Collection location: Ripon Rd., Uplands, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada [Click for map]
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.26||1||(Pulk)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Proposed names are effectively identifications on MO. Conversely, when you ID something, you give it a name at the appropriate taxonomic rank. Labels, such as Amanita “kt2171028”, don’t count as names. :-)
And, by the way, you are welcome for me answering your question re sponsus sequence.
Mushroom Observation does not accept any hesitation in ID. The options you suggested refer to the hesitation in Naming, not ID.
Yes, MO allows it — it’s called the confidence level. After all, there is a difference between “could be” and “I would call it that”!
The holotype (?) of sponsus, Ron Pastorino’s obs 5264, was sequenced by Dr. Hughes for Rod Tulloss (ITS). I don’t know if that sequence was uploaded to GenBank, but Rod would know.
as you could see in the Notes. MO does not allow any hesitation or doubt in ID. It this were the herbarium specimen, I would have labeled it "Amanita cf. sponsus.
BTW, do you know if any Californian material of the Amanita sponsus was sequenced? If not, can we get some material of it that we would sequence it together with all our Ripon Rd. collections?
It was your and/or Oluna’s call. So, why didn’t you then go with Mr. Trim’s ID, if he ever offered one?
The collector of this material is Kevin Trim and in our best knowledge he never mistook any other amanita for sponsus!
The thumbnail pic shows fruitbodies sporting morphology inconsistent with sponsus or sect. Validae. The fb on extreme left has a broken sheath enveloping its stem. The fb in the middle clearly shows membranous flaps of what appears to be either a saccate or limbate volva. None of the fb show a well developed annulus. Also the attached gills have a thick edge and show some forking. Maybe we should be asking ourselves if this even an amanita!
The collector of this material is known to mistake other amanitas for sponsus. For example, IMO obs 297500 and obs 297501 have been misidentified, for their gestalt morphology places them into sect. Amanita.
It is difficult to take geographic location as a diagnostic character when the geographic distribution of a newly recognized taxon is not known.
What about the colour? Check our photo taken near-by this population few days later:
Both those characters can be disputed, however, crossing out MO observation names and replacing them with your own suggestions is a sign of scientific illiteracy. Make your suggestions of “naming” as Comments and I will take them seriously. Otherwise, I am happy to ignore them.
Please don’t be like this, Adolf.
I agree, the geographic location and basidiome colour are useful features for identifying mushrooms, but only in the so-called Citizen Mycology. On the other hand, it does not really matter, how you call it, because for any responsible ID one should have the specimen in hand. Never mind, thank you for your suggestions, regardless how you present them. Adolf
are useful features for identifying mushrooms.
Created: 2017-11-06 23:49:31 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2018-11-07 15:59:41 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 245 times, last viewed: 2019-09-03 23:28:29 CDT (-0400)