Jump to content

Identifier apps


TomiLea

Recommended Posts

I agree with Kevin and trout.

A picture ID App can get you close to identification. From there, you should use some good books like Audubon and on-line like MushroomExpert.

Too much danger to rely on only a Photo ID App

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best comprehensive source for descriptions of fungal species (ascomycetes, basiomycetes) is Champignons du Quebec. The text there is in French. But, when I use Google Chrome, if I right click on the text I get a prompt to translate to English.   https://www.mycoquebec.org/bas.php?trie=C&l=l&nom=Clitocybula oculus / Collybie à ocelle&tag=Clitocybula oculus&gro= 27

The Audubon field guide is an excellent source, but many of the Latin binomials have changed since its publication. The author --Gary Lincoff, who passed away a few years ago-- had offered to update the manual, but the publisher declined. My understanding is that a new edition is currently in the works with Jacob Kalichman (one if the taxonomists?) leading the way. If you use the existing Audubon, then it's probably a good idea to check names in Index Fungorum to see if there's been any changes. This can be tricky --especially when trying to ID a NA collection-- because a lot of the "old names" are still actively used but only as applied to Eurasian material. So, you also need to consider authorship of a species as seen on Index Fungorum. Use the search bar in the following link. You may input ether a Latin binomial or just a genus name.   http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Names.asp

Mushroom Expert is very good, and it stays somewhat up to date. Although they are a bit slow to incorporate new taxonomy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree about the Audubon.  The descriptions are excellent.  However, the pictures are ass and it's horribly organised.  The only reason it continues to be so popular, despite so many better and more up-to-date guides, is ...I don't know why.  Probably some deal that meant it was in every book store.  Collusion between the bookstores and the publishers.

I did like the waterproof cover.  That was great.

But it's hard to work with (and I realize this was mostly out of the authors control).  The index was messed up, and rather than giving the page number, it gave the "species number".  (The descriptions were numbered chronology).  And it had a visual key based on shapes that wasn't great either (although perhaps a little more friendly towards a new user compared to a dichotomous key).  It's a disservice to the field that such a terrible guide was the most common one for so many years (and still might be).

 

 

 

 

Plus, it was published in 86 or something?  There's been a litany of better field guides published since then!  As you can see, this is a sore point with me .  Haha.

Don't get me started about inventing common names for every species (another thing that publishers forced Lincoff to do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, lot's of information contained within the Audubon, but finding a given species is unnecessarily time consuming. The lack of cross-referencing old names with new ones is particularly problematic. The photos all predate digital photography (published 1981). It'll be interesting to see what improvements are made to the new edition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the initial question, I've never used the "identification apps".  Although I did download a few to test last winter (Shroomify Mushroom ID, INaturalist), I kind of forgot about testing them until now.  Perhaps I'll try next time I'm out.   I agree with the others that they'll probably work well with easy to ID species.    

The one app I do use a lot is La Fonge, which was made by Champignons de Quebec (mycoquebec.org).  However it isn't an identifier app where you snap a picture and it IDs it.  It's more like a field guide app where you can look up the descriptions.  It's only useful if you already have a good idea of what it is, say a Pholiota, and want to determine exactly which Pholiota it is.  They have 2800 species, so not quite as many as the website.  I'm also terrible at remembering names, so it's handy for looking up a latin name quickly.  My only criticism with it is that you can't zoom into the photos (which likely aren't good enough resolution to zoom into anyways).

However, it's in French, which would be a problem for many people.  However, like with the website, you can select sections and open it up in Google translate.  A bit cumbersome.  Luckily I do read French, but there's still often words I don't know (I learned the language as an adult).

I just got the app last year (it was $20), but it has proved very useful having a comprehensive list of descriptions on my phone with me in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.