Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fungi talk page (Discussion page). (January 2008 - December 2008) - Please Do not edit!

Good Image Resource

Most of the images on Forestry Images have been released under the creative commons 3.0 liscence and they include loads of fungi! So if you need a picture for an article, it's a good place to check. Million_Moments (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some recent mushroom taxonomy articles

I want to call attention to some recent papers on mushroom taxonomy:

• Hibbett DS, et al. 2007. A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi. Mycological Research 111:509–547.

• Hibbett DS. 2006. A phylogenetic overview of the Agaricomycotina. Mycologia 98:917–925.

• Matheny PB, et al. 2006. Major clades of Agaricales: a multi-locus phylogenetic overview. Mycologia 98:982–995.

They represent some very strong phylogenetic work at the level of the major groups of the Kingdom Fungi, the main subdivisions of the Agaricomycetes, and the families within the Agaricales. The last paper (Matheny, et al, 2006) deserves particular attention, because it contains a strongly supported phylogeny of the entire Agaricales, representing the work of a large number of authors from a number of the major fungal taxonomic labs around the world, and, unlike most cladistic papers, actually lists validly published Linnean names for its revision of family-level taxa for the Agaricales. In other words, its a pretty definitive reclassification of the Agaricales according to the very best of our current knowledge. Over the next few months, I'm planning on revising a number of Agaricales-related articles on Wikipedia to reflect the classification given in this paper (with proper citation, of course), though, of course, I'll keep mention of what the older, more familiar classification as well. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for the heads-up. cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Microascus brevicaulis

I added some info, but the biology section is still weak! Maybe anybody can add a few sentences.--Stone (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Botryotinia fuckeliana??

We have an article Botryotinia fuckeliana, the species is also mentioned in Botryotinia.

I do see some references to this species name on other sites, but I'd just like to verify that it's correct. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand(talk) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the link to the Index Fungorum page, and clearly its a real species. (What, you've never heard of the eminent German mycologist Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel? :) I'm not sure exactly why this species was considered worthy of a Wikipedia article, especially considering how little information is actually given in the article. I think creating articles about a species based on nothing more than seeing a name somewhere or happening to have a photograph of it is a very bad practice. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It used to be on the Botrytis cinerea as the name of it's telomorph Million_Moments (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Microscopy

This may be of interest to some other heavy scope users among the mycology crowd – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Phytopathogenic Fungi

I am thinking of creating a specific article on Phytopathogenic fungi. This would include information on necrotrohpic and biotrphic fungal pathogens, the major taxonomic groups that are pathogens, control of fungal diseases and the importance of fungal diseases in agriculture. Would anyone like to help me?Million_Moments (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first check the article Phytopathology, which represents a start on this, anyway. Actually, I think that article should probably be split between "Phytopathology" (describing the science) and "Phytopathogens" (or "Plant pathogens") (describing the actual organisms). My strategy for that article would be to expand the overall general description of plant pathogenic organisms in general and only break out an article on plant pathogenic fungi if that topic get's too large for the more general article. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to do the article because I thought Plant Pathology was a bit of a mess it might be easier to write a new article for phytopathogenic fungi then add a link to the main article and just a summary paragraph there.Million_Moments (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Fungi

I've made a small mod to this one from the birds template so that photo requests can be added using the '|needs-photo=yes' parameter. (I've left out the audio requests, as I know of no fungi with this capability). Richard001 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

*laughs* Million_Moments (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

f. sp.

In plant pathology you often get fungi that are called something like Puccinia recondita f. sp. tritici, which means they are Puccinia reconditathat causes disease on Tritici sp. only. It's completely slipped my mind what the "f" is "f. sp." stands for. If anyone knows I'd appreciate it. Also, if anyone has a better definition of what f.sp is that'd be helpful to! Million_Moments (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted Million_Moments (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• forma specialis – Peter G Werner (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hysteriaceae

Although confirmatory evidence is lacking the page at Hysteriaceae gives the impression of having been copied from a printed source. Alternatively it may be original research. Does the project think there's a problem here that needs fixing? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of thing before. I think your looking at an essay somebody has written at some point and they have copied it straight to wikipedia. I have often done this myself with my undergrad work except being a more experience editor I wikify the entry and footnote the references before I publish it. If this is done the article should be fine. Million_Moments (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Need help at Gyrophora esculenta and Rock tripe. Is the genus name at Rock tripe wrong? Badagnani (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox needed for Aphanomyces invadans

Hi folks. Aphanomyces invadans needs a taxobox. Can anyone help? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Coloured figures of English fungi or mushrooms

Page 109

Hi folks,

I just uploaded to Commons a djvu of a complete scan of James Sowerby's 1789 Coloured figures of English fungi or mushrooms. 1200 pages, 450 illustrations. Thought I'd let you know in case you can make some use of it.

Hesperian 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Scleroderma citrinni

Hi,

Can someone take a look at Scleroderma citrinni. I can't find this fungus listed in the Index Fungorum and (from a quick look) all the links google brings up seem to relate to Wikipedia. Is this a mis-spelling of Scleroderma citrinum? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the article's creator, User:SB Johnny, where he got the spelling in the first place? Badagnani (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now redirected to correct name - Scleroderma citrinum Cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?

Hi again,

I think I may have found some duplicate articles. Anthrodermataceae and Arthrodermataceae seem to be referring to the same order. Presumably one's a typo? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted - Anthrodermataceae is a typo. Cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 10:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Need photo

Does anyone know where we could find a photo of Umbilicaria esculenta? Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..interesting. never heard of that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom,Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request an assessment

Mushroom poisoning is rated Start class. Over the last couple of weeks I've expanded, sourced, rearranged, and generally fixed this entry. Is this the place to request an assessment? I'm a member of WikiProject Fungi too but it seems disingenuous to re-rate it myself. Revdrace (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You could rerate it yourself I don't think anybody would mind, it's not until you get to GA standard somebody else has to come in. Glancing at it it's definatly a C, probably a B. I can read it for you as if I was reading it as part of assesment to GA if you like. Million_Moments(talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help at Rock tripe

Need help at Rock tripe -- is there an Umbilicaria esculenta? Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edibility template

Hello everyone! Just wanted to ask why we need a distinction between edible and 'choice' fungi, and what exactly elevates a mushroom's edibility from edible to choice? Personally, I think we need a scale with stricter divisions without a culinary slant. I've seen only one textbook actually use the term 'choice.' Also, I feel that out of all possible sections of fungus articles, the edibility section, above all and always requires references most badly, and as prolifically as possible.--Paffka (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The book I have seen it used in is Carluccio's book. Not sure, I do like it, as to me choice means someone somewhere thinks its pretty highly regarded. Agree about referencing, which should be in the main body of the text. Do you think having ref in taxoobx is good too? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the taxobox is usually a summary of the actual text. Just my opinion on the mycomorphbox edibility, not expecting a change unless there's wide concensus.--Paffka (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

I've taken on the insanely ambitious task of rewriting Evolutionary history of life. I've had comments that the new version covers animals more thoroughly than fungi, and I agree. Unfortunately I'm no mycologoist, let alone paleomycologist. I'd appreciate input at Talk:Evolutionary history of life on this or other topics. -- Philcha (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kombucha: Phrasing needs tweak

Kombucha says:

The culture contains a symbiosis of Acetobacter (acetic acid bacteria) and yeast, mostly Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Candida stellata, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Zygosaccharomyces bailii.

The culture itself looks somewhat like a large pancake, and though often called a mushroom, or by the acronym SCOBY (for "Symbiotic Colony of Bacteria and Yeast"), it is clinically known as a fungus.

As far as I can tell, if the culture contains a symbiosis of bacteria and yeast, then it is misleading to say that it is a fungus, right? --201.17.36.246 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceratocystis

Could someone familiar with classification take a look at the Ceratocystis species articles? Some of them seem to be classified as basidiomycota and some as ascomycota. Presumably one genus can't fall into both phyla?

Ceratocystis adiposa
Ceratocystis coerulescens
Ceratocystis fimbriata
Ceratocystis moniliformis
Ceratocystis paradoxa
Ceratocystis pilifera

Cheers. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

this says ascomycete. I can check out some journal articles tomorro to see if they say when I am at uni.Million_Moments (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fungi

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure atWikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Phellinus weirii and Laminated root rot

I've created Laminated root rot as a seperate entry than Phellinus weirii because the former is the disease and the latter is the fungus. I'm not expert, and I don't know how things work in WP Fungi, so I thought I'd post this here. The P. weirii article is still very focus on the disease rather than on the fungus so you might want to take a look at it.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I work on alot of plant disease articles and it's normally my instict to merge the organism with the disease, unless the disease can be caused by more than one organism. This is because there normally isn't enough information to create detailed articles on both without repeating alot of stuff. It's my opinion this should be done here as well. Million_Moments (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, merging is the best option here. MM sums it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish diseases from infectious organisms

Hi,

I'm working on a proposal to make sure wikipedia tries to keep articles seperate with talking about diseases and the organisms that cause them.

Please take a look User:ZayZayEM/Proposal:Distinguish disease from infectious organisms if you feel this is a topic that should be discussed further.

I think that articles on disease should not be caught up talking about the infectious agent themself. They should focus on the infectious agent really only in terms of the disease itself (ie. epidemiology, and how the discovery of a connection between disease and infectious agent was found). This would prevent medical articles being bogged down with too much taxonomical classification data and general microbial ecology.

At teh same time it will allow more focus in organism articles on ecology, taxonomy and non-medical biology regarding the actual organism itself rather than mashing that together with information that would be mostly very human-centric.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to fungi. The search results are available atUser:AlexNewArtBot/FungiSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

that's handy... thanks! Sasata (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of descriptions

I was wondering if there's interest in getting consensus on the standard format for doing mushroom descriptions. Check out the differences in the descriptions of Psilocybe caerulipes, Kuehneromyces mutabilis, Albatrellus subrubescens, and Amanita muscaria, for example. Any preferences?Sasata (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, the overwhelming preference across wikipedia for articles seems to be prose, and in 3-6 sentence paragraphs or readability. I was pleasantly surprised to see the detail available for Albatrellus subrubescens, usually there is not enough to make separate subsbections like that. All bio articles I have worked on end up more or less like Amanita muscaria - have a look at the Featured and Good Articles for fungi and plants. Do you have a strong preference any which way? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I like it when the prose flows, as in A. muscaria example. It's more work for the author, but because this information is often typed in from field guides or journal articles that give this information in a more summary form, it encourages 'rewording', which also help prevent copyright issues. I will try to use this format for future entries (as in my latest example Agaricus pattersonae). Sasata(talk) 08:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! that's consensus as you and me are pretty much it at the moment, though I suspect User:J Milburn and Peter G. Werner would agree too. :) Cheers,Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Updates

I just finished rating all unassessed WikiProject templates; apologies if I rated your favorite fungal topic lower than you thought it deserved―feel free to change any assessments. There are now over 2000 pages covered by WPFungi, about 75% of which are stubs. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Usnea longissima taxonomy etc

I recently created the article Usnea longissima based on the taxonomy on ITIS and in a book I am using, printed in 2007. All the references I used on the page call the species U. longissima. I looked on Wikispecies and it lists the name as Dolichousnea longissima based on 2004 publications. Which should be used? Thanks Sci girl (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on Articus, 2004 this species has been moved to genus Dolichousnea, whereas prior to this publication, Dolichousnea was considered a subspecies ofUsnea. Looking at the ITIS entry, it seems that this is based on (unverified) 1996 data, so perhaps it just hasn't been updated there yet. So I would move the article to Dolichousnea, and add citations toIndex Fungorum and the Articus paper. Sasata (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

... and thanks for helping to improve the weak Wiki coverage of lichens! Sasata (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply. I'll take your advice and move it to the new name. Sci girl (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fungi Ident

I've got no idea what this fungi is but it was photographed in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ark, it will be some form of Cup_fungus, but 95% of aussie species are undescribed, which sucks big time when taking photos here. I will have a look later :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential feature, just needs new info

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis inspired a multimillion dollar project to save the amphibians of the world this year. I'm sure it deserves a feature. Can anyone contribute a few paragraphs of new information to it? That's the only thing keeping it from qualifying at the moment. Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I could put some work into it, I see there's been quite a bit of research published about this species in the past few years. What kind of "feature" are you thinking of? Sasata (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops... forgot to say. I was looking at a Did You Know feature. Thanks for stepping up to the challenge. Bob the Wikipedian^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK will be difficult because a 5x expansion will be required, but I'll see what I can do over the next week :) Sasata (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)