Observation 381661: Fungi Bartl.

Species Lists



Proposed Names

59% (2)
Recognized by sight
-28% (1)
Recognized by sight

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
it’s true
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2019-10-06 14:49:31 MST (-0700)

but there are a couple considerations to make when applying names to observations which might not contain enough information to make confident identifications at whatever level of specificity.

1. Google Images scrapes MO on a regular basis, and Google Images search results will marry IDs to observation images without any consideration for voting confidence, number of votes, or the expertise of the voters. If it’s the “consensus” name (even a consensus of one), it wins, and Google cares not for further details.

2. Basically the same as above, but internal to the site. People using MO as an authority in and of itself have no way of determining the supportedness/veracity of an ID without cryptic workarounds, site experience, or privileged information. The site has always done little to distinguish and rank content and content providers. The same homogenization and misinformation propagation problem, then, applies internally to MO as much as it does externally anywhere else.

Given these factors, the best that we (an ill-defined group of site veterans to which I scarcely belong anymore) have been able to do is to vote and propose in such a way as to ensure that the “winning” name is always one which all can agree a thing unequivocally is, as opposed to a name which a thing may or may not be.

Fair enough…
By: Kerry Britton (kbman)
2019-10-06 14:28:52 MST (-0700)

Thanks for the response, Danny.
I think we make reasonable guesses at IDs based on very limited information here on MO all the time though, often by visual recognition only.
Some observers and observations are more complete and some aren’t.

It’s all part of the fun and challenge of participating here.

2 ways of voting on MO
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2019-10-06 13:45:30 MST (-0700)

one for the likelihood of a thing being a thing, another for how identifiable a thing is based on presented information (and therefore how deserving of a name it is at all). admins have never addressed that these two systems have to share space in the same, single voting system. there is not enough information here for practically any ID.

Why not?
By: Kerry Britton (kbman)
2019-10-06 13:29:27 MST (-0700)

I am very interested why myxomop seems so convinced that this couldn’t possibly be Ductifera pululahuana. It is certainly a plausible suggestion from the images presented.