Fungi A to Z Alerts

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

How do you mean?

FJ's photo was (until I just edited it) showing in both the entry for Lepista Nuda and the entry for Lepista saeva. I think it's now accurate but can always be amended if necessary

[NickCantle]

It does look correct now.

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

It does look correct now.

I agree Nick - the A to Z should show the typical characteristics of a species, and if there are variances these should be noted in the write up with reference to a subsidiary image where applicable.

[FungiJohn]

So, now a verified Field blewit - Lepista saeva is now shown as the wood blewit - Lepista nuda.

I don't think so I'm deleting the image.

John

[NickCantle]

Steady on John.

It might have been verified as a Field Blewit, but it's a massive atypical one with obvious lilac tones.

All David and I were trying to say is that if a fungi goes in to the A-Z, it's surely best to have the typical version as the image that people will see and refer to. Any variations should be as a sub-image with notes. In this case, I think it would be unwise to include your variation as it's not mentioned in the basic, or complex literature.

As for why your image appeared in Wood Blewit; Because you put it there along with mine when you said you amended it t'other day (When I went to check if you'd put my image under L. saeva, it wasn't, it had been put under L. nuda.)

I appreciate that yours might have been verified but you're a man with a massive knowledge of fungi! Surely you must admit this looks 100% more like a Wood Blewit than a Field Blewit

We're not trying to spite you in any way, just trying to avoid mass confusion when referencing. What would we get out of spiting you? Nothing.

[FungiJohn]

If I uploaded into the A to Z as Field Blewit I apologise, it was a mistake, but my original image was correctly titled Field Blewit - Lepista saeva.

My objection is the fact we are renaming species because they look like something else rather than based on their taxonomic properties. We are in fact identifying by an image alone which we all I hope agree is wrong.

We will always get species like this. Typical examples include Collybia butyracea, Amanita rubescens, Laccaria laccata, Armillaria mellea, Agrocybe praecox and so on. On a similar note, we should not be dismissing species because of ‘not the norm’ substrates or habitats

Back to the A to Z, I think it is more important to illustrate to people how different a single species can look rather than give it an incorrect title.

I’ve deleted the image from both the Gallery and the A to Z in order to close the chapter and move on.

No hard feelings … life is just too short

John

[NickCantle]

I agree John, and well said. I didn't mean to cause any offense, and I really hope you don't think I was just being nasty.

Nick

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

I agree John, and well said. I didn't mean to cause any offense, and I really hope you don't think I was just being nasty.

Nick

You didn't Nick. No worries on that score at all.

John

[cybershot]

Hey fellas - I think one of the problems is that even the experts who we submit our specimens to for verification have been known to be off target on occasions. I can think of at least three times at least this year when there have been large question marks or second opinions which have lead me to the conclusion that they got it wrong with what I sent to higher authority. We all know how devious these pesky organisms can be. Good job we keep the exchanges friendly and constructive, and if I step out of line I accept the consequences of my actions and I know that John will point out the error of my ways with tact and diplomacy (which is more than I can say for certain other contributors but that's a whole new thread )

Cheers

David

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Don't let Mal hear you say that

I'm too busy trying to get my head around something that was said at the Lactarius workshop this weekend to be bothered about Morels Heterobasidium annosum and one or two others are in fact Russulas and Lactarius might just go the way of Coprinus and end up with two or three species and all the well known ones end up in a new genus

Mal