Talk:Collybia cirrhata

Unfinished business

The sentence "ecause C. cirrhata is the only one of the three Collybia species, it has been suggested that it is an anapomorphy" is clearly missing something: what IS the anapomorphy?? Circéus (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops - I was so wrapped up in making sure I understood what anapomorphy was that the rest of sentence fell by the wayside. Now fixed. BTW, does the 1st taxonomy paragraph sound like it makes sense? Sasata (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me, but personally I think adding the specific that makes it clear he did not accept the name would be helpful. Even to me is seems counterintuitive that someone might describe a species yet not recognize it! It might be clear if you can read the test, but both my Latin and German are terrible. Circéus (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "autapomorphy" instead of "anapomorphy"? Maxorz (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Collybia cirrhata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, a step closer to that good topic? I'll take a read through now...

• "validly named" Link?

• Hmm, didn't know we had articles on valid name (botany) and correct name (botany); that's handy. Linked. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "However, the naming was contrary to article 34.1" This makes it sound like it wasn't valid then- surely, the rules are more recent? What does it mean that the name was not accepted by him? Did he say "I did call it this, but now I think it doesn't exist"?

• I've added "later deemed contrary" to address your first concern. As to the second, I don't know the details yet; I'll ask Ucucha to see if he can read the original Latin/German and give us an idea about Batsch's thinking.Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update: I still don't know why Agaricus amanitae is not accepted as the basionym for this species, but it seems I was reading too much into my available sources before. I've altered the text to represent the state of affairs as I understand it, and will have to get my hands on some hard-to-get European literature to fully clarify the story. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The first valid naming occurred in 1803 as Agaricus cirrhatus" Odd phrase; could it be rephrased?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the genus Microcollybia has since been wrapped into Collybia" By whom? Do we know?

• It wasn't really any one person or publication, rather the accumulation of evidence presented first by Antonín et al. in 1997 which reduced Collybia to four species, and then the 2001 phylogenetics publication by Hughes et al. which moved Dendrocollybia into its own genus and confirmed the monophyly of the remaining three. This info will be presented in the genus article soon ... Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "an anapomorphy" Why italics? And does the term refer to the feature, or the species? I assume the feature, but the phrasing suggests the species.

• The italics are because it's a "word as word" (see WP:italics). Have reworded for less ambiguity. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "subhygrophanous" Linking only half a word doesn't look great. I think there's something about that in the MOS somewhere.

• Piped link instead. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "with a tooth" Explain?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "whitish mycelium" Why not plural? If we were talking about a tree, we'd say "copious roots" rather than "copious root". Your call.

• Yeah, I often get this wrong for some reason... hard-wired in my brain or something. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some inconsistency with regards to edibility- it's not considered edible, and is not poisonous, so I'd call it inedible, as you have done in the text and prose- perhaps update the mycomorphbox and cats?

• Done x 2. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but is there any reason you have chosen not to separate the microscopic details?

• Nope, no reason. I added a subheader. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "in alkali solution" alkaline would be the adjective I think?

• Yup. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "multiseptate caulocystidia (cystidia on the stem) that have multiple septa" Redundancy is redundant

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Kasuya and Sato" Who?

• Removed the names, not really important here. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources, a better ref for the UK would be (in your cite style)-
  • Sterry P, Hughes B (2009). Complete Guide to British Mushrooms & Toadstools. HarperCollins. p. 130. ISBN 9780007232246.
• (On a loosely related note, I see that book recognises a number of Collybia species, which is a shame considering how new it is! When were they recategorised?)

• See above... shame on Sterry and Hughes, the reduced Collybia is old news! I think I'll keep the current ref; it has the advantage that those who click the link will see a distribution map that conveys the UK distribution quite well. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed the formatting on one of your refs (the link wasn't displaying and italics were used where the MoS doesn't need them) but what makes www.nahuby.sk reliable?

• According to a Google translation it's maintained by "Mrs. Dr. Kautmanovej, an expert in mycology from the Slovak National Museum". I think it'd be borderline reliable for FA, but should be ok for GA. Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a particularly good article; I was worried you may be scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources for the Collybia articles, but it's full of great info. The description is wonderfully detailed and both the taxonomy and distribution are carefully researched and explained. Really great work as usual. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Imagine how good they'll be after I've written 500 of them ;-) Sasata (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm happy to promote now; I'm sure you'll update with anything else from the question about the invalid naming if and when you get it. Even without it, it's fine, though the section could perhaps be smoothed out (attribute the claim it is invalid?) Anyways, as I said, really nice article. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)