The data quality assessment is a summary of an observation's accuracy. All
observations start as "casual" grade, and achieve
"research" grade when
-
the iNat community agrees with the observer's ID, where an "agreeing"
identification is one that matches exactly or is of a child taxon of the
observer's ID. For example, if Scott says it's a mammal and Ken-ichi
says it's Homo sapiens, then Ken-ichi agrees with Scott.
- the observation has a date
- the observation is georeferenced (i.e. has lat/lon coordinates)
- the observation has a photo
Observations will revert to "casual" grade if the above conditions aren't met or
- the community agrees the location doesn't looks accurate (e.g. monkeys in the middle of the ocean, hippos in office buildings, etc.)
- the community agrees the organism isn't wild/naturalized (e.g. captive or cultivated by humans or intelligent space aliens)
some rights reserved
Comments & Identifications
I cant tell, is that an annulus (ring) or another mushroom partially hidden by the leaf? If so then I don't think its L. rufulus. Not to mention (cough) wikipedia (cough) and this site below say latex is "scant" in that species, and other sources describe it as watery. Also, L. rufulus tends to be described as having a more "reddish" cap, which a search in google images reinforces. Unfortunately I dont have a better answer.
http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/protologue/Lactarius_xanthogalactus.pdf
I would call this http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/Lactarius_rubidus, but it's a confusing group, as the mykoweb page shows. Supposedly L. rufulus does *not* have the maple/butterscotch odor when dried.
Yeah, I was going with L. rufulus based on the convex, the kinda clear milky latex, found under oaks. I did smell it but, I don't remember it smelling much more than sweet dirt.
Add a comment
Add an identification