Collection location: Bon Tempe Reservoir, Marin Co., California, USA [Click for map]
Eyelash Pixie Cups in the company of a Carbon Ball(most likely Annulohypoxylon thouarsianum).
|I’d Call It That||3.0||11.72||2||(Mycowalt)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||9.16||3||(Metalbator,myxomop,Beñat)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
In first, sorry for my poor english, I hope you will understand.
In second, I don’t want to impose my opinion. All of it differs between persons and view on necessity to propose correct name or not.
My opinion is following :
Scutellinia is a genus of Pyronemataceae, therefore ascomycete. Except a very little number of ascomycetes which could be recognized at the naked eye, all of them require microscopic studies. And, even with this study, it happens that we can’t give species names.
In Scutellinia species, it’s obligatory to make some different preparations :
- In water, to verify guttulated spores, tissues, form of hairs, difference (or not) between marginal and receptacular hairs
- in blue cotton, heated at boiling point (verify if perispore is separating), to verify sporal ornementation.
- Measurements of spores and marginal hairs.
In a lot of cases, even with those preparations, it’s not possible to propose a “good” name.
Because a lot of misinterpretations, a lot of determinations with naked eye, a lot of certitudes not demonstrated…
For example : S. scutellata is a name commonly adopted since several years all around the world and given on a lot of photos on forum, on a lot of herbarium exsiccata without scopic studies.
In fact, I have seen typus and a lot of collections, I have seen DNA results and I continue to send specimens for DNA study. And globally, the results are : the most common species on wood in the world is S. crinita (even in North America, I have study a lot of collections from US) and S. scutellata is a great complex but, often, rare species.
So, give the name scutellata is an error at 99%. In fact, today, I don’t know the borders of this species and I’m unable to put this name on a collection. I call it simply “S. scutellata complex”.
But, I can understand that’s taxonomic discussions and it doesn’t interest everyone.
Except give any name is not trivial, it bothers the study.
So, if you search a little serious contributions, please prefer only the genus.
And even this it made, it’s possible to make another error. For example, without scopic study, certains species of Cheilymenia could be confounded with Scutellinias (like C. fraudans or C. rubra) at naked eye.
About contributions on ascomycetes and particularly on Scutellinia, we don’t use photobooks like Thompson or Medardi. It’s necessary to use monography and keys, scientific articles…
For example, today, the only work around the world is Schumacher monography, in Opera botanica. And, since this, it’s necessary to read all of the following contributions because taxonomy has evolved.
Personnally, I have made a working world key on this genus… but always under construction and in french… Perhaps later, I will translate and propose it, but always keeping mind that’s it in evolution…
A last thing : if you want, I’ll be very glad if someone want to send me Scutellinia’s exsiccatas. I’m always on research of new correspondents around the world and I’m passionated.
neither the post nor the photos are the “property” of the poster, in the strict sense. All images fall under one of a select few types of Creative Commons licenses, and the post is as proprietary as anything else written on the internet. More than one MO user has been blindsided by this fact, presupposing MO to be their private, dictatorial pulpit, only to realize that the chairs lining the round table are all of equal height. I, for one, prefer it be this way.
Enlist whomever you like. The community will ultimately decide what’s best, whether or not it’s “correct.”
override your vote without enlisting the aid of a third party.
Also, I’m not sure that allowing the poster to have some kind of veto power is all that bad. The documentation with all the comments and suggestions would still be there for anyone to peruse. If the poster is still so stubborn as to not see the value of a change, well, that too can be evaluated by anyone looking at that particular observation. The photos are basically the property of the poster…why not the entire posting?
as you always have. All that’s changed is the level of attention and involvement. This observation was essentially ignored from the moment it was created, its name proposal tacity accepted. You can up- or downvote my proposal as much as you can any other, as can anyone else. What you’re suggesting sounds like it would undermine the demoocracy of the (admittedly problematic) consensus system. Giving the observer some kind of ultimate veto power (which he/she already has in the form of being able to eliminate or alter the observation at will) presupposes that the person who saw the thing is also the best equipped to decide what it is, which isn’t necessarily true.
and the voting system can be a little too competitive.
However, I don’t think MO was meant to be just about taxonomy.
I know you are trying to be as accurate as possible with these ID adjustments, but it is frustrating to lose control of one’s own postings, especially when the ID itself isn’t necessarily incorrect.
Perhaps MO should allow the poster to have more control by letting him/her review the suggestions/comments for alternative ID’s and then make the changes themselves.
the problem of MO’s “winner takes all” naming system. Even though the genus ID is uncontested, our proposals are essentially in competition with one another. Proposals don’t really coexist so much as one wins and another loses in a fight for percentage points. It’s a one-dimensional system, and there’s been talk of how to improve it for a long time now.
To not do so is to allow this site to perpetuate common misconceptions of species concepts already rampant on and off the web. I don’t care much for comfort levels, I care for taxonomy. These proposals were not made frivolously. It’s not as though S. scutellata is a European species and I’ve taken the annoying liberty of rewinding every North American S. scutellata proposal back to genus until or unless its North American counterpart is described. On the contrary, there are a plurality of Scutellinia species reported from our continent, indistinguishable from one another on macro characters alone, which have the continuing misfortune of being lumped under a single name — a name of a commonly encountered species, to be fair (or perhaps a disproportionately reported one due to ongoing misidentifications), but far from the only one known to occur. Throughout MO are comments lamenting or simply questioning the assignment of species names to this and other genera which require microscopic examination to ID to species. I have merely echoed those sentiments in the form of new name proposals, proposals which account for the possibility of S. scutellata being the right name, but refuse to take that idea on nothing more than faith.
Taxonomy is pedantry. Haven’t you noticed?
don’t like this trend of downgrading relatively commonly accepted species id’s to a general genus level based simply on missing information.
It starting to edge into an overly pedantic mindset and doesn’t really add much value if any.
I would much more rather have a species name, even if only a “Could be”, than throwing so many things into the large overstuffed genus only bin.