When: 2016-01-14

Collection location: Encinitas, California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)

No specimen available

Proposed Names

11% (5)
Recognized by sight
4% (6)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
By: banders (banders)
2016-01-17 14:22:29 MST (-0700)

images are nice, something as simple as a taxon name and location can be useful for distribution mapping.

By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-01-17 14:15:20 MST (-0700)

Nothing you said furthers any point against the integrity of this observation.

By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2016-01-17 14:08:34 MST (-0700)

According to a search on Google, Encinitas is 19.99 square miles: more than just a “general location”.

Many Rhizopogons in Oregon have been found in similar areas.

Again, no spores presented nor photos of sporocarps.

Okay, let’s have this discussion the millionth time…
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-01-15 14:52:03 MST (-0700)

You suggested “no can see” it. I saw it.

If spores are needed to recognize the genus Rhizopogon, that is big news to me.

A general location (but since when is a city remarkably general?) has no bearing on the identity of this observation.

This observation consists of an observer, a date, a location, and a genus. That’s not nothing.

If no one can see a Rhizopogon,
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2016-01-15 14:40:09 MST (-0700)

how can you be so certain, Jacob? No spores are shown, no comment about where the fungus was found (other than a general area)…nothing.

It is Imageless
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-01-15 11:39:59 MST (-0700)

But, more importantly, it is also Rhizopogon.

As of 10:32 PST Friday,
By: Daniel B. Wheeler (Tuberale)
2016-01-15 11:34:19 MST (-0700)

no image.

Created: 2016-01-14 16:59:38 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2016-07-24 13:24:36 MDT (-0600)
Viewed: 91 times, last viewed: 2019-07-12 13:48:10 MDT (-0600)
Show Log