Observation 166612: Fungi Bartl.


Collector(s): Joseph D. Cohen
Original Determination:
Growth Habit:
Closest plant:
Other Habitat & Locality Notes:
Spore print:
Other Specimen Notes:

Species Lists



No names have been proposed yet.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
MO lists vs. MS Word
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-05 16:38:18 PDT (-0700)

From the below list, I have only one observation on MO, i.e., Omphalina (Arrhenis) velutipes. In order to add the rest to the MO list, I would have to create new observation for each of those species. I found MS Word much faster form making lists.

By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-06-05 15:19:46 PDT (-0700)

It’s really hard to follow what exactly you’re talking about here…

But to answer your question, YES you should post them. And for those
species that have photos, specimens, and drawings, add those to the specific
observation pages.

You do know about the Species List tool on MO, yes?
Because that is exactly what you’ve ‘tried out’ (successfully) below.
It is MEANT to accommodate just such records.

here’s an example:

As for who would like to see them, I’d direct you to the current usership
of MO. There’s quite a few of us. Finding out what species grow where is a big part of what many of us come here for.

So… just learn to use the different tools, and nothing will break.

P.S. I have more than 300 lists
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-05 14:45:36 PDT (-0700)

like this one below, only from the Observatory Hill Project. Should I post them all? Who would like to see them?

OK, Let’s try it
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-05 14:30:51 PDT (-0700)

December 5, 2005
Mixed forest above the Observatory Road, southern slope, lower part,
between two gates on the road: Pseudotsuga menziesii, Arbutus menziesii,
Acer macrophyllum, Quercus garryana.
Auriscalpium vulgare
Bisporella citrina
Claudopus byssisedus
Clavaria vermicularis
Clitocybe “georgiana”
Coprinus lagopus
Cortinarius casimiri
Cortinarius ceraceus
Cortinarius infractus
Cortinarius leucopus
Cortinarius scandens
Cortinarius sp. Telamonia
Cystoderma amianthinum
Dacrymyces palmatus
Dacrymyces stillatus
Dermocybe californica
Galerina atkinsoniana
Galerina jaapii f. jaapii
Gomphidius oregonensis
Gymnopilus sapineus
Gymnopus fuscopurpureus
Gymnopus subnudus
Hebeloma crustuliniforme
Helvella lacunosa
Heterotextus alpinus
Hydnum repandum
Hypomyces cervinigenus
Inocybe fuscodisca
Inocybe geophylla
Inocybe lilacina
Inocybe mixtilis
Inocybe nitidiuscula
Inocybe pudica
Laccaria amethysteo-occidentalis
Laccaria laccata
Lentaria bysisseda
Lyophyllum semitale
Marasmius plicatulus
Mycena alcalina
Mycena fusco-ocula
Mycena iodiolens
Mycena leptocephala
Mycena purpureofusca
Nolanea hirtipes
Omphalina velutipes
Otidea onotica
Psathyrella paradoxa
Pseudohydnum gelatinosum
Ramaria cf. gracilis
Rhodocollybia butyracea
Rhodocybe nitellina
Russula brevipes var. acrior
Russula fragrantissima group
Russula murrillii
Russula sororia group
Sphaerobolus stellatus
Stereum hirsutum
Stropharia ambigua
Suillus caerulescens
Tricholoma terreum
Tyromyces caesius
Xeromphalina campanella
Xeromphalina fulvipes
Xylaria hypoxylon

It won’t.
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2014-06-05 14:01:00 PDT (-0700)

Let’s avoid playing into this, even rhetorically.

The uses of imageless/specimenless observations on MO
have been discussed many times. Adolf dislikes them,
others understand that they do actually have value, and
in the meantime, we can all keep playing by the rules of
the site and abiding by each others’ different preferences.

Why will 2% increase kill the system?
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-06-05 13:47:06 PDT (-0700)

MO currently has 169,765 Observations.
Why do you think that another 3,338 (< 2% increase) “will kill the system”?

Re: Posting w/o image
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-05 13:33:35 PDT (-0700)

I have no idea on how to address this problem. I am cataloguing Oluna’s collections from the last 6 years and I have MO observations for ca. 23.9% of them (1049 from the total of 4387 collections). If I would post all the collections as MO observations, I would kill the MO system. And yet, in addition, I have many records of fungi without collections, just as the species list entries. I have to restrict MO to the observations that have herbarium collections going with them.

Posting w/o image
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-06-05 12:38:46 PDT (-0700)

I’m one of the people who posts Observations without images. I understand that’s not useful for mycofloristics or (obviously) for getting help in identification. But it’s a good way to keep a unified, publicly accessible database. For this cycle, I’ about to do it again.

I’ll consider your comments and email carefully for future cycles.

You can save your time
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-05 08:55:04 PDT (-0700)

You will save your time if you throw out anything what is not worth posting on MO before you post it.
Advantage of MO is its universality, one can use it the way he/she likes to. (Some people – I don’t want to name them – use it without posting any images; Excel would work better for them in such a case.)
MO gurus adjusted the posting notice feature in the way you suggested. For genera Oluna is interested in (Cortinarius, Inocybe, Russula), we get only those notifications, where observations are being supported by herbarium specimens. I don’t want something like that for the Activity page, since I am a masochist, and I enjoy seeing observations like this one.
My main problem is that I am afraid that MO will collapse soon beneath the pile of useless observations. (Understand, any observation without a supporting specimen is useless for the mycofloristics project, the hype that is going on in NA just now.)
Do collect and have the OMS people collect as well. I know that quite a few of them have their own personal herbarium. If there is something worth doing, do it properly!

No time to edit now
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-06-05 07:16:52 PDT (-0700)


1. Right now, I’m just trying to get through the photos and labels from the May 10 Spring Camp. When I have time, I will do some cleanup and respond directly to your last email. (And at this point it’s actually useful to me to have some easily locatable examples of bad MO Observations, particularly some which I posted. I plan to use these in a presentation of how to use (and not use) MO.)

2. One can think of MO Observations as being on two separate tracks: (a) scientific/professional, (b) popular/social. I am trying to use both: the former for obvious purposes; the latter to try to ratchet up OMS member’s interests in a more scientific/professional direction.

3. I agree that it would be useful to have a more scientific/professional way of using MO. I think a relatively easy way implementation would be to let the User choose to see only those Observations with a Specimen (and/or — though I haven’t thought this through) a high-enough identification level, determined by confidence and/or the points of the voters).

— Joe

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2014-06-04 21:08:21 PDT (-0700)

Why do you post photos of something that cannot be identified? This illustrates the point I made in my recent private communication with you: We need something like “Mushroom Observer Plus” that would post only the observations supported by the herbarium specimens! I can see that MO will collapse soon under a lot of worthless garbage posted there. Adolf

Created: 2014-06-04 20:35:47 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-06-04 20:35:48 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 89 times, last viewed: 2019-07-13 16:42:03 PDT (-0700)
Show Log