Field Guide Notes and Comments

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by Fungus Ken

- - edited - -

But the benefit and enjoyment of forums like WAB, is that people can debate the identity of mystery specimens based on photographs. It has been said many times in the forums that many fungi cannot be identified to species without microscopic information, but it is still interesting to use what descriptive information the finder can provide to help in narrowing down the options.

It would be a rather boring forum if this were not the case.

Ken

Focusing on the last paragraphs of Ken's overall erudite passage which emphasizes the comfortable ethos of the WAB fungi forum, I am conversely disconcerted by the less palatable recent ocurrence of using the forum for thinly veiled attacks on a personal level. Let's all follow Ken's shining example and keep our discussions as objective as possible.

David

[Leif]

Originally Posted by cybershot

Focusing on the last paragraphs of Ken's overall erudite passage which emphasizes the comfortable ethos of the WAB fungi forum, I am conversely disconcerted by the less palatable recent ocurrence of using the forum for thinly veiled attacks on a personal level. Let's all follow Ken's shining example and keep our discussions as objective as possible.

David

I have not noticed any thinly veiled personal attacks. I see nothing wrong with debate. We have been rather rude about Paul Sterry's book, but only in the sense that it is full of errors. I had not realised how poor it is as I never paid too much attention to the rather poorly executed pictures.

As far as Michael Jordan's book is concerned, I prefer Phillips's book, and I will continue to express that opinion. But it clearly is a significant work within the context of popular field guides. Clearly the author is very knowledgeable and has seen many rarely seen species.

I also think the Boletus aereus - a species I know well - does not look right. I see no issue with making such statements on a forum. I also think Mycena leucogala - which I also know well - does not look at all right. The broadened stem with white mycelium does not fit. Nor does the cap shape. Oh, and the Cortinarius trivialis photo is printed for two species! I am sure that last error is well known to the author by now and was due to the printers. I note that Phillips's book had several errors, which were corrected in the latest edition.

[cybershot]

I am pleased to say that herein, of late, neither have I, and your contributions are always a welcome sight in any debate Leif.

David