|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||6.39||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Gerhard, your assertive tone misled me twice into believing that
you’ve got a stronger reference than your own opinion. I don’t care if
I am right or wrong, I need facts. I need not “feel good” agreements
as this is not a social club — all I need evidence of well researched
assertions. Anyway, have a nice trip to the Czech Republic. I’m off
to Seattle, WA…
tomorrow; but I have always found C.h.v.tatrensis under Picea and the main species under Pinus cembra; and there are voices that even do not distinguish between these varieties anymore. Anyway I will not exclude that you’re right: it just isn’t verified in my collecting area. And I will leave it with this now.
There’s no need for haggling like young kids. I am too tired now and have a train journey before me tomorrow. Have a good day!
Gerhard, I hope it dawns on you eventually that Dimitar is not
inventing this data just to makes himself interesting to the
public. You should always assume that Dimitar is relaying information
from a decent source — henceforth, the correct question is “what are
his References” rather than loosely pontificating an assertion. Anyway,
what are your References?
I have Breitenbach & Kränzlin right in front of me, who for right or
wrong, citing the original study by Singer R. and Kuthan J.: Notes on
Chroogomphus (Gomphidiaceae) in Ceská Mycologia 30(2) 1976.
They state that Picea abies and 2-needle Pines are the habitat of
var. tatrensis. Now, if you disagree with that or have superior or
more current references you should have stated that right in the
beginning and started with a more elucidating discourse than the silly
“do not want to insult you Dimitar” line, which you seem to extend
with this latest response.
I am curious to see that reference that tatrensis only fruits with
Picea and how serious the source is because it has bearing on my
identification effort. Miller in his 2003 revision of the group does
not deal with these details, but suggests that these species are quite
close to each other. At least one case when amyloidity was used to
separate species in Gomphidius was shown to be bogus…
ssp.tatrensis grows under Picea abies. This is just to put things right again.
Nevertheless we have the order to be a guide for mushroomers. Maybe there is another species in South Eastern Europe? In Italy there is Gomphidius mediterraneus so why not be there some other?
What are you guys doing to me today – hitting me on all sides, as if
I’m spoiling the party… :-) Gerhard, I am after the facts — you do
not insult me by disagreeing with me.
Ok, as you well know C. helveticus has two subspecies — one,
helveticus is from 5 needle pines and the other subsp. tatrensis is
form 2 needles. There is a reason why I explicitly mentioned 2 needle
pines — I think it would occur that I am well aware that there is
something in there as far as the count of the needles is
concerned. Right, or still not clear?
I should have mentioned the subsp. tatrensis, but didn’t cause I
thought it is obvious in the rush last night. Also, the reason why I
got excited to even comment on a Chroogomphus is because — as part of
an experiment along the lines of Gomphidius where I checked the
amyloidity of the pileus hyphae, I decided to do the same on the
recent Chroogomphus collections. And I noticed that in this particular
collection from Bulgaria, under Pinus sylvestris it was lacking. there
fore I was excited to conclude C. helveticus, instead of C. rutilus.
But, just how valid is that amyloidity test is another matter…
Have fun,D. www.mushroomhobby.com
and is that a reddish bruising that I see on the stipe?
this must be an error – Pinus cembra is 5-needled :)
Saw tons of these in Bulgaria a week ago — strickly under Pines — the 2-needle ones…D.