Talk:Auriscalpium vulgare

comments

 * Taxonomy
 * Fries is not really necessary here (I would only include him if he was relevant to explaining why the name does not respect normal priority).
 * Crossland just seemed too anecdotal (plus call me stuck up but if I were to cite a tiny thing like that, I would insist to use the actual report, not a second-hand version, and unfortunately the 1908 volume of The Naturalist is not online.)
 * I'm not entirely happy with saying Gray "made it the type species" of his new genus, since he did not made any type designation, but it would probably be too wordy to explain that, while not mentioning it's the type species here and why would be inappropriate. I may figure something out later.
 * Perhaps it would be better to just say that Gray transferred it to Auriscalpium (citing Gray 1821), and in a separate sentence, that it's the type species (citing Fungorum), to avoid linking the two? Sasata (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Description
 * Significantly reorganized, in particular to try and group all the measurements and eliminate the unnecessary ones (I don't think specifying an exact length of the spines is useful here). You'll want to check everything is still properly referenced.
 * There might be a need for an addition to cortex (botany) since the fungal definition of cortex (as far as I can tell. I couldn't find a good, clear one!) basically covers "bark" on all nonsporiferous surfaces of fungi and lichens, not only the stem as in higher plants. Dict. of the fungi to the rescue?
 * All they say is "a more or less thick outer covering"; does this seem like a useful addition to the cortex article? Sasata (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Microscopic characteristics
 * Regarding the septal characters, I think it needs to be properly characterized:

So it was studied to fill in additional characters for the Russulales (which are said to be patchy), it is not clear from this (or the later mention: "Extended septal pore cap margins as seen in A. vulgare is not a character state at this time and thus is described in the notes field of its database entry. Further examination of other species of Russulales will determine whether this character state is phylogenetically informative.") whether the character is novel for Russulales alone or Agaricomycotina as a whole. Indeed I'm not even 100% sure the character mentioned in the intro is those pore cap margins!
 * Overall I'm not sure what to do with this (or the culture discussion). I suspect it might be more interesting to shorten these to the bare minimum (especially since the papers are OA) by saying what was studied, why, and the interesting facts unearthed (i.e. a potential alternate relation between Hymenochaetales and Russulales and an unexpected character and so on.) rather than trying to summarise what are ultimately domewhat abstruse and possibly unnecessarily pointed description. For this reason I have tentatively skipped over the culture section.
 * I've reorganized the paragraph about additional characters to hopefully give it more context about its usefulness in the grand scheme of things. Also trimmed a paragraph from the culture description (might chop more later). Sasata (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fruit body development
 * "the fruit body can proliferate by growing additional fruit bodies on all parts of its upper and lower surfaces." What does this even mean? Are you sure the extra bodies don't develop from some part of the mycelium? As is it sounds like you're describing a weird branching mushroom (like the one on the left of the taxobox). Is this the case or is this referring to the way if often grows in group?
 * Yes, it's a weird mushroom that can grow fruit bodies out of existing fruit bodies; see this. I'll think about how I can reword to make this less unclear. Sasata (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can easily think of a few ways to do it—I just don't have the time to do it right now. The issue is that I wasn't sure if the interpretation was correct. Circéus (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to mention that occasional cap-less specimen are found in nature (investigating these was, AFAICT, one of the reasons for Harvey's study), and the nature of the growth (different from that of many more mushrooms that are grown "as eggs") is the reason why this occurs.
 * Now mentioned in the description section, and with more context in the fruit body development section. Sasata (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Circéus (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Distribution
 * There's not much to do about it, but I really wish I could figure out a useful link for that "Laojun mountain area". I have a suspicion this is the same as "Liming - Laojunshan National Geopark", but I can't find good coordinates for that to comfirm.
 * I whipped up a stub. Sasata (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, there! Circéus (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I like that the new image shows a nice example of a dark, older fruit body, I also liked the fact that the fingers in the first image provided immediate and clear scale references. Abstract measurements do not quite, IMO, translate just how TINY those are compared to that picture. Circéus (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Fingers returned. Sasata (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Auriscalpium vulgare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720091835/https://aftol.umn.edu/species/Auriscalpium_vulgare to https://aftol.umn.edu/species/Auriscalpium_vulgare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)