Collection location: Observatory Hill, 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||10.32||2||(firstname.lastname@example.org,ressaure)|
|Could Be||1.0||5.78||1||(Alan Rockefeller)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
The fruitbodies look a bit distressed but otherwise very similar to what I’ve seen of M. cucumis. Or maybe what I saw was a variety? :) I’ll post the Siberian version now.
Isn’t that automatically a synonym to the main species?
My opinion is that you should name it as a variety, although the use of variety names has bothered me for a long time. If a variety has distinct and constant characters without intermediate forms towards the main form (and not being some kind of albinos or just minor forms in poor habitats), I see no reason why it shouldn’t have species status.
But as long as no species name has been published, the variety name is the only option.
Macrocystidia cucumis var. latifolia (J.E. Lange) Imazeki & Hongo is smaller than M. cucumis var. cucumis (see Moser p. 168 and a remark in Breitenbach vol 3, p. 230). The latter occurs in more disturbed habitats such as in gardens, nurseries, forest margins, etc. We labelled our observation “M. cucumis” since we followed Species Fungorum, where the M.c. var. latifolia is not recognized and is treated as a mere synonym of the M. cucumis. Should we rename our observation?
This photo looks different than all of the other photos of this species for both color and shape.
Created: 2011-03-09 02:34:27 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2014-07-16 05:55:41 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 102 times, last viewed: 2018-12-24 16:37:56 CST (-0500)