Search by Specimen. See here
In addition, you did the extra work of to the trouble of including a Original Herbarium Name in the Observation Notes, so one could do an Search by Observation.
Why are these insufficient for your needs?
Hydnum calvatum and Sarcodon calvatus are homotypic synonyms and refer to exactly the same species. UBC herbarium has 11 specimens of Sarcodon imbricatus and 5 specimens of Hydnum imbricatum. We are using Mushroom Observer for storing photos, microphotos and drawings that go with each particular specimen and for this reason it is nice to have the same name on Mushroom Observer observations as what is on the specimen label. We are depositing our specimens into the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, BC) herbarium and it is up on the UBC curators under what names they will file them.
In taxonomy, having two names for the same organism qualifies as a problem, believe it or not.
Uncertainty about generic placement is also a taxonomic problem.
Walt’s proposal helps reflect that reality, and as you already showed, detracts nothing from a nomenclatural perspective.
Created: 2014-04-29 14:42:42 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2018-07-11 14:04:46 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 116 times, last viewed: 2018-12-16 15:21:45 PST (-0800)