ex-royal's picture

Not known shrub

Observed: 13th October 2012 By: ex-royalex-royal’s reputation in Plantsex-royal’s reputation in Plantsex-royal’s reputation in Plantsex-royal’s reputation in Plants
Species interactions

No interactions present.


Thistle's picture

Beaten to it!


lavateraguy's picture

Happens to me as well

It's an unfortunate disincentive of the mechanics of iSpot - if you take the time to write some ID notes someone may get an identification in first. It's happened to me several times.

I was in two minds as to whether the red leaves were autumn colour, or whether it was a red-leaved cultivar.

Thistle's picture


I thought the colour was too even both in each leaf and across the shrub for autumn colour.

chrisbrooks's picture

Mechanics of iSpot

Good morning, just a couple of observations.

Thistle - I don't think you have been beaten to the ID as you have added an alternative. If the ID had been the same there is 12 minutes between them. It would be very rare for an entry to go unidentified over this period of time. If you take time to ponder an ID (which we all do) it pays to refresh your screen before adding the ID, to avoid duplications.

ID notes, the way round this is to add the ID and then add your notes as a comment at your leisure.

Rachy Ramone's picture

ID notes

Chris, I'm not at all in favour of your last comment: I really, really like to read an ID with a justification.

I think it helps everyone, to know "why" someone is making their choice.

Especially if there are two or more similar forms, it's very helpful to know what the distinguishing characteristics are.

You are now going to say "ah, but they can be put in the comments!" and you are quite right, but personally I like to see them in the ID box.

(Then they can be debated in Comments!)

Thistle, I am very happy that you took the time to ponder your ID and would wish that you continue to do so - I know there is a slight feeling of "ooh, ooh, want to increase my score" but in my opinion, it's more worthy to share your knowledge, rather than, erm, erm, was going to say "to show it off" but that sounds a bit insulting!

I hope you know what I mean - I'd rather know "why" you arrived at your conclusion, than have a hundred of your conclusions with no supporting details.

There, now I sound like a nerdy geek, don't I?

Rachy Ramone

How to take close-ups with cheap phone and hand-lens:
Field Guides for Budding Botanists:

chrisbrooks's picture


Hi Rachy, my comments were only meant as solutions to the issues that were raised above and are not necessarily my opinions. Whether people choose to follow them is up to them, but refreshing the screen before adding a delayed ID does stop duplications, I am not saying that an ID should not be pondered over and thoroughly considered, it should.

I agree adding ID notes is far better but is not always the quickest (an issue that was raised above). I cannot see an issue as the where the ID notes are as long as they are there somewhere.

Regards Chris

Thistle's picture

I wish I'd said ...

"Beaten to it :) ". I'm not in the least bit put out that someone else got there first: the comment was more of an explanation for the (almost) duplicated ID.

I'll certainly try to keep on thinking about IDs before posting. I'll also try to put in ID notes where relevant rather than adding comments which too often seem to get lost below the bottom of the screen.


lavateraguy's picture


There is more than one species involved. The black-berried form is Cornus sanguinea, which when not in fruit can be distinguished by having fewer leaf veins. Similar plants from Anatolia/Caucasia might be encountered - Stace seems to be in two minds as to whether these represent additional species or subspecies.

The white-berried species are Cornus sericea and Cornus alba. These are difficult to distinguish (and possibly not specifically distinct from each other). Stace says that C. sericea has white to cream fruits, and C. alba has whitish to pale blue fruits.