|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
… Well, y’know what I mean :-)
Roody provides an argument for using both “augusticeps” and “elata” as names. But he also mentions that “intermediate specimens” occur. In my experience, I have generally found differently shaped/proportioned morels of this type all growing within the same annually dependable patches.
Found five of this type yesterday, breaking my old “earliest morel” record by 13 days. One of them was past prime.
The Mayans were right about this year.
I agree with Walt on these. I silently call them Morchella angusticeps to myself, so as the sticklers can’t hear.
called this one Morchella angusticeps, a name I have preferred for this species. A North American mycologist and a North American mushroom.
and found out 4-5 DNA types but the problem is that you cannot apply these types to existing names. I don’t know how to solve this prob but I think best would be to designate all new types in Morchella and forget the old ones except M. conica and hortensis. But as long as they cling to old names and stupid nomenclatural rules I guess there will be no result. There is one in France who claims he has another new morel found growing with oak. I never ever found morels with oak but in oak forest with ash, elm or Rosaceae ever and always present. This is just another add to the chaos IMO.
looks suitable for this one.
we have so-called “common names” (which are commonly used by different people to mean different things… like, for instance “Gray Morel” or “Conica”). We have species names found in manuals, which have often been replaced by newer names. We sometimes have new species names, which are often not recognized by people who have learned mushroom names from manuals. And, we have situations – as with some of the North American morels – where no acceptable current scientific species name applies.
So is “Morchella species” as good as it gets?
I hope not. Because if so, then there seems to be no acceptable way to discuss the interesting diversity of NA morels.
I would call the one seen in this obs “Elata type” or maybe a representative of the NA “Elata group”.
But it doesn’t mean anything more than “edible morel”. In my opinion Morchella esculenta can’t be used for naming a species. Morchella sp. tells us just about the same thing.
Just kidding ;)