Talk:Guepinia

Taxonomy/nomenclature

The genus name(s) Guepinia appear to have a somewhat tortuous nomenclatural history. A summary (under an early version of the code, but presenting most of the base publication data) is in JSTOR 2436152. Donk also discusses it in JSTOR 1216401 (again before the establishment of sanctioned names) and there is a brief discussion of its relation to Teesdalia (Brassicaceae) via homonymy in JSTOR 3996542. Circéus (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tortuous is an apt description of how I felt reading those papers at 1 am last night :) I will make sure they get added to the article before I submit this for GAN. Sasata (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Should have figured you had in fact at least seen them XD It's not quite so complex as it seems with current ICBN art. 15 in effect, but historically it was a mess for a while. Circéus (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job! A couple of issues:

• In Taxonomy, the whole thing, segment-by-segment: "The species was first described and illustrated as Tremella rufa by Nicolaus Joseph von Jacquin in 1778. Elias Magnus Fries later (1825) called it Guepinia helvelloides, based on Augustin Pyramus de Candolle's Tremella helvelloides, both being names he sanctioned. This has made Tremella rufa and all names based on it unavailable for use. Later, Lucien Quélet erected a separate monotypic genus Phlogiotis for Jacquin's species, whereas Julius Oscar Brefeld placed it (as Gyrocephalus rufa) in Persoon's small genus Gyrocephalus (rejected name for Gyromitra). The genus is named after French mycologist Jean-Pierre Guépin (1779–1858)."

• I see that Fries' sanctioning was considered weighty; was his sanctioning of Tremella helvelloides (from, I assume a standard evaluation of T. rufus) sufficient to render the name T. rufus and all based associates taxonomically unavailable across the board, or for this particular species? Was Fries' sanctioning also a consideration in the move to Guepina within the purpose of honoring Jean-Pierre Guepin?

• There's a lot that could be written about this taxon's complicated taxonomic history, but I wanted to keep it relatively short. I explained a bit more about the naming confusion, and how the 1982 change more or less rendered all the previous arguments historical. Sasata (talk)

• Much better! Now, this sentence, "This has made Tremella rufa and all names based on it unavailable for use.", drives my only lingering question: Why? :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• More details can be found in the sanctioned name article, but long story short: sanctioning renders names conserved. Isn't taxonomy fun? Sasata (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Since Fries had previously sanctioned T./G. helvelloides, what were the purposes of Quelet and Brefeld's later suggested, respective placements?

• The concept of sanctioning (for fungal taxonomy) didn't arise much later (i.e. 1982); these guys were just adding their own opinions to the mix. Sasata (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Guepinia is variously classified in the Auriculariales order, with uncertain familial position (incertae sedis), or as part of the Exidiaceae family."

• Is incertae sedis a commonplace assessment?

• Only if they don't know how to classify it! Seriously, I've seen dozens of examples of taxa that don't quite fit into the sometimes narrowly defined taxonomic concepts, and so are incertae sedis in their placement (waiting for someone to give them a home with modern phylogenetic analysis). Sasata (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• In Description, define 'hypobasidia' and 'epibasidia'. Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job! Pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Guepinia passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass