File talk:Pseudoinonotus dryadeus - 1.jpg

Disputed

Hello. I don't think this fungus looks like a Postia, which is very white, soft, and has a sharp division between the top and the fertile under part. At least the first three of this set of photos look like Pseudoinonotus dryadeus, and in my opinion they could well be that. Perhaps Postia does not have to have angular or spiny pores, but I am sure the photos do not show Postia. Perhaps the page should be recategorized as "Unidentified Polyporales". Strobilomyces (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Strobilomyces: , OK. So it is rather Pseudoinonotus dryadeus? Or it couldn't be an old decaying Postia stiptica? I'm not happy with "Unidentified Polyporales" because it will remain unidentified for many years. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DenesFeri: . No, it is not like an old Postia stiptica. For me numbers 1-3 fit well with Pseudoinonotus dryadeus, but it would be better to get an opinion from someone else. File:Pseudoinonotus dryadeus - 4.jpg is wrong! It has a sharp edge between the top and bottom, and it is something else! It is not a very good photo anyway and I suggest "Category:Unidentified Polyporales". Files 5 and 6 are clear photos but I am not certain that they are the same species as numbers 1-3. I suppose they probably were if the three fruiting bodies (1/2, 3, & 5/6) were close to each other.

I am afraid it is very common that fungi cannot be identified, especially just based on photos. I hope this helps. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Strobilomyces: , OK. Thank you. The 4 will be deleted, while the 5 and 6 will remain unidentified Pseudoinonotus. OK? DenesFeri (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I think that "Unidentified Pseudoinonotus" is too narrow a category, for me it could easily be something in a different family. Your changes would be an improvement, anyway. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)