When: 2008-05-14

Collection location: Edgewood Blue, Wells Gray region, British Columbia, Canada [Click for map]

Who: Jason Hollinger (jason)

No specimen available

among moss and duff, under aspen and doug fir, near a bunch of morels
ST: large, thick, pale golden-tan, smooth to scurfy, barely non-circular in cross-section, filled with white downy pith
HEAD: pale yellowish brown, deeply wavy-wrinkled but not pitted or honey-combed, attached inside only at apex of stipe
ASCI: long, cylindrical
PARAPHYSES: long, perfectly even, with rounded tips, narrower than asci, 6.9+/-0.6µm (n=12)
SPORES: huge, 1 cell, oblong, smooth but with fine texture inside, 2 per ascus, (47)62+/-9(71)x(17)18+/-2(23)µm, Q=(2.7)3.3+/-0.4(3.9) (N=7)

Species Lists


Proposed Names

94% (3)
Based on microscopic features: Huge-ass spores.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
How about…?
By: Johannes Harnisch (Johann Harnisch)
2009-05-17 15:59:59 -05 (-0500)

What do you say shall we depreciate this name (Verpa)and call it Ptychoverpa … I’ma about ready to,,,,

Having code and people using it aren’t the same…
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2008-05-20 15:15:39 -05 (-0500)

Grand ideas, guys, but will anyone actually enter long lists of spore dimensions! :) If I didn’t have a vi macro to format my observation notes even I wouldn’t enter this stuff into MO, I’m sorry to say.

But that said… wouldn’t it be neat to add a few fields for common important measurements (like spore size of course), and then automatically calculate the stats on the show_name page? That would require people only enter one number per observation. Start small… (Or was this exactly what you guys were talking about? I’m slow.)

Having the code
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2008-05-20 10:33:30 -05 (-0500)

Well, if you are going to put more things in code, I think the spore measurements should be taken a little farther here, and include the errors on the average and width from the measurements also. I haven’t seen any measurements that include the measurement errors, and the statistical errors especially, since those are really dominate. I’ve worked out the details, enough to my satisfaction (at least), but I’m not sure how many are interested, and it would just make the spore measurements more dense. (But would at least put the handling of variation in samples on a mathematical footing.)

Excellent notes
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2008-05-20 07:03:44 -05 (-0500)

It would be great to figure out what we could do to encourage others to follow your example. Regarding the spore measurements, there’s no reason we shouldn’t store the actual measurements and do the calculations in MO and since you have the code…. :-)

That’s a bit dense, isn’t it?
By: Jason Hollinger (jason)
2008-05-19 23:44:50 -05 (-0500)

I have a computer spit it out given a list of measurements. Clearly needs some work, eh? It’s (min)mean+/-sigma(max)… I think. It’s been a while since I wrote it! Q is ratio of length to width, N is number of measurements. If I ever got N large enough it would give me (min)5%-95%(max), but you need quite a lot of measurements before the 5% and 95% measurements aren’t just the min and max!

Nice documentation
By: Darvin DeShazer (darv)
2008-05-19 23:30:42 -05 (-0500)

This is a great post! Nice to read the details.
I would be interested in a translation of each number or symbol for the spore measurements: (47)62+/-9(71)x(17)18+/-2(23)µm, Q=(2.7)3.3+/-0.4(3.9) (N=7)