Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Steve
Frequent user
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:59 pm
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by Steve » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:12 pm

Hi,
Here's a wee post to start 2016 :lol:. I found this lovely little Pleated Inkcap growing right in the middle of a path through one of Sheffield’s many ancient woodlands. I recorded so much that day that I decided to leave it alone and just note it as Parasola. When I looked at our local records a couple of years ago then it really looks as though accurately identified Parasola may be swamped by worthless, unverified “Parasola plicatilis” which is the favourite name for these fungi. That begs the question – how do we quality control fungi records, in the way that bird-watching groups do? You have to provide evidence if you spot a Golden Oriole. Are we wasting our time struggling to correctly identify LBMs if it's likely that they'll be added to the same records as invalidated records? (I have heard that the BMS are thinking of letting anyone add records to the FRDBI without any vetting - I hope I'm wrong). I watched a local mushroom buff identifying Galerina to species level from 5 feet recently - shooting from the hip - or maybe a cool myco-sniper - SuperMycoMan.
Most of the Sheffield area Pleated Inkcap (Parasola) records originate from 5 sources - anonymous records, and 4 individual recorders. Anonymous records comprise over 10% of our total records with half of them from before 1920. They provide an interesting comparison with individual recorders as they aren't all P. plicatilis. The pie-charts show the proportions of different species identified by each source (no. of records in brackets) - with Parasola plicatilis in blue. Although there are lots of factors influencing how recorders identify fungi - in geographical distribution, a recorder's favourite stalking grounds, microscopy equipment, books etc) in the case of Pleated Inkcaps it looks like there's just a bit of confusion. In fact, our "anon" records look more trustworthy than those produced by some fungi "experts", who should be recording "Parasola" and not "Parasola plicatilis".

List of record summaries:
Species/genus….Recorder Anon (39)
Parasola plicatilis ….29
Parasola conopilus ….7
Parasola hemerobia ….2
Parasola misera ….1
Grand ….39

Species/genus….Recorder A (30)
Parasola plicatilis ….28
Parasola conopilus ….2
Grand ….30

Species/genus….Recorder B (73)
Parasola plicatilis ….50
Parasola sp. ….12
Parasola auricoma ….4
Parasola leiocephala ….4
Parasola hemerobia ….2
Parasola kuehneri ….1
Grand ….73

Species/genus….Recorder C (46)
Parasola plicatilis ….20
Parasola conopilus ….13
Parasola auricoma ….4
Parasola hemerobia ….4
Parasola galericuliformis 3
Parasola leiocephala ….2
Grand ….46

Species/genus….Recorder D with microscope gathering dust in the loft (24)
Parasola plicatilis ….24
Grand ….24

Recorder….% Parasola plicatilis
Anon….74
Rec A….93
Rec B….68
Rec C….43
Rec D….100

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33485842@ ... 893/in/pho ... BDh-aghiqw

Steve
Attachments
Parasola (a Pleated Inkcap).JPG
Parasola sp. - a Pleated Inkcap
Parasola.JPG
Sheffield area recorders' interpretation of Parasola

marksteer
Frequent user
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Glamorgan VC41

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by marksteer » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:47 pm

Steve wrote:Hi,
Here's a wee post to start 2016 :lol:. I found this lovely little Pleated Inkcap growing right in the middle of a path through one of Sheffield’s many ancient woodlands. I recorded so much that day that I decided to leave it alone and just note it as Parasola. When I looked at our local records a couple of years ago then it really looks as though accurately identified Parasola may be swamped by worthless, unverified “Parasola plicatilis” which is the favourite name for these fungi. That begs the question – how do we quality control fungi records, in the way that bird-watching groups do? You have to provide evidence if you spot a Golden Oriole. Are we wasting our time struggling to correctly identify LBMs if it's likely that they'll be added to the same records as invalidated records? (I have heard that the BMS are thinking of letting anyone add records to the FRDBI without any vetting - I hope I'm wrong). I watched a local mushroom buff identifying Galerina to species level from 5 feet recently - shooting from the hip - or maybe a cool myco-sniper - SuperMycoMan.
Most of the Sheffield area Pleated Inkcap (Parasola) records originate from 5 sources - anonymous records, and 4 individual recorders. Anonymous records comprise over 10% of our total records with half of them from before 1920. They provide an interesting comparison with individual recorders as they aren't all P. plicatilis. The pie-charts show the proportions of different species identified by each source (no. of records in brackets) - with Parasola plicatilis in blue. Although there are lots of factors influencing how recorders identify fungi - in geographical distribution, a recorder's favourite stalking grounds, microscopy equipment, books etc) in the case of Pleated Inkcaps it looks like there's just a bit of confusion. In fact, our "anon" records look more trustworthy than those produced by some fungi "experts", who should be recording "Parasola" and not "Parasola plicatilis".

List of record summaries:
Species/genus….Recorder Anon (39)
Parasola plicatilis ….29
Parasola conopilus ….7
Parasola hemerobia ….2
Parasola misera ….1
Grand ….39

Species/genus….Recorder A (30)
Parasola plicatilis ….28
Parasola conopilus ….2
Grand ….30

Species/genus….Recorder B (73)
Parasola plicatilis ….50
Parasola sp. ….12
Parasola auricoma ….4
Parasola leiocephala ….4
Parasola hemerobia ….2
Parasola kuehneri ….1
Grand ….73

Species/genus….Recorder C (46)
Parasola plicatilis ….20
Parasola conopilus ….13
Parasola auricoma ….4
Parasola hemerobia ….4
Parasola galericuliformis 3
Parasola leiocephala ….2
Grand ….46

Species/genus….Recorder D with microscope gathering dust in the loft (24)
Parasola plicatilis ….24
Grand ….24

Recorder….% Parasola plicatilis
Anon….74
Rec A….93
Rec B….68
Rec C….43
Rec D….100

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33485842@ ... 893/in/pho ... BDh-aghiqw

Steve
Certainly a problem with miss identified species (even genera) recorded. In Glamorgan VC41 we do not have a County Recorder for fungi and I think most records listed as 'unverified'. This seems to be the case for records submitted to our local recording centre SEWBReC. I am very cautious about submitting records with the limited knowledge I have. I'm not sure about BMS/FRDBI accepting 'records' from anyone but I think this maybe a big problem. Your illustration of 'P.plicatilis' is a very good illustration of the problem!
'The more I know the more I realise I don't know'

diggleken
Frequent user
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 3:13 pm

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by diggleken » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:26 pm

Good point Steve/Mark - something we all will have considered over the years I think - Its all very thought provoking.............records are largely worthless for scientific/research purposes unless accurate and are equally worthless if from only a small source of data due to skewing and thus incorrect conclusional analysis without built in corrective factors or proviso's.
Where do you start and when is it acceptable in a scientific sense?
How good is what we have?
There will be many views on this I suspect. :roll:
Cheers
Ken

Steve
Frequent user
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:59 pm
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by Steve » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:16 pm

Hi Mark, Ken,
This is another one which bothers me - Ascocoryne - quite easy to separate by the spores even with a low-powered microscope.
From 245 Ascocoryne records in a 70 km square around Sheffield you get about 1 in 10 A. cylichnium, and a half dozen "Ascocoryne sp." I have always checked spores on ascocarps and get rather more - 6 from 33 - about 1 in 5 or 6. A recorder who does exactly the same patch as me gets 100% A. sarcoides.
The FRDBI has 3446 A. sarcoides and 801 A. cylichnium - about 1 in 4 or 5. Our local records have about half the number of A. cylichnium, whether from the FRDBI or from local recorders not on the FRDBI. So that's maybe something to do with regional abundance. But if we don't have reliable data then we don't really know.
I think it's something the database managers ought to give some thought to :idea: ie don't accept Ascocoryne (ascocarp) records to species level unless there is evidence of microscopy.
This was what I found deep down a ravine in the middle of a tough Sheffield housing estate. The Ascocoryne checked out as A. cylichnium. (The Scutellinia was S. umbrarum. Scutellinia - that's another kettle of fish :lol: )
Steve
Attachments
Ascocoryne cylichnium.jpg
Ascocoryne cylichnium (purple disc)
Ascocoryne.JPG
Sheffield area records
Ascocoryne recorders.JPG
Records by recorder. Some recorders never record A. cylichnium.

marksteer
Frequent user
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Glamorgan VC41

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by marksteer » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:50 pm

Steve wrote:Hi Mark, Ken,
This is another one which bothers me - Ascocoryne - quite easy to separate by the spores even with a low-powered microscope.
From 245 Ascocoryne records in a 70 km square around Sheffield you get about 1 in 10 A. cylichnium, and a half dozen "Ascocoryne sp." I have always checked spores on ascocarps and get rather more - 6 from 33 - about 1 in 5 or 6. A recorder who does exactly the same patch as me gets 100% A. sarcoides.
The FRDBI has 3446 A. sarcoides and 801 A. cylichnium - about 1 in 4 or 5. Our local records have about half the number of A. cylichnium, whether from the FRDBI or from local recorders not on the FRDBI. So that's maybe something to do with regional abundance. But if we don't have reliable data then we don't really know.
I think it's something the database managers ought to give some thought to :idea: ie don't accept Ascocoryne (ascocarp) records to species level unless there is evidence of microscopy.
This was what I found deep down a ravine in the middle of a tough Sheffield housing estate. The Ascocoryne checked out as A. cylichnium. (The Scutellinia was S. umbrarum. Scutellinia - that's another kettle of fish :lol: )
Steve
Another good example Ascocoryne! I would only log to genus without microscopic evidence. Probably there are lots of 'records' out there that are dubious.
I don't have any answers as to how to address this problem with recording. I have the impression that local biodiversity recording centres are keen to get as many 'records' as possible but don't have the resources to check validity. From VC41 we have submitted a few specimens to Kew where they maybe rare/interesting finds but their resources are very stretched.
Mark
'The more I know the more I realise I don't know'

User avatar
adampembs
Frequent user
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:40 am
Location: Pembrokeshire
Contact:

Parasola sp

Post by adampembs » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 pm

Moved from Fungus of the day "One identified fungus only please, with species name in attachment comment and in post" - the posts here are more general and are a bigger discussion piece that merits a separate topic.
Adam Pollard
Site admin

Flaxton
Frequent user
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 2:13 pm

Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by Flaxton » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:21 pm

Just looking at my personal records for this group they are as follows
Parasola plicatilis ….16
Parasola conopilus ….6
Parasola auricoma ….9
Parasola misera ….6
Parasola galericuliformis 0
Parasola leiocephala ….5
Grand ….42

I am sure there are quite a few other P plicatilis which have not been recorded :oops: .

Although I share some of your concerns about the records going to the FRDBI and CATE as the recorder for our group I would reject at least 50% or more if I only took those records that can be identified with 100% certainty in the field. We would be able to throw out almost all the records for Paxillus involutus, Flamullina velutipes, Sarcoscypha, Scutellina and probably most of those for Bolete/Xerocomus. Being realistic though we must accept that many of the records we submit are likely to be wrong we should just do what we can to limit the damage from such records. I don't think there are going to be many proposals for SSSI status on the grounds of having Parasola leiocephala on a site but there might just be for an area with a few different Sarcodon sp. I try to accept only records for rarely recorded species with some form of backup identification but when the very limited time of the people at Kew means that they struggle to confirm even species new to the UK we have a problem.
One of the things I would like to see changed in the CATE and possibly new FRDBI input systems is that there is some form of indicator when a record is entered for a rare species(Red Data List sp or less than 10/25/50 records) to allow recorders the chance to investigate the find.
Mal

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by Lancashire Lad » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:40 pm

Further (related) posts relocated from "Fungus of the Day" thread, and thread retitled to better reflect its ongoing content.

Regards,
Mike.

PS - Steve, please read your Private Messages. ;)
Common sense is not so common.

mollisia
Frequent user
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:55 am
Location: Jena (Germany)
Contact:

Re: Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by mollisia » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:59 pm

Hello,

regarding Ascocoryne:

I have to say that there is not only A. sarcoides and A. cylichnium out there, but also A. inflata and A. solitaria. So it is not that easy to have only a short glance at the spores. It is correct that the oil drop pattern distinguishes between A. cylichnium (s. l.) and the sarcoides group (which comprises A. inflata and A. solitaria, and may be more yet undescribed species).

But all these four species have different looking anamorphs, and you can record those species from their anamorphs too of course. The pinkish-violet brainlike anamorph is that of A. sarcoides, and because it is very common and easy to determine, this may be the reason why A. sarcoides has so much more data than A. cylichnium. A. cylichnium has no anamorph at all, so you always have to microscope it to be certain. A. solitaria has a greyish-pinkish anamorph which looks like a knob on a thick stem.

best regards,
Andreas

Flaxton
Frequent user
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Parasola sp. (and others) - Accuracy of Recording

Post by Flaxton » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:08 pm

Ascocoryne solitaria anomorph
IMG_7905 (800x683).jpg
Mal

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest