Improving our Fungi Resource Centre

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by cybershot

Wouldn't it would be useful if favourite online references such as Phillips had a an interactive 'Notes' facility so that you could add all these up-to-date nuggets of information like yours to the appropriate species' entries. We will have to approach Fungi John about compiling a WAB reference containing such useful info as the search facility is not always reliable in finding the exact tit bit amongst all the data on the forums.
--------------------------------------------------
If anyone has any ideas on how we can improve our fungi resource or what more it should contain .. feel free to post here.

Once I have a little more time I'll collate it into some actions.

Happy Hunting - John

[cybershot]

Just to expand on my initial idea which I've already outlined to John in a PM:

I was wondering if the existing WAB Fungi List could be elaborated to include for each species the mycological data as per a Phillips/Jordan type reference and a verified image(s) from the gallery as per the WAB bird list, plus any salient up-to-date Notes gleaned from the treasure trove that is the Fungi Forums or added interactively by the cogniscenti among our members. I appreciate it is a huge task, and not being an IT technocrat, even if it's feasible, but I'm sure there would be volunteers to help out; promoting WAB even further to the forefront of on-line Fungi references.

David

[cybershot]

Two volunteers for you already John.
Good on you Andrew.

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...olunteers.html

Let's know if and how we can help.

David

[cybershot]

The Fungi of Britain A to Z, accessed through Reference - Fungi,

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/list/british_fungi

is building into a substantial work of reference with the help of volunteers like Deer Stalker et al. Suggestions of how to improve it would be useful:

1. Inclusion of synonyms, as well as Latin and Common names
2. Expanding size data to accommodate a range of values for both cap and stipe.
3. "Notes" for up-to-date help on ID etc, gleaned from information supplied by the experts on the forums

David

[leek]

i find that having only one picture restricts your chances of identifying a species.
I would find it much more useful to be able to see a number of pictures throughout the life cycle of the species - so that you can observe the changes that each fruit body goes through.
definitely needs info about sizes of cap, stem (height and thickness range).

maybe also info about the types of tree you may find each species near.

LEEK

[goosey]

I have just been looking through the fungi A-Z and thought I would let you know that I think it's super! It will be so useful not to have to go through the complete gallery looking for ID's when it's complete. Well done guys, to all involved! The images are pretty impressive too .

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by goosey

I have just been looking through the fungi A-Z and thought I would let you know that I think it's super! It will be so useful not to have to go through the complete gallery looking for ID's when it's complete. Well done guys, to all involved! The images are pretty impressive too .

It's going to take some time to get it completed and updated but it will be a great reference eventually. And Leek may be interested to know that Stuart has OK'd the facility for adding extra images to exemplify different characteristics and stages of development. Feel free to add or amend as you see fit.

David

[cybershot]

The biggest problem when starting the spade work of editing the existing entries is knowing whether or not the images, uploaded by all and sundry, are verified and correctly named according to the BC checklist. It certainly helps to have someone with Ken's experience checking out the misfits and indicating anomalies. If there's not available time to do a full edit, a short comment to that effect in the Additional Notes of such entries would be a great help. Then when I see it I'll try and sort it.

Moreover if you have a suitable verified reference shot please post it in the gallery, indicate this in the Note, and I will retrieve it for the appropriate entry.

Many thanks.

David

[cybershot]

There are now over 400 entries in the Fungi of Britain A to Z

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/list/british_fungi

and an awful long way to go in updating and editing the list, so if anyone finds they have some spare time on their hands to contribute a couple of revisions it will not seem quite so daunting.

TIA

David

[Alantb]

I've just discovered the picture gallery and have not had much time to look at it but it needs some critical nit-picking. [Like, myxomycetes (e.g. Ceratiomyxa) aren't actually fungi for instance.]
Another point, one picked up by leek, is that one picture is seldom enough and that dimensions are important. If this is really setting out to be a pictorial record of All British Fungi and not just a picture book then it is going to require a lot of work.
Another point (Oh dear, he's going to go on and on...) is that identification of fungi from photographs is not a good idea and could lead, in extreme cases, to stray poisonings. A better idea might be a gallery of drawings (cf Courtecuisse & Duhem) but that would be even more difficult.
I think that this could be nice to look at but given the picture sizes would only help identification when the features were quite obvious. I looked at the 'C' entries and I'm a bit doubtful about the Clitocybes - but given that appearances vary a good deal I'm not going to stick my neck out and say that the pictures aren't what they are said to be, they just give reason to be suspicious.

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Alantb

I've just discovered the picture gallery and have not had much time to look at it but it needs some critical nit-picking. [Like, myxomycetes (e.g. Ceratiomyxa) aren't actually fungi for instance.]

The A-Z gallery is work in progress and contains quite a number of misidentified photos or shots of specimens that are not typical. I have sent Cybershot a list of the photos I know to be incorrect.

Updating the gallery takes a lot of time and there are only a few brave souls working on it, when they have time.

The myxomycete point is valid but at the moment I doubt that a separate gallery could be justified because of the lack of resources, limited number of photos, and limited expertise (and probably interest) on WAB.

Originally Posted by Alantb

Another point, one picked up by leek, is that one picture is seldom enough and that dimensions are important. If this is really setting out to be a pictorial record of All British Fungi and not just a picture book then it is going to require a lot of work.

When you click on the photos in the A-Z gallery you get taken into a more detailed page with descriptive information. Given enough man hours this could be developed into a valuable resource. (Of course if you want to volunteer some time Alan, feel free. I've chickened out because of the time commitment.) There are already some species with more than one entry. I think this is the way to go - a variety of photos of each species would give a better representation of the variability within that species.

Originally Posted by Alantb

Another point... is that identification of fungi from photographs is not a good idea and could lead, in extreme cases, to stray poisonings.

The point has been drummed home many times on WAB (yes I am also the guilty culprit, spoiling people's fun) that identification of many species requires detailed descriptions of all the characters, both macroscopic and microscopic. It's always worth repeating though, for the benefit of new members.

At the same time, for me much of the enjoyment of the fungi forums comes from trying to narrow down the options for a mystery specimen. The photo provides some information but an accompanying detailed description (including microscopic characters where available) significantly improves the chances of a firm identification.

Originally Posted by Alantb

A better idea might be a gallery of drawings (cf Courtecuisse & Duhem) but that would be even more difficult.
I think that this could be nice to look at but given the picture sizes would only help identification when the features were quite obvious.

The photos on WAB are taken by WAB members. If we have any talented artists they haven't volunteered any paintings so far. But again, feel free, Alan. Yours cartoons are reknowned (at least to ABFG members who have been around for some time!).

I certainly think we could do with larger images in the A-Z gallery, but whether this is technically feasible, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Alantb

I looked at the 'C' entries and I'm a bit doubtful about the Clitocybes - but given that appearances vary a good deal I'm not going to stick my neck out and say that the pictures aren't what they are said to be, they just give reason to be suspicious.

I'll stick my neck out. The photo labelled Clitocybe vibecina shows a non-descript Lactarius. The photo labelled Clitocybe sinopica shows Lepista flaccida. One or two of the other Clitocybe images are not helpful because they do not show typical specimens. Given time this can be corrected, and more images of each species would provide a better resource for reference.

There are stacks of excellent images in the main Gallery but this does not lend itself to be a reference source because it is arranged in date order. (Some of the identifications could also do with checking, but that's another matter.) In time, some of the correctly labelled photos could be used to populate the A-Z gallery.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Ken

[cybershot]

Thank you Alan, I appreciate those valid observations, most of which have been covered previously in WAB discussions on this subject, and in some cases acted upon. Leeks observation at post #5 was answered at post #7.

Unfortunately the vast amount of work required to knock this feature into anything like the valuable resource intended, is hindered by the fact that Stuart is currently indisposed and funds are short. So the glitches, that need ironing out to allow the volunteers to go about the painstaking work of editing the entries without frustrating validation errors and time out interruptions, haven't yet been eradicated.

Fortunately we do have many members who even if they don't do the editing themselves, rather than embarking on critical nit picking, supply both constructive feedback and improved material which will eventually enhance this facility. But like any other ambitious project it has to start somewhere and it takes time and effort to hone it.

If you come across any anomalies which in your experience can easily be rectified please feel free to use the editing facility to put it right. After all, Stuart has made it freely available for this purpose. I have tried to set a standard format (not yet finally comprehensive in it's content but well on the way)

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ar...erdigris-navel

but, under these circumstances, there will always be the inevitable deviations. As long as the on going aim is to provide accurate information and quality images then we have a chance, in the long term, of providing what was intended thanks to those who continue to contributed their time, effort and experience.

David

[cybershot]

And very much appreciate you support Ken (uploaded as I was posting). I will try and action your recent email advising the latest editorial changes required. Thanks again for the valuable feedback.

David

[FungiJohn]

Some very good points and observations raised and many that we as mods / editors are very aware of.

In the past year our 'fungi' forum / gallery has grown significantly. There are also now more people with a greater knowledge of fungi on the site than ever before.

If I can take some of the points mentioned.

Myxomycetes:

Myxomycetes will continue to sit within the fungi subject area until such time that the numbers suggest their own area is more appropriate. For those who remember, Lichen's were included not too long ago!

Pictorial record of all British Fungi:

We are heading this way Whilst we have many pictures in the gallery, unfortunately we don't have too many which are of the 'technical' type. I would like to see for each species 4 or 5 images which accurately depict the different stages in growth.

However this presents another challenge and that is one of the photographers. Not everyone has the skills or resources to reproduce what they have seen.

Accompanying microscopic images would also be very useful but again, not everyone has the resources / skills for such.

I'm not convinced that a library of line drawings will help. Apart from how we would achieve this I would rather see a good photograph anytime.

ID from photos - stray poisonings:

Although many people are now looking at fungi re edibility I must stress again that WAB is not a culinary site and we shouldn't get too involved with suggesting what may or may not be suitable for eating.

A to Z:

It is still very early in development and yes, there are many inaccuracies ...look at my Panther Cap
It is a very time consuming exercise and not many of us have the time required. Ask David how long he has spent there! It's an awesome task.

We can have larger pictures btw

I think what would help here is to prioritise the tasks rather than hop from one to the other. At present I'm looking at methods for moving identified fungi in the unidentified gallery into the main gallery. Not only are they on different databases but I suspect they may also be on separate virtual servers. Once Stu has some free time I'll see what can realistically be done.

Regarding the unidentified gallery ... I am seriously tempted to suggest moving away from this method. It was I who first suggested it to WAB

Finally, I think we should congratulate ourselves for what we have achieved already. I often wonder where we will be in 6 months time .... probably still here deciding how best to move the finest fungi resource further forward

John

[cybershot]

'Tell me about it, John' .........and thank you very much for the input, now just get out there with your camera and rustle me up a pic of the Panther.

One of the biggest headaches is keeping abreast of the forums which supply a wealth of valuable information for keeping the data in the A to Z current, accurate and informative. Other obvious sources of quality material lay dormant in the galleries which are swept occasionally for use of updating the imagery, especially at the moment when myonik's trawl through the Archives is throwing up so many potential new entries. Other members continually send feedback via email, messaging and posts in various threads in the forum or add comments in the actual entries themselves. For this I am eternally grateful but it's a nightmare consolidating it all, then finding time to edit, which in itself is a major problem at the moment because of the validation errors and time out interruptions which are due to be fixed. Also the promised facility of supplementary image uploading, so that various typical characteristics, stages of development etc can be displayed, has still to materialise. (I understand that funding is a problem at the moment so a few voluntary contributions wouldn't go astray)

One solution for consolidating the diversity of information would be a sticky thread in the fungi forum solely for advising anomalies, sources of material etc pertinent to the A to Z.

David

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by cybershot

(edited)

One solution for consolidating the diversity of information would be a sticky thread in the fungi forum solely for advising anomalies, sources of material etc pertinent to the A to Z.

David

Please see:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...ice-board.html

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by cybershot

Please see:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...ice-board.html

Sticky done. Be careful it may still be wet

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by Alantb

A better idea might be a gallery of drawings (cf Courtecuisse & Duhem) but that would be even more difficult.
I think that this could be nice to look at but given the picture sizes would only help identification when the features were quite obvious. .

If photos are thought good enough by Phillips and Breitenbach & Kranzlin (and I am sure Ken could add to the list) then photos, with descriptions eventually, are surely good enough for this site.

Mal

[cybershot]

As a watercolourist myself (but nowhere near talented enough to produce the goods of the required standard!) I am not totally averse to this idea. After all my first 'noddy' field guide served me well with its illustrations and and many a tricky identity conundrum has been steered to a successful resolution by reference to C&D. The beauty of artistic license is that all stages of development and representation of typical characteristics can be brought together in one splendid, well executed composition. Only this afternoon I was trying to persuade Juliejam to turn her considerable skills in this direction. Who knows, as one of the supplementary images we intend to facilitate eventually, it could have its merits; as demonstrated by this example, courtesy of Peter Thwaites.



David

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by flaxton

If photos are thought good enough by Phillips and Breitenbach & Kranzlin (and I am sure Ken could add to the list) then photos, with descriptions eventually, are surely good enough for this site.

Mal

I agree Mal

On WAB We have some of the best photographs of fungi to be found anywhere. If it helps by having an advanced 'fungi photography guide' I'll write one. I know for many people this may not be as straight forward as it sounds but every little helps if it achieves better results.

Having said that, the idea of having an additional resource in the way of a ‘gallery of drawings’ is an extra bonus … but (and a big but), it has to be of a standard which supplements what we already have.

I’m not for one instance saying that we don’t have anyone to do this but ideally it should happen in a short space of time (all or most at once) and should integrate fully with what we already have. My personal opinion is that I don’t think it is a good idea to mix the two.

I think we are now at a stage where we can offer an excellent fungi image resource for whoever wants it. It’s probably just a case of making it known to a wider audience