The Original Identification: Fuscoboletinus spectabilis (Peck) Pomerl. & A.H. Sm. was wrong. This MO observation is supported by the Oluna’s collection deposited (as Suillus paluster) in Foray Newfoundland and Labrador Fungarium:
Thank you, Walter, for your (annotation) Comment. Igor, next time you have a suggestion of a wrong ID, make it as a Comment, not by crossing out the original label. Leave that on the other Citizen taxonomists..



Proposed Names

95% (4)
Used references: 1) WES’ comment/ID
2) Boletes of Eastern North America by B-R-B
3) Mycologia 2016, 108, 1216-1228

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
I apologize!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2017-08-17 12:52:28 EDT (-0400)

I have realized that I made a mistake of sending my “private” message to the larger audience. I would not have minded to post it as a Comment, but it was too long.

Yes, and I did see and read your email…
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-16 12:04:14 EDT (-0400)

…except that I made a conscious decision of not responding to it. It’s not necessarily about the contents your message, though one can make a case about that, too, but what you did next with our exchange. You took our one-on-one, private (as you admit yourself) discussion and made it public by CC-ing a number of individuals on the emails without first asking me how I would feel about it, and now you made this exchange public again by dragging it back to MO. So, yes, I did and do take offense at your lack of tact and betrayal of trust, first and foremost. But there is also another twist to your actions — you did this on purpose, as an opportunity to advance your own agenda, and you used me by dragging my name into your scheme. I should have seen it coming, but perhaps in a moment of weakness I thought better of you than you deserved…

I wrote you what the herbarium is
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2017-08-16 03:39:44 EDT (-0400)

in my private message to you. Dr. Anne Pringle told me that you took it as an insult. That’s a pity. I collected lot of useful hints on how to get perfect herbarium specimens and how to track them in the database. Prof. J. Ammirati considers Oluna’s specimens as consistently the best on the Pacific Northwest. Oluna donated close to 10,000 fungal collections to the UBC herbarium and you know her drawings that document many of her collections. Save those instructions and get to them back once-a-while, you cannot remember all after only one reading.

You have 715 records in the MyCoPortal database:;}

I wanted to help you and you will understand it one day.

Still picking a fight, Adolf?
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-11 23:36:13 EDT (-0400)

I know about herbarium enough to know that my personal herbarium (a physical collection of exsicattae) sits at my home. Your herbarium, Adolf, is at your home or wherever you decided to deposit it.
I don’t have anything to do with MycoPortal, so I don’t even know why my name is associated with that database. That’s right, Adolf, of all people you should know the difference between a database and a herbarium.

Igor wrote: MO is a lot of things, but it’s not a herbarium
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2017-08-11 23:25:37 EDT (-0400)

My question is, Igor, what do you know about herbarium. I search your name in MyCoPortal and saw only your MUOB postings. Adolf

ID’s from photos are not wild guesses
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2017-08-10 16:43:39 EDT (-0400)

This observation is a good example – it was correctly identified by others by looking at the photos.

Sometimes a microscope is needed, but only in species groups that have macroscopically identical but microscopically different species.

When I see what I believe to be…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2017-08-10 08:26:51 EDT (-0400)

a possible misidentification, my first attempt to induce a correction is often to suggest something else within the comment section, and then leave it up to the original observer to make changes within the ID section, or to at least continue the discussion. I think this approach is apt to foster better relations among MO users. However, it does not always work, as the original observer often fails to respond.

But, if the original ID proposal is a name of an edible mushroom and I think it may actually be something toxic, then I immediately downgrade the confidence on the ID and provide an alternative within the ID section. Or, if the original ID is what I consider to be way off the mark, I’ll do this same thing.

I had a couple good discussions with Pulk about allowing erroneous ID proposals to remain posted. In some cases this represents useful information, as it serves to illustrate how one species may be mistaken for another.

Lastly, many MO posts show mushrooms that are sufficiently ambiguous that a highly confident ID is unlikely. In such cases seeing an array of variously confident ID proposals is potentially useful.

You don’t have to go to the Log (I know what it is),
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2017-08-09 23:57:33 EDT (-0400)

because I keep my original blunder in the Notes. There is an old message for you there as well. Adolf

A clever attempt at deflection
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-09 23:37:46 EDT (-0400)

Didn’t know about the log, did you? :-) Have some backbone and admit that I caught your BS (“Show me where in this MO observation is my original awful misidentification, except in my MO Notes” — AC).

Adolf’s misidentification
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-09 22:45:39 EDT (-0400)

From the observation’s log:
2017-08-08 15:25:04 CDT (-0400) : Proposed name destroyed by Fuscoboletinus spectabilis (Peck) Pomerl. & A.H. Sm.
2017-08-08 15:24:47 CDT (-0400) : Proposed name destroyed by Suillus spectabilis (Peck) Kuntze

Good points, Alan
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-09 22:27:02 EDT (-0400)

With regard to crossing out the original label here, lets’ admit it was Adolf himself who did it — first by deleting his incorrect name proposal, S. spectabilis, from this obsie and then by probably having to strike the name from the label in his own herbarium record at home.
MO is a lot of things, but it’s not a herbarium. MO can conveniently serve as a record-keeping and cataloging system for one’s herbarium, and I am sure that a few users took advantage of it, including yours truly, but it’s not its major utility. For most users, MO is and will remain a friendly forum where they can showcase their finds, get them identified properly and learn a few things about fungi from fellow mycologists/citizen-scientists in a way that no field guide can teach them.

Proposing names is not crossing out the original herbarium label
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2017-08-09 21:17:47 EDT (-0400)

Names proposed by the uploader are always there, and no one can change them except the person who proposed it. Proposing names on MO is like adding an annotation, which is encouraged in herbariums.

iNaturalist has the feature to ignore the consensus name and go with the name that the uploader wants – this is a bad thing in my opinion for several reasons. It causes mistakes to be permanent in the database, even when many people can see that the data is in error. It is hard to trust a database that does not allow people to correct mistaken entries without cooperation from the uploader.

People eventually drift away from websites or die – in 100 years, none of us will be here, but our MO records will live on. As the taxonomy gets updated, it will be discovered that many of the names we think are correct today will one day be incorrect – and future researchers need to be able to fix the records to keep the database accurate.

By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2017-08-08 18:47:52 EDT (-0400)

MO is not your personal herbarium — it never was and never will be. MO is also a public domain, and you know what that means in the context of this website. While observations are generally ‘tamper-proof’ (unless it part of a project, in which case they can be ‘manipulated’ and ‘massaged’ by others with editing privileges), the ability to propose reasonable alternate names is the intrinsic right of anyone with an MO account. Your observations are not special in that sense, and you should finally accept the fact that when you make mistakes on your ID’s you will stand corrected in the way this website was designed to function. If you are unhappy with this fair assessment of the situation, you have two options:
1) post your observations elsewhere (i-naturalist or whatever)
2) delete this observation and post a replacement with the correct name

No annulus and large pores
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2017-08-08 11:32:16 EDT (-0400)

This is Boletus paluster Peck or Suillus paluster or Fuscoboletinus paluster. You choose but this is not F. spectabilis which has a prominent annulus.

Created: 2017-08-07 23:11:30 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2017-08-12 00:21:44 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 536 times, last viewed: 2019-07-11 13:11:12 EDT (-0400)
Show Log