I'm using this link to look at these observations that all need to be changed. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=needs_id%2Cresearch&per_page=200&taxon_id=337492&place_id=19%2C37%2C18%2C36%2C12%2C44%2C13%2C7590%2C6883%2C13336%2C7587%2C6853%2C9116%2C17%2C41%2C2%2C47%2C49%2C8%2C48%2C51%2C42%2C4%2C97454%2C39%2C33%2C7%2C31%2C29%2C20%2C32%2C35%2C24%2C38%2C28%2C25%2C36%2C19%2C26%2C45%2C30%2C43%2C23%2C21%2C27 Here is the text I'll be using, "According to Schaffer, Russula cerolens is a west coast, conifer loving species in subsection Foetentineae of section Ingratae (which itself is an outmoded way of looking at Russula, Buyck 2018). You can read about it at http://www.mushroomexpert.com/russulas_foetid.html or http://www.mushroomexpert.com/russula_amoenolens.html. Of course, Russula amoenolens is a catch-all name itself. It's a good European name, therefore it also doesn't exist here in the East. I know some observations that have been called that were recently given the name Russula "amerorecondita". These are tricky to ID to species. Here is a good talk on the "foetid" Russula of North America. https://soundcloud.com/culinaryhistory/fetid-russulas-in-north-america-what-we-know-what-we-dont Let's not spoil it by saying much else about it except that they were difficult to ID even by the original scientists who named them, and the west coast species are segregate from the east coast species, and both are segregate from the European species for this group. This is part of an ongoing battle against the continual population of species names by the AI that don't belong in certain locations. You can read about it and how you might contribute here: https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/fungee/46596-new-ai-computer-vision-first-for-android ." @jameskm @cooperj this seems like enough evidence to take this out of the rest of the world besides Western North America if you would rather do that it would save everyone boatloads of effort. I checked out MycoPortal, the only ones they have from the East are from Florida and clearly don't clade up with Russula cerolens and are close enough to one another to be the same species. See GenBank MH212101.

That was mentioned in the video I posted. Dr. Avis didn't mention that it was the most common Russula in those habitats, but he said it only has been collected from planted trees. He said he picked a type for pectinatiodes out of the four different sequences he got from the box that Peck's type was supposed to be in. I believe that was after they took out all of the R. laurocerasi. I agree it is jumping the gun a little bit, but I just saw an early red Russula here get named Russula cremoricolor by the AI here just yesterday. We had straightened that one out last month here already, so I'm not hopeful for the AI's help and doubt it is helping at all. I know that Buyck has been studying and sequencing American Russula for a long time now, I'd be interested if he's ever matched up any of his American collections to European material, or from anywhere else. It would be interesting to look at some of the environmental sequences to see if they match European species. I get that it is tough to say if something is definitively not in a place, and it's also tough to say that it was introduced if there is no evidence of that introduction, so I guess it's manual labor time. However, Dr. Avis says that the only evidence of the foetid Russula moving around is the one you've specified, that they don't jump the Rocky mountains, and Danny Miller says that the most common foetid Russula out west is cerolens based on his extensive molecular work out west. It's also not been found by any sequencing here that I'm aware of.

This flag is not about curation, just re-identification, and I propose to mark it "resolved".