Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarcoscypha coccinea/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Sarcoscypha coccinea

edit

Sarcoscypha coccinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcoscypha coccinea is a small bright red cup-fungus that is commonly covered in mushroom field guides, and, as a type species, is arguably the most important of its genus. I have worked the past few days to bring up the comprehensiveness to a level comparable to other fungal FAs, and have tweaked and copyedited to the point where I think the article is ready for review by the community. Thanks for reading. (This is a Wikicup nomination) Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Have we discussed The North American Cup-Fungi (Operculates) being self-published before? Is the guy an expert?
  • H.O. Baral did his PhD dissertation on the Sarcoscypha genus, and published a lengthy article on the same in the German journal Zeitschrift für Mykologie a year later. His website gives much of the information contained in this article, but updated with more recent literature. I think he also passes the bar for a SPS. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Another excellent article fungus article. My only quibble has to do with the distribution. (Yes, we've been here before, and I'm sorry to bring it up.) Once I read the lead and saw the wide distribution, I immediately wanted to know if it was an introduced species. When you talk about the phylogeny, it appears that the species may have evolved in Europe, but no mention is made of why it's found on every continent but Antarctica. The discussion of differences in the North American population implies we may be talking about different species. Has no one speculated in the literature about this? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington discusses this briefly in her 1998 paper, and suggests that since all Sarcoscypha species form a clade that is sister to the tropical species S. javensis, the genus had a tropical origin. S. occidentalis has the widest distribution of all species, but there was nothing particularly specifically notable about the biogeography of S. coccinea that I saw warranted a mention. I will definitely discuss these matters in the genus article (it's on my "list"). Sasata (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much research still needs to be done in this field, I can understand that. (We've only begun to scratch the surface.) Changing to support. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks VH!. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this this morning while I was playing with the fungi portal.

  • "which both the fungus derives both its common and species names are derived" :)
  • I'd kind of like to see bullets in the synonym list, I think...
  • I'm not totally averse to the idea, except its inconsistent with the way I've done things so far. The disadvantage I see is that adding a bullet point pushes the synonym a few spaces to the right, and increase the chance that some names (which should be given with their authorities) will then wrap to the next line. This is where having a WP:Fungi-specific MOS would come in handy. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarcoscypha coccinea was given its current name by Jean Baptiste Émil Lambotte in 1889.[1]" Perhaps merge that to the paragraph before?
  • Have you made redirects for all those synonyms? That would be a nice touch. I know for a fact I've searched for names that are no longer accepted...
  • I think further discussion is required with the Fungi project (perhaps even WP:TOL) before I start the precedent of making redirects for synonyms. Synonyms really need to be indicated with their authorities, and there are various taxonomical nuances which have to be considered. I'm sure Circéus would have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know other projects do this, and I have seen other editors do it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters I'd say that whether or not it's done should not, I think, have any incidence on the FAC process. Whether it should be done as a matter of fact? In the current state of affair my intuition pushes me firmly on the "unsettled outside specific projects", if that (I don't think any project actually has it as an official guideline). In general, I disagree with the "authority" bit: only specialist uses author citations in a way that even approaches reliability and regularity. I'd say a pragmatic approach (redirects for the major synonyms) is best. Other synonyms (which may or may not have been created) can be found easily by text search.
    For comparison, the issue is also thoroughly unsettled on Wikispecies, but there I suspect the limited number of regular editor is also a major factor. Circéus (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could give some examples where not including the authority could lead to confusion, and might necessitate setting up dab pages, but agree that if the synonyms are mentioned in the text, a text search will allow the reader to find them. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see why we should not make redirects for synonyms (except in the probably rare case of homonyms, where a dab page is appropriate), but I may be missing something. Ucucha 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clements and Shear" Who are they? If we don't have a link, could we have the full names? I guess the same applies to the names before, but I know we've had this conversation before... Take it or leave it :)
  • I've now linked and redlinked the mycologists (Thanks "heavens" for Fungal Valhalla; someday Wiki will have articles for all those names!))
  • Could we perhaps have the recognised subspecies added to that Phylogeny graph thing (which I am really not qualified to understand :P) Actually- I see there are a few subspecies and the anamorph. It'd probably get a little crowded if everything was added.
  • "curliness"- now there's a word it's nice to see in a serious article!
  • "or even white (as in the variety album)." This isn't mentioned in the taxonomy section?
  • My point is that there isn't a repetition of info- that's the only place the variety is mentioned. The variety mentioned in the taxonomy section is S. coccinea var. albida- they the same thing? Why the two different names? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarcoscypha coccinea is one of several fungi whose fruit bodies have been noted to make a "puffing" sound—an audible manifestation of spore-discharge that occurs under certain conditions where thousands of asci simultaneously explode to release a cloud of spores." Our first fungal featured sound?
  • Is it normal for anamorphs to be in a different genus to the normal versions? That just seems weird to me... (Not an issue with the article, you've explained it very well, I'm just intrigued)
  • It is odd, but that's how they did things for decades before they were able to use molecular phylogenetics to link the identity of anamorph and teleomorph. There is currently debate in the mycological community about whether this practice should be scrapped (something I think will happen eventually as the old school diehards pass on to their next lives). Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rose family, Beech, Hazel, Willow, Elm, and in the Mediterranean, on Oak." Something not quite right about this- perhaps another comma after "and"?
  • "One field guide calls the fungus "a welcome sight after a long, desperate winter and ... the harbinger of a new year of mushrooming."[42]" Another wonderful little titbit. This really is an interesting article to read!
  • "are Red listed in Europe" You're kind of inventing a verb there- perhaps "are on the IUCN Red List in Europe"?
  • Does it work, medicinally? Or was it just superstition?
  • "the sun's rays" Sun is a proper noun, according to our article
  • I don't really see how the first paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" constitutes a "use". It's useful to the article, but I can't help feeling it belongs elsewhere.
  • I see what you're saying. Any suggestions? I could rename "Bioactive compounds" to "Chemistry" and make it a section, and also maybe remove the "Edibility" subheader from the uses section while I'm at it. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work- alternatively, you could slip the explanation of why it's red in the description section. "Why is Sarcoscypha coccinea red?" is hardly up there with "why is the sky blue?", but it has its place, especially with the suggestion about it being a slight evolutionary advantage. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt there's much more to say, so no big deal if you don't know, but is the lectin commercially produced? Sold? Used in any labs? Or did someone just find it, mention it in a paper then forget about it?
  • The latter. It's one of those bits of pure research that might be useful someday to a biochemist who needs an alternative way to selectively bind lactose using a chromatography column or something. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just feels a shame to end the article with a comparatively uninteresting/unimportant fact, when there is such lovely stuff in the uses section. Perhaps you could have three subsections- edibility, medicinal uses and other uses, something like that... Does it mention in the source why it was used as a table decoration? Because it's pretty? Its colour? Because they're all crazy over there? Something like that? If there was a little more on that, you could offset the stuffy science with some quaint human interest under an "other uses" title. (Your way also works, I'm just throwing another idea into the mix.) J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have rearranged the sections and headers/subheaders a bit so it doesn't end with the boring fact. Would love to include more human interest stuff about the fungus... but it just isn't out there. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of your best- I really enjoyed reading it, and it's clear a lot of expertise and research has gone into the article. I have no doubt you'll be able to deal with my suggestions as appropriate as usual. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues addressed. I looked through the Web of Science hits, and coverage seemed good. Ucucha 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • It would be preferable for the taxobox to provide an option to make the synonyms list collapsible, instead of the redundant solution used here. I'll try to look into it.
  • Thanks for reviewing the article and the copyedits. I'd appreciate a taxobox fix for synonyms. I find myself given full synonym lists more often (for comprehensiveness), and they can be quite lengthy for fungi. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked, Australia was not in the northern hemisphere. Most of Africa and South America isn't either.
  • In the lead, "from which both the common and species names are derived", I don't think "species name" in the meaning of "scientific species name" works particularly well. Perhaps just say "common and scientific names".
  • In the "Taxonomy" section, the use of parentheses for the authorities is confusing, as this would normally mean they described the species in a different genus.
  • I thought they would be less confusing for a general reader who didn't know about conventions for listing authorities. I don't mind changing the style, but would like further opinions from others, as it's something I do for almost all of the species articles I work on. Comparing the two:
"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia (Schumacher 1803), Peziza aurantiaca (Persoon 1822), and Peziza coccinea (Jacquin 1774)." vs.
"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia Schumach., Peziza aurantiaca Pers., and Peziza coccinea Jacq." Any other opinions before I adjust my synonym-listing paradigm? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less confusing to the general reader, perhaps, but more confusing to the eye of the reader who knows a bit more of taxonomy. Perhaps use "Peziza aurantia Schumach. (1803)"? Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Phylogeny" is quite vague: what is the timeframe for the first sentence and the third? What does it have to do with "Phylogeny" anyway?
  • I added a timeframe to the first, and the third is cited, so the reader can see the date of publication by checking the refs. I added this info where it is as a lead-in to the phylogenetic analysis, as a way to emphasize why the analysis was important—it helped clarify that several species were involved. I could make the "Taxonomy" section "Taxonomy and phylogeny" and merge the two if you still think it's out of place where it is. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the neighboring islands."—the Canary Islands are near Morocco, and are hardly "neighboring islands" to Europe, and Madeira looks like it's about as far from Morocco as from Portugal.
  • The neighboring islands phrase is from the source. I tweak slightly by removing the word "the" ("and was later dispersed to neighboring islands.") so it looks less like I'm talking about those islands specifically. Also, I don't know much anything about the geological history of the region; might it be possible that those islands were closer to Europe when the ancestor species dispersed there? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it also occur on the Macaronesian islands?

Ucucha 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A titbit Titbit is Brit, tidbit is its coy US cousin (cf the Parus tits (UK), titmice (US), or cock (UK), rooster (US)). Neither titbit variant was derived from anything to do with the female anatomy, although the ancient men's magazine Tit-Bits made the obvious link. A proper review will follow in due course, now a very busy August (Bruges, V festival and family is nearly over Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that titbit of information, Jim! My apologies, JMilburn, for assuming your subconscious mind was in the gutter :) Sasata (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Molliardiomyces eucoccinea — Although I can see why you've bolded this, it's not a synonym, and I'm unconvinced that it should be bold (on the same basis that subspecies are unbolded)
  • Harrington hypothesized that the most recent common ancestor of the two species originated in Europe and was later dispersed to neighboring islands. — do we know if the ancestor is likely to have been a different species from both the extant forms? That isn't necessarily the case, since the ancestral Madeira Firecrest appears to be the same species as the extant mainland Common Firecrest. When did the colonisation occur?
  • Harrington's study didn't include any molecular clock calculations, and he really didn't say much more than the speculation I've included in the article already. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stalks and outer surface are more lightly colored than the interior. — lighter in color
  • "beta carotene" — since the compund is more commonly written as β-Carotene, I'd italicise the Greek and hyphenate as "beta-carotene"

Support - with a few nitpicks (as opposed to titbits). Engaging and informative, this article is a delight to read. Here are a few suggestions:

  • In the the introduction there is a lonely "most" and some readers might pause to think "most what?"
  • Here why not put "however" at the beginning of the sentence? - It had been known since the early 1900s however"
  • I think the structure of this sentence is confusing, "The cladistic analysis combined comparison of sequences from the internal transcribed spacer in the non-functional RNA in addition to fifteen traditional morphological characters, such as spore features, fruit body shape, and degree of curliness of the "hairs" comprising the tomentum." The problem is caused by "combined". It reads "The X combined Y in addition to Z." I think with would be better than in addition to to give The X combined Y with Z.
  • The use of "under certain conditions" leaves the reader guessing. Perhaps a a description of these conditions would make an interesting titbit?
  • I find the colon odd here, "Depending on their geographical origin, the spores may have a delicate mucilaginous sheath or "envelope": European specimens are devoid of an envelope while specimens from North America invariably have one."
  • I didn't like the "while" here, "While in most Pezizales all of the ascospores are formed simultaneously" - how about "although"?

Thank you for a fascinating contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and thank-you for your review Graham. I have implemented your proposed suggestions. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sarcoscypha_coccinea/archive1&oldid=1085530222"