|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.45||1||(jason)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
MO is open source: let me extend the invitation yet again for any and all to feel free to jump in with all their free time and fix some of these annoying shortcomings of MO! (Danny, hint hint…) Personally, I’d rather be looking at lichens. It’s all I can do just to keep up with user email and lichen observations. :(
Though not automatic.
For the purposes of finding observations, I recommend adding the string “lichenicolous fungi” to the notes (as you have done with this observation). Then you can find your own observations easily by doing an “Advanced Search” for them — observer=zaca, content=“lichenicolous fungi” (don’t forget to use the quotes on content search string!). I just tried it and it worked great.
For the purposes of alerting me and other user who are interested in getting notifications of observations of lichenicolous fungi, you can always propose the name Lichenicolous Fungi anyway, even though it is deprecated. (You’ll have to submit the name twice because MO will complain about it being deprecated the first time, but it should accept the name without complaint the second time.) This lets people like Danny vote it down and keep the namespace clean, while still “tagging” your observation as a lichenicolous fungi and notifying people who have registered an interest in the group. (Go to the name page for name 552261 and look for “Email Tracking” in upper right corner of the page.)
Unfortunately, as MO currently works, there’s no way to search for observations which have had the name Lichenicolous Fungi proposed without also including observations of synonyms — i.e., every imageless or undetermined observation on the site! That’s why you still need to add the string “lichenicolous fungi” to the notes and use Advanced Search to find them.
Is all that clear?
was and is ad hoc as well. it’s imperfect. the site should have built-in functionality that allows for the rough and fine sorting of taxa based on ecology, time, nutritional mode, body form, substrate, etc. (and combinations/permutations thereof). species lists are the workaround to that absence, and they are lacking, not leastly in the ownership issue. for the ‘tiny’ and ‘HUGE’ lists I suggested people make comments with “make me tiny” or “make me HUGE” in the subject line on observations they thought deserved membership in one or the other; comments which I would then search for periodically and add. I did not keep up with it, and it did not catch on beyond one or two instances.
my enduring love, admiration and appreciation for MO and its tireless, thankless developers notwithstanding, it has been frustrating to see what appear to be simple and important changes like this be left out of site updates for years on end in favor of seemingly much more complicated, though ultimately less useful ones.
Danny owning these species lists seems suboptimal. We really need these lists to be publicly-owned. We can even make this work, potentially. I would need to create a special “project” and give everyone membership automatically. Then we can place these species lists in that project. It should give everyone permission to add observations to them. But it seems a bit ad hoc. Not sure it’s the best solution. … But that’s the whole point! No one quite knows what the best solution is… well, no one can agree on it, in any case…
Danny’s comments, but then the observations are more difficult to find. I don’t think that the best solution is anyone to create is own species lists about the subject.
Anyway, thanks for the attempts.
See Danny’s comment under Lichenicolous Fungi. Apparently we should add these observations to the species list “Lichenicolous Fungi” instead, and keep taxonomy clean. I guess there are only three accepted artificial names: Imageless, Mixed Collection, … and I forget the other! :) Let’s keep it that way.
Only problem is I don’t know how to add an observation to that species list. :(
As Jason told me in a previous message, soon I will see lichenicolous fungus everywhere. In fact, in addition to those I presented yesterday, today I saw a population of Diploschistes where many of the (almost continuous) thalli were parasitised by a fungus, of which no stucture is visible except for the black colour contrasting with the white of the Diplochistes.
Consulting the website “lichenicolous net” I saw many references of lichenicolous fungi on Diploschistes, but none seeming to have these features. Some of the genera of the parasites reported there are:
Phoma (s. lat.),