Observation 235905: Phylloporus Quél.

Notes:
Original Herbarium Label: Phylloporus “sp-OC2160401”
Growing along the path in +// mesic Pseudotsuga menziesii forest
Turning blue-green after few minutes

Images

P4011433.JPG
P4011437.JPG

Proposed Names

-36% (3)
Recognized by sight
34% (4)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Misuse the system at your own risk
By: webmaster (MO Webmaster)
2020-11-16 12:16:37 CST (-0500)

If you use MO in way that wasn’t intended by the code, you bear the risk of the results. For instance the site ID may be changed in a way you don’t like, or the Name itself may be changed, e.g., deprecated or corrected.

Re: The naming systems is not wrong
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2020-11-16 11:08:17 CST (-0500)

Please pay no attention to my rumbling. I am between a rock and a hard place. I cannot explain to professional mycologists with whom Oluna is working that MO is, at least at this time, the best system for storing jpeg documentation of her specimens. I have made some progress even on that front. The UBC herbarium is listing our MO observation numbers in their collection database, and MyCoPortal is cataloguing some MO and iNaturalist postings in their collection superbase.

The naming system is not wrong
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2020-11-15 19:13:18 CST (-0500)

What’s wrong is your abuse of the naming system on MO because you want MO to be nothing but a database to manage your personal herbarium.
A herbarium label is not a meaningful name that can be attached to a recognized species, even if it’s not a published entity. You don’t even know what you have here. Sequence the thing and propose a nom. prov. if it turns out to be something new. Unit then it will be called Phylloporus Quél., which it is.

Misusing of naming system?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2020-11-15 19:00:50 CST (-0500)

The naming system is wrong!
I am not misusing the naming system, I am misusing the whole Mushroom Observer for documentation of our herbarium specimens. I found it ideal for that. In a matter of fact, we are doing something that Nathan Wilson proposed in 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxySE56sJgQ
I sound like a broken record! You too!

Thank you!
By: webmaster (MO Webmaster)
2020-11-15 16:21:58 CST (-0500)

Thank you for confirming that.
But using the collection number as an MO name is a misuse of the naming system. That’s why other users are proposing a taxon name for this Observation. You shouldn’t rely on collection-number style names.
If you want to track the collection number, you can — as you typically do — enter that number in the notes and then search the notes.

Of course not!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2020-11-15 15:44:04 CST (-0500)

In the herbarium, I would keep those collections separate as well.
I rarely put two herbarium collections into one MO observation. I made that mistake with Cortinarius ceskarum when I put two collections of Cortinarius idahoense (a common fungus with us) together into one MO observation:
https://mushroomobserver.org/187485
Now I have a problem with which one is the holotype.

Let me simplify it
By: webmaster (MO Webmaster)
2020-11-15 13:49:52 CST (-0500)

Would you apply the Name Phylloporus “sp-OC2160401” to another collection?

What do you mean by the “taxon”?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2020-11-14 20:36:55 CST (-0500)

I think that MO is using the term “taxon” in a different way than it is defined in the Code. In this particular case, Phylloporus “sp-OC2160401” is a designation of this particular collection that keeps the actual collection linked to this particular MO observation and vice versa. You cannot talk about the taxon in this case, in spite of the fact, that the final name and final taxon will be most probably the species.
In the botanical nomenclature and the nomenclature of fungi, taxon (taxa) is a taxonomic group at any rank (Art. 1.1). Art. 3.1. gives you the principal ranks of taxa. In descending sequence, those taxa are kingdom (regnum), division or phylum (divisio or phylum), class (classis), order (ordo), family (familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, each species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.
You cannot collect taxon or taxa, those are abstract terms.
It is a paradox of MO that MO users cannot post their observations for identification unless they give those observations whatever name they pick from IF/SP Fungorum. I usually use “Lepista nuda” to designate MO observations I cannot identify. That is OK with MO. If, on the other hand, I use Phylloporus “sp-OC2160401” I am in trouble.

cryptonym “sp-OC2160401”
By: webmaster (MO Webmaster)
2020-11-14 18:29:13 CST (-0500)

If you collect another Phylloporus which is the same taxon as the one in this Observation, will you Propose the Name Phylloporus “sp-OC2160401”?