When: 2011-07-12
Collection location: Oxford Co., Maine, USA [Click for map]
Who: vjp
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 15.25 | 3 | (vjp,Mycowalt) | |||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 3.40 | 1 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 5.40 | 1 | (Herbert Baker) | |||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 5.36 | 1 | (aceska@telus.net) | |||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.02 | 34.03% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 5.36 | 1 | (aceska@telus.net) | |||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 8.80 | 2 | (Herbert Baker) | |||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 5.54 | 1 | (Mycowalt) | |||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
0.67 | 22.26% | |||||||
| 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. | |||||||||
| Vote | Score | Weight | Users | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I’d Call It That | 3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Promising | 2.0 | 5.40 | 1 | (Herbert Baker) | |||||
| Could Be | 1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Doubtful | -1.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Not Likely | -2.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| As If! | -3.0 | 0.00 | 0 | ||||||
| Overall Score sum(score * weight) / (total weight + 1) |
1.69 | 56.25% | |||||||
Comments
Add Comment
Adolf:
I think Walt was saying “no” to your original question:
“Can Consensus stay away from messing up with the MO Observation names?”
And that question (rather than “No what?”) is what has me confused. With your added explanation, I take it that your original question referred to the MO Name system, as opposed to which Name is the consensus for a particular observation.
— Joe
Did he question ID of this MO observation?
Did he question the taxonomy; Is it better to treat Cantharellus sphaerosporus as conspecific with Cantharellus tubaeformis?
Does he question the nomenclature? The name Cantharellus sphaerosporus is not valid and the name “Craterellus sphaerosporus (Peck)” is nonsense.
MO naming system put all these issues into one pot. This is why I asked, “No what?” Adolf
Adolf:
For this Observation, the Observer’s (vjp) determination is C. tubaeformis. The Consensus agrees (even though both you and Herbert think that C. sphaerosporus is more likely). (Also there’s no herbarium specimen.)
So I’m confused about what you’re asking. (I’m not trying to start another food fight.)
Best regards,
— Joe
Can Consensus stay away from messing up with the MO Observation names?
Adolf
Created: 2011-07-13 07:15:20 EEST (+0300)
Last modified: 2016-02-01 19:51:07 EET (+0200)
Viewed: 187 times, last viewed: 2018-07-06 20:44:23 EEST (+0300)
Show Log
In my opinion, without microscopic evidence showing globose spores there isn’t sufficient reason to call this C. sphaerosporus.