Comment by dwiel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwiel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I occasionally use iNaturalist to help identify plants and fungus while out on hikes. The community there has a ton of specialists and it is extremely common to get messages like this on observations that are months old. Here is one I got this morning about a random mushroom I took a picture of in the woods of Indiana:

Russula sanguinea was described from a European mushroom and therefore probably isn't here in North America at all. The name has been applied to many red Russula in N. A. adding to the confusion. Out west where it may be sorted it is being called Russula rhodocephala which itself is a lookalike for Russula americana but under different trees according to Danny Miller here [1]. Mushroomexpert's Kuo and Mycoquebec say that a lookalike under oaks in the east is Russula tenuiceps or R. sanguinaria under conifers/pines, but it is probably a group of species, and also not the same as the European one in the case of R. sanguinaria. We are trying to downvote these identifications for this reason. Hopefully, any people interested in identifying mushrooms will pitch in and help to vote any Russula that is being called Russula sanguinea in the eastern US back to genus level anyway, but we are concerned with a few other species too. Read fungee's journal post here [2]. Check out the master list here [3]. Another thing that is daunting for Russula ID, there are well over a hundred known red Russula in the east, many are not named yet, and, if they are, the name is not in use.

[1] http://www.alpental.com/psms/ddd/Russula/index.htm

[2] https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/fungee/46596-new-ai-comp...

[3] https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/computer-vision-clean-up-wik...

I dabbled in mycology and identifying mushrooms is super hard, probably one of the hardest taxonomy things. I wouldn’t want to be the expert in that field getting asked all the time with a single iPhone photo.

/r/mycology had to say stop posting “please identify this mushroom” because it was so common. I’d imagine its easier with insects. And you don’t have as many people who care because they aren’t trying to eat them as often.

I still like to ID random bugs I find in my house and backyard and it’s always a probability exercise.

Those tree identification apps by taking a photo never work. I used it at a UofT garden where every tree was labelled and it got it wrong every time. So even the ML is way off.

I read genomic data collected for phylogenetic analysis of non-hymenopteran species the way I do, I don't expect to find a single specimen of that species that I haven't seen somewhere else, either within my own field of study or any other. It is possible that some new species of hymenopteran may be found from genomic data, and that this newly discovered species will then become a member of the Hymenoptera, but it would probably not be of that group we currently consider. That's the thing: the current state of the hymenopteran phylogeny is that although the species of hymenopteran I consider most closely related to each other has been found in multiple specimens from multiple populations, they are a diverse group, with many examples of them from multiple regions. That's the kind of thing we would expect to see from a modern, large-scale genome analysis, but that is not how I see it.

> I dabbled in mycology and identifying mushrooms is super hard, probably one of the hardest taxonomy things.

There are a lot of mushrooms that are very easy to identify, and learning edible mushrooms is imho a lot easier than learning edible plants. But if you pick up mushrooms at random then yeah, it's generally extremely difficult.

A big part of learning what mushrooms are edible is identifying the ones that can harm you.

I mean out of the 2,000 mushrooms in North America, there are all of 20 or 30 that are seriously poisonous. So it doesn't take all that long to learn the most harmful ones. Especially since you don't even need to know whether or not a mushroom is harmful, only if it looks vaguely like one of the harmful ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com