1 Reply by Darwyn Sumner (LERC)

  • Darwyn Sumner (LERC)
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 176

Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002

I have the follwing message from my County Fungus Group (same one as has thousand of records on the NBN Gateway)

I have met with an error in Recorder which is irritating, and could cause me to waste a lot of time.    Every time I try to enter a record for the common species Boletus badius, the programme records it as Polyporus badius.   The latter name is obsolete, but when it was in use referred to a quite different fungus.    Could I trouble you to try out your version of the Dictionary, to see if the trouble is endemic in Recorder.    Sorry to trouble you, but this really is annoying - Tom

Is there a fix for this in Recorder 2002 which he could make and which won't involve me in taking a day off to go and fix it for him.

2 Reply by charlesroper

  • charlesroper
  • charlesroper
  • Digital Development Manager
  • Offline
  • From: Field Studies Council
  • Registered: 26-03-2006
  • Posts: 906

Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002

Darwyn, could you check to see what species is recorded in the Determinations tab of the occurrence?

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

charlesroper's Website

3 Reply by Darwyn Sumner (LERC)

  • Darwyn Sumner (LERC)
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 176

Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002

I'll pass your question on to him, may take a little while as he isn't broadband

4 Reply by johnt

  • johnt
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 32

Re: Fungus name problem in Rec 2002

I think that this is a problem in the underlying species dictionary. The original version of the BMS checklist that was added (version 1) included Boletus badius Fr. twice - as a recommended name, but also as a synonym of Polyporus badius (Pers.) Schwein.

This has been corrected in the current, maintained version of the list (version 2), but that's not much help if you aren't using it!

I'll make the correction and it wil be included in a future update. Members of this forum should be able to confirm whether this is likely to be the cause of the problem and if so, suggest a short-term fix.

Best wishes,
John