Day 152: Perhaps the most useful phrase in the world of science is this: "Looks like I was wrong." If you can't make yourself say it, you have no business calling yourself a scientist. I felt quite sure of my identification of this particular fungus when I found it growing on a tree in the Park that I posted it with the label "Ascotremella faginea," and that was even after I'd examined a sample under the microscope. A few days ago while hunting for something else entirely, I came across a reference to the nearly-identical Exidia candida. I made mental note of the distinction and a promise to myself that if I ever encountered another specimen of "boogers," I'd look at them with a different eye. During a walk on Tuesday in Nisqually State Park, I ventured down a little-used bunny-trail and almost immediately came to a booger-infested branch across the trail, the fungus identical to the specimen I'd found in the Park some years ago. At this stage in its development, the morphology (specifically the colour) indicated Exidia. Consequently (and because I'm only human, and like to bury my mistakes), I have gone back and edited all previous posts referring to the fungus. I may be guilty of being wrong, but I do not want to further the offense by leaving erroneous information where it might be accessed by inquiring minds. That said, Exidia is considered an "artificial" genus. No gene sequencing has been done, and its classification is based solely on morphologic characteristics. In other words, there's a lot of "wiggle room" here, plenty of space to use those telling words, "We were wrong."
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Boogers Identified
Day 152: Perhaps the most useful phrase in the world of science is this: "Looks like I was wrong." If you can't make yourself say it, you have no business calling yourself a scientist. I felt quite sure of my identification of this particular fungus when I found it growing on a tree in the Park that I posted it with the label "Ascotremella faginea," and that was even after I'd examined a sample under the microscope. A few days ago while hunting for something else entirely, I came across a reference to the nearly-identical Exidia candida. I made mental note of the distinction and a promise to myself that if I ever encountered another specimen of "boogers," I'd look at them with a different eye. During a walk on Tuesday in Nisqually State Park, I ventured down a little-used bunny-trail and almost immediately came to a booger-infested branch across the trail, the fungus identical to the specimen I'd found in the Park some years ago. At this stage in its development, the morphology (specifically the colour) indicated Exidia. Consequently (and because I'm only human, and like to bury my mistakes), I have gone back and edited all previous posts referring to the fungus. I may be guilty of being wrong, but I do not want to further the offense by leaving erroneous information where it might be accessed by inquiring minds. That said, Exidia is considered an "artificial" genus. No gene sequencing has been done, and its classification is based solely on morphologic characteristics. In other words, there's a lot of "wiggle room" here, plenty of space to use those telling words, "We were wrong."
No comments:
Post a Comment