I kidnapped a dying wasp that I suspected had a parasitic fungus and today I noticed the fungus had sprouted (?). Usually when I rear something, I just tag the later photos onto the original observation of the eggs or seeds or whatever (annotating the life stage as the earliest photo) and add to the notes when I added the new photo, but the thing about the fungus is that I feel like I technically didn’t observe the organism until today. I posted an observation of the wasp on the day I collected it, but I didn’t make a fungus observation because I wasn’t completely sure if the wasp even had a fungus until today.
Right now, I’m thinking about copying the wasp observation and adding the fruiting fungus on the end like I always do, but I’m also wondering if i should just post the fungus by itself instead. If I did post the fungus by itself, would it be captive? I didn’t technically plant it there and it’s not a tamed animal. If I had collected the wasp for an insect collection, I probably wouldn’t consider the fungus captive because I wouldn’t have even wanted it there. What does everyone else think?
In my opinion both observations warrant their own entry. I would just be sure to note the the relationship between the wasp and fungus and link the other observations so when someone views one entry they can quickly reference the other.
I agree with @kanescompendium, definetely post both. Also, I wouldn’t consider the fungus captive. It was probably there when the wasp was still alive, plus, you never intended it to be on the wasp. For all intents and purposes, the fungus is wild.
I think that they should each have their own observation, but disagree that the fungus should be wild (depending…).
The OP noted
so there was intent there to move and observe the fungus. The fungus has been moved from its original location because the wasp was collected, so that is not exactly where the fungus would “want” to be - it would probably “want” to be in a natural location where its spores would spread. Additionally, we don’t know if the fungus would have completed its life cycle if the wasp hadn’t been captured. The wasp might have been scavenged by something else, etc., so the intentional human action to support the growth of the fungus may have played a key role here. I think this is very analogous to observations of galls which are brought inside to hatch out, etc (where whatever hatches should be captive).
I would suggest making a Casual observation of the fungus and linking it to the original wasp observation via hyperlinks in comments/notes or an observation field (or both).
What you could also do, duplicate the wasp observation for the fungus. Make a separate, casual, observation of the ‘captive’ fungus and add then the photo of the fruiting body as a comment or note in the other, wild observation.
You can use html code to display photos in the text fields
while I think this is probably reasonable, it’s typical to see cultured fungi (which takes more effort than just moving an insect body) listed as Verifiable and with the coordinates where the germplasm or original fragment that gave rise to the culture was collected. I would probably have to leave the decision up to mycologists if anything — a lot depends on whether you view the sporing bodies simply as evidence of internal or inconspicuous existing growth at the site of capture.
I’ve been thinking about this and I’m not sure I would mark the fungus as casual.. I would argue this could be more analogous to an unintended wild “weed” in a pot with a cultivated plant. I see how you reasoned with the fungus being “supported” but it would same as the weed that would receive water and maybe fertilization, same as an old wild tree in an area with development that may now be supported by irrigation. Most plants, animals and fungi in urban/suburban environments are supported and occasionally unknowingly housed by humans but they’re still wild considering they weren’t intentionally cultivated. As long as the fungus wasn’t intentionally introduced to the wasp by a person id consider the observation to be wild regardless of support after the fact. Thoughts?
While I sympathize with the difficulty of culturing fungi, I do think observations like these should be marked as cultivated. The fungus is clearly in a different life stage than when it was collected. The very word “culturing” is the same root (pun intended) as cultivated. To me, they are clearly cultivated and should be marked as such. It’s no different in my mind to collecting a larva of an insect and bringing it home to metamorphose or hatching an egg or seed found in the wild both of which are also cultivated. As @carnifex noted above, one can make an RG observation of the original collection and link to the casual one that is in a different life stage if desired.
@kanescompendium In response to your suggestion above - I agree the weedy plants are wild despite the general and unintentional assistance from humans. But those plants were not intentionally moved by a human. If someone took the weedy plant and brought it home to grow, it would be cultivated.
I can agree with that.. if they knew upon collection that a fruiting body could emerge then I can fully agree with the cultivated tag. But if the collection was for the purpose of further observation of the wasp and the fruiting body was a chance occurrence the observer wasn’t previously aware of it could be debated? I believe it rests on the sureness of the observer recognizing the fungi at the time of collection and the purpose of the wasps collection.
Is that worth consideration or do you belive it’s more clear cut?
I was about to mention that the replies aren’t discussing this part of the question. I wasn’t only asking if the fruiting body is now captive, I was also asking if host behavior was enough evidence of presence to post an observation for the original date I collected the wasp for the mushroom
while reluctantly, I tend to agree on the status, and on the equivalence with moving wild weeds. I haven’t voted wild or even left an agreeing ID on such fungus observations myself though – it’s just a practice that I’ve seen. if those sorts of observations aren’t intended to reach Research Grade, it’s something to talk to the mycology observers about, most likely…
This is interesting. What if the wasp had not been moved indoors by the OP but left outside? What if the OP had just monitored the evolution outdoors, in situ? In that case it would remain ‘wild’, correct?
Yes, monitoring in situ would definitely be wild as long as the observer doesn’t do something to intentionally influence the organism (cage it to prevent predation/escape, etc.)