Conflict Resolution Protocol for Advanced Identification

A photo shows brown stalked sporocarps on dead wood. One person says “Stemonitis.” Another says “Comatricha.” A third points out that the capillitium attachment is wrong for both and suggests Enerthenema. The thread grows longer. Everyone is confident. Nobody changes their mind. How do you move forward?

This page provides a structured process for resolving identification disagreements. It works when two or more interpretations compete for the same specimen. The goal is not to declare a winner. The goal is to find the interpretation best supported by available evidence.

What conflict resolution means in slime mold identification

In slime mold context, conflict resolution means comparing competing identifications against the same evidence package. You evaluate which interpretation has stronger structural support and better matches the documented stage.

This process assumes good faith on all sides. Most disagreements come from incomplete evidence or different weighting of traits, not from incompetence. A fair resolution process respects everyone’s knowledge while applying consistent standards.

Key terms

Evidence package: All images, notes, stage context, habitat details, and metadata used to support an identification claim. A complete package includes multiple angles, scale, and structural details.

Conflict case: An identification thread where at least two incompatible taxonomic interpretations are proposed for the same specimen.

Diagnostic trait: A structure or behavior that can eliminate one candidate when documented clearly. Examples include capillitium attachment pattern, spore ornamentation, and peridium opening behavior.

Adjudication: A structured decision process that compares competing claims using the same evidence rules.

Why disagreements happen

Most identification disagreements stem from evidence problems, not knowledge problems.

Stage confusion. One person evaluates a fresh plasmodium (the feeding stage, a crawling mass of protoplasm). Another evaluates a dry fruiting body from a later photo. Both interpretations can be correct for different moments of the same organism.

Trait weighting differences. One reviewer trusts color. Another trusts structure. Color shifts with light, moisture, and camera processing. Structural characters like capillitium pattern, stalk form, and peridium behavior are more stable.

Mixed specimens. A single photo frame can include multiple species, especially in rich bark or leaf-litter microhabitats. Commentators may be describing different organisms without realizing it.

Naming system mismatches. One person uses current taxonomy. Another uses older names from a field guide. The same organism gets different labels, and the debate becomes about names rather than evidence.

Confidence without evidence. Someone posts “definitely Physarum polycephalum” based on a yellow color. Another points out that yellow describes many species. The first person feels challenged. The second feels ignored. Neither addresses the actual evidence.

How big is the disagreement?

Before you start resolving, assess the scope of the conflict.

Level 1: Species disagreement within the same genus. Both parties agree on genus but propose different species. This usually needs clearer trait documentation and one or two discriminating features.

Level 2: Genus-level disagreement. The interpretations place the specimen in different genera. This requires a full side-by-side comparison and often a targeted recapture request.

Level 3: Specimen mismatch. The photos may include mixed material or mixed time points that should not be treated as one case. Split the case first, then evaluate each specimen separately.

Level 4: High-impact conflict. The outcome affects a formal record, checklist, or publication. Use formal adjudication with written rationale and explicit evidence grading.

The conflict resolution workflow

Step 1: Freeze the claim language

Before debate continues, ask each party to write the same four fields:

1. Observed traits only (what they actually see in the photos).
2. Interpretation from those traits (what species they think it is).
3. Confidence level (high, medium, low, with justification).
4. Missing evidence list (what they need but do not have).

This step prevents moving goalposts. Everyone states their position clearly. The thread becomes testable.

Step 2: Normalize the naming system

Use one current taxonomy reference for the entire thread. Keep synonyms in notes, but compare candidates at the same rank. If one party uses historical names and another uses current names, translate before comparing evidence.

For example, if someone argues for Lepidoderma tigrinum while another argues for Diderma effusum, note that these names may be synonyms. Check current databases. If they are synonyms, the disagreement may be about names, not about the specimen.

Step 3: Build a side-by-side evidence table

Create a comparison table for each candidate. For each candidate, list:

Support: What traits in the evidence package match this candidate?

Conflict: What traits in the evidence package contradict this candidate?

Missing: What traits would decide the question but are not documented?

If a candidate has no surviving diagnostic support after this pass, remove it from consideration. State why it was removed.

Step 4: Grade the evidence

Apply the community evidence grading standard before selecting a winner. If the evidence package grades low, do not force species-level certainty. A careful genus-level result is better than a wrong species call.

The evidence grade determines what level of identification is justified. Grade A evidence might support species-level identification. Grade C evidence might support only genus-level.

Step 5: Issue a bounded outcome

Publish one of these outcomes:

Provisional consensus. One interpretation has clearly stronger support. State the identification with appropriate confidence and note the remaining uncertainty.

No consensus yet. The evidence is insufficient to decide. Request one specific follow-up image or detail that would resolve the disagreement.

Split into separate cases. The photos contain mixed specimens or mixed time points. Create separate threads for each specimen and restart the process.

Tie-break rules for moderators

When two interpretations remain equally supported, use these principles:

Structure over color. Structural details like capillitium pattern, stalk presence, and peridium behavior are more reliable than color. Color changes with light, hydration, and camera processing. Structure is more stable.

Stage awareness. A single photo captures one moment. If the thread shows only one stage, the identification is incomplete. Ask for follow-up images across time.

Genus-level honesty. If species confirmation is incomplete, state that directly. Clear uncertainty protects the community database and helps future readers.

One specific request. Ask for one follow-up photo that can settle the split. Request spore-mass color in natural light, or a crushed sporangium showing capillitium threads. One good close-up ends arguments faster than ten more comments.

Minimum dataset to close a conflict case

Before declaring resolution, confirm this minimum evidence:

1. Habitat context image showing the environment.
2. Scale image with reference object visible.
3. Stage-aware sequence showing maturity.
4. At least one close structural image addressing the main disagreement.
5. Written note separating observation from interpretation.

If this dataset is incomplete, close the thread as provisional. Request follow-up instead of forcing closure.

Resolution is not final

A resolved conflict does not guarantee permanent correctness. It means the best-supported interpretation from current evidence. Later microscopy, better imagery, or voucher review can still change the result.

Resolution is a statement about evidence quality, not about ultimate truth. The goal is honest assessment of what we know and what we do not know.

What to do next

After closing a conflict thread:

1. Archive the final evidence package with the outcome statement and confidence grade.
2. Link the thread to relevant species or glossary pages for future reference.
3. If the case remained unresolved, keep it open as provisional with one specific recapture request.

Avoid broad requests like “more photos please.” Ask for one specific trait that can decide between remaining candidates.

Copy-paste thread template

Use this format when summarizing a conflict case:

What we can see: [List only visible traits from this specimen set.]

First interpretation: [Candidate name and the traits that support it.]

Second interpretation: [Candidate name and the traits that support it.]

Where we disagree: [Name the exact trait or stage issue causing the split.]

Next step: [Request one specific follow-up image, or post the provisional outcome.]

Related guides

• Community Evidence Grading Standard
• Voucher Metadata Requirements for Expert ID
• Nickname to Taxonomy Translation Lexicon
• Slime Mold Look-alikes
• Glossary