|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.96||1||(amanitarita)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||27.82||5||(gunchky,Mycowalt,Dave W,...,...)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
maybe this is why I am not spending much time on MO these days.
OK Nathan, let’s lose the anonymity … for everyone!
It has no benefit for the community, merely a screen for individuals.
If you say it, stand behind it.
Sorry IG, it did seem out of character. Still, I don’t make that kind of judgement (it’s a troll!!!!!!) from just one post! If there has been a documented pattern of misbehavior, then Mr or Ms Anonymous should be shown the door.
I was being nice before, but its probably the same guy who goes around voting down image quality just to mess with people…
to provide the benefit of the doubt and refrain from demeaning commentary. If someone is intentionally trying to cause trouble, it’ll eventually become obvious, and then you just go through the proper channels. More comfortable for everyone this way.
My oh my, you and Phil should take your MO rose-tinted glasses off, have a reality check or have someone pinch you. Make no mistake here — this is not a case of me “trashing newbies”, a pretty serious accusation. I don’t go around bashing people on MO for wrong ID proposals and negative votes, and you darn well know it!
Someone had the audacity to anonymously cast a very negative vote for a solid ID established by several reputable and knowledgeable users. This is very different from just proposing a wrong ID or casting a negative vote, which all of us have done here on MO, and for a legit reason, without others squawking at us. It’s a shame if you cannot tell the difference between the two! The way I see it (and that’s not going to change), there was a deliberate intent here that has all of the hallmarks of “trolling sensu lato”, NOT an honest and innocent mistake made by a novice due to lack of knowledge/experience.
but yes, MO is very well designed. and all of this chatter and discussion gives depth to these postings!
an obsie with just a name is … a data point; maybe a good one, maybe not so good. an obsie with dialogue is often intriguing and a jump-off point to deeper knowledge.
only one page of f. lutea obsies here anyway. when I am searching for a species, I look at ’em all, defined by popularity and photo quality. Your obsie is right at the top for both.
not lost at all, but found in a better way. ;)
..not necessarily haha funny, how a discussion like this can spontaneously burst into flame. On the other hand, it’s encouraging to see such robust commentary. We all learn from one another here on MO, and sometimes making an adjustment to one’s mindset can be uncomfortable.
Debbie, these mushrooms were found at the edge of a large field that borders a forest. I would call this habitat “disturbed”, as it appeared there’s some sort of crop-planting.
I didn’t know about the “points for discussion” affecting the search priority. Yet another well-thought feature here on MO.
Dang, where did our pleasant little discussion on a curious color of rugosoannulata go??!
We obsessive mushroom geeks of MO all agree on what this is … just might disagree on just what to call it. Same as it ever was, eh?
One vote among many won’t affect our search abilities. For one thing, the fact of all this activity will pull it up to the top in the popularity search! :)
I couldn’t agree more with Byrain … anonymity sucks. Is it for a “noble purpose,” or to hide your actions? Only the poster can tell you, but I have my suspicions. Stand behind your posts and votes like a man (or woman)!
Trashing newbies is not OK. This is not a college seminar. MO is beautiful because it allows so many different voices. We all start at zero. Can we please use a little empathy for less educated others here?
Proposing a “wrong ID” doesn’t make one a troll, and if it does, we can all of us wear that moniker, you included Igor! :)
I respect the expertise (but will still argue IDs that I feel are in question) of those who have dedicated much time to mycological studies, and I honor the potential of all who post here in hopes of growing their knowledge.
It takes all kinds to make up a mushroom community, eh?
BTW Dave, beautiful capture of this color morph. I am less than thrilled with the “wine cap/saffron cap” (oooo! I just coined a new common name!) flavor, but they sure are handsome mushrooms, and I was not aware of this particular variety from my perch in the west. Exclusively eastern? Have they naturalized out that way, or do they just occur in disturbed human habitats?
Any thoughts on the biology of this critter?
Just means that we have no frame of reference to understand them, the person who made them has no publicly presented arguments and without knowing who left the votes we can not defer any potential arguments. So any potential to correct or educate is lost even if there is a good reason behind them it will not mean anything if its not outright obvious which is not the case here.
Any good points hiding behind these votes have been utterly lost and may as well be votes representing someone that has a simple grudge against Dave for finding cooler mushrooms or some other equally silly reason.
I understand that privacy is important and that taking it away is not a good thing, but in this case the benefits of the individual do not outweigh the harm done to the community as a whole and the detrimental effects from having a username being associated with votes on MO is minimal if not non-existent.
I would kindly ask whoever left the anonymous votes to, A) no longer leave anonymous votes and B) explain the reasoning behind the votes in this observation so we don’t have to guess to whatever noble or inappropriate intention they had.
It’s nice and noble of you to come to the defense of “offended novices”, except that your tirade directed at me is misguided. Point #1: I certainly don’t like when others put their words into my mouth. You did. “Deny someone access to MO” — did I ever say or suggest that? Point #2: Novices are like students. Good students listen, speak only when they are called upon to answer a question, learn, take notes and study hard. They certainly don’t challenge their more experienced peers and instructors unless they have done their homework and can prove/defend their point successfully. None of it is the case here… There won’t be any apologies, and my comments stay. You are welcome to report me to the MO ethics police to have me censured if it makes you feel better.
that we should not overreact, and that giving a person a chance to reconsider is a sound policy.
My concern is this. When confidence level for a proposal is reduced, access to the observation as a representative of the particular type of mushroom is diminished. That is, if someone searches the MO records for Stropharia rugosoannulata observations, this one is apt to be deeply buried in the low-confidence trash heap. This would not be the first time that an observation of mine for which I am absolutely certain of the ID, and for which some non-standard trait makes the observation particularly interesting, gets buried because the mushroom failed to correspond to someone’s narrow concept. In this case, the “f. lutea” should make it very clear that the yellow color is not a reason to dismiss the ID.
And, BTW, I think this situation shows exactly why the forma nomenclature is a useful device. DNA is a red herring in this case (or maybe a yellow herring :-) The “f. lutea” designation is not to say it isn’t Stropharia rugosoannulata. It is to say that this collection exhibits a trait that differs from the typical form, but in a way that is consistent with a significant percentage of occurrences.
Your comments were unwarranted, and demeaning. You, sir have overstepped your bounds. I personally do not believe anyone besides the site organizers, monitors or managers have the right to deny someone access to MO, and should only use that privilege in extreme circumstances. Don’t you believe in giving novices an opportunity to learn, and to use constructive criticism when necessary. You should be ashamed of yourself, and immediately apologize to the offended person.
Dave, what’s the big deal. Your proposal still stands. Did you ever complain when an anonymous vote was cast in your favor? How about you Igor.
with you, Dave. Ignorant trolls are not welcome here.
is a West Coast slimy-capped forest species. The ones seen here are most definitely not S. ambigua. These are the yellow-capped version of S. rugosoannulata. This is a well known form of the King Stropharia.
Ill-informed negative votes simply serve to bury nice observations of unusual fungi under the Mushroom Observer trash heap for no good reason. This is especially aggravating when the votes are made anonymously.
It seems like Stropharia ambigua or another species similar appearance.
but lots of mushrooms have different cap colors. should we call humans by different latin names? they come in different colors, too.
if the DNA is a perfect match, then what?
not my battle to fight, just reporting what I saw.
yup, imperfect world, still. go figure.
I still suspect that it was “inbreeding” that caused that new color to pop. Our tame fungi play by different rules, it seems. But they can go feral, just like the animals do!
Life remains interesting, even if often unclear.
IF/SF also list the vast majority of recognized varieties, forms and subspecies of the Boletus edulis group as deprecated to simply B. edulis. Heck, it still shows Xanthoconium separans as the current name for B. separans. Just another example of taking IF/SF nomeclature with a grain of salt…
In his original desription of S. rugosoannulata f. lutea Hongo (see the description I recently posted directly from the original reference) stated that he couldn’t find any morphological differences between the two forms of the wine cap mushroom, yet apparently he felt it was sufficient to elevate f. lutea to the form rank.
so, these are mushrooms that have escaped from cultivation? where are they “native?”
Are the white and yellow forms a function of artificial breeding and small initial population sizes?
BTW, IF lists Stropharia rugosoannulata f. lutea as deprecated to S. rugosoannulata.
Same exact species, different cap color.
Kitchen or herbarium? The eternal debate. When I found my very first, “eating quality” example of Amanita barrowsii last summer in NM (a dead ringer for Amanita velosa of CA, but almost saccharine sweet by comparison), I had the very same dilemma, resolved by a long section and eating only half of the fb!
In other words, I split the diff!
…such a thing as “recovery from pot-hunting”? :-) I think your program methods are way too soft for kicking the habit successfully, Dave. :-) I was thinking more along the line of… Well, never mind… I will tell you in person next time I see you.
I am making progress along these lines, I have put aside one of these obs 237930 for potential study… a small one, of course :-)
Maybe recovering pot-hunters need a twelve-step program featuring activities like smash-mounting bits of morel for scoping, or smearing noxious chemicals onto a King Bolete. Oh! The horror!
Dave. :-) Next time you find some delectable fungal rarities I hope you think of the glorious NJ mushroom club you happen to be a member of, or, at least, your favorite Russian buddy before you reach for that knife and frying pan and start chopping away. :-)
left a bit to be desired, and the caps were slightly slimy when cooked. Flavor was okay. So I think the wine-cap variety may be better. But like you say, Igor, this is one type mushroom that is worthwhile probably only when the caps are unexpanded.
I should have dehydrated one! Of course, this occurred to me after they were all sliced and in the frying pan.
…with the wine caps was a positive one, and I cooked only young fbs, though I concur that there is a number of other wild mushroom, the usual suspects, that definitely taste better. I recall they tasted similar to C. caperatus, but I think by the time I am done cooking all my wild shrooms, they pretty much taste the same to me. :-)
Wine caps, ask the tree trimmers to drop off a load of mainly hardwood chips and toss your S ro remnants or spores in them.
ever finding the white-capped version. I have seen faded wine-colored ones, but not the truly albino form.
Meh on the Stropharia edibility. You are correct, though. Shoulda only consumed the small ones. They were okay, but not in the same league as the really excellent edible fungi.
One can find white forms of S ro in our area. Check out the nursery on Hunlock Rd. just before Muhlenburg corners. It’s on the left just past Annie’s Tavern.
You ate the older fbs, too?! Man, you must have been very hungry. :-)
Looks like another trip to Centre Co. is in order – I am sure there is more where these came from, right? :-) Did f. lutea taste any better than the garden variety wine caps? :-)
preserved some of this material. My bad! Karen, my brother, and I ate them.
I got curious and checked out the rugosoannula entry in Index/Species Fungorum — and there it was.
Great thumbnail picture, by the way — the best I’ve seen for this species not only on MO but elsewhere online.
If you saved some, would you consider donating a fb to the NJMA Herbarium?
the classification that clearly correlates with this morphological deviation from the typically burgundy-capped rugosoannulata. I was not aware of this distinction.
I wasn’t aware of the other forms of the wine-cap mushroom. Thanks for pointing this out and for the link.
near the edge of a field. There had just been a soaking rainfall over the previous two days. But I think these are just a yellow form.
There’s also a pure white form of rugosoannulata.
Spores 11-14 × 6.5-8.5 eliminates S. coronilla, a smaller yellow species that’s is found in open areas during summer fall.
Why are these so yellow? Even the young ones lack the wine color. Were these exposed to the sun a lot? Honestly, I thought it was another species at first…