Talk:Blewit

The title of this page should be CHANGED, because the latin spelling is WRONG. The species name is always written in gemena, not with a capital letter. Also, carrying the latin name on the title is unnecessary. The species is known as "Blewit" or "Wood blewit". The name "Lepista nuda" could be a REDIRECT to the "Wood blewit" -page.

As this page is now in the category:Edible mushrooms a common name title would be more appropriate.

Pihka 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur - I think you should go ahead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Blewit
Support: I think both Clitocybe saeva and Clitocybe nuda should be discussed in the same article, with the unique features of each discussed in short sections for each species. There's enough overlap in information on the two that a single article would more efficiently treat the subject than separate articles. Since this is a species group lacking an established scientific name, I propose using the common name "blewit" for the article title, in keeping with the policy on articles about species groups discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi. Peter G Werner 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...aha, I hadn't thought of it like that, this is one case where the common name has more validity than the scientific name due taxonomic questions. OK. Support Cas Liber 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to see if any more feedback comes in in the next day or so (and notify the above 2 editors) and unless there are significant objections, I'll perform the merge. Peter G Werner 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only issue I can think of is that it makes it a bit harder to keep consistent interwiki links. This article has a lot of them, and Czech and Polish have separate articles for the two species. If you can read them, is there material on some of these pages that would correspond to an article on "Blewit" better than the individual species? And are the Czech and Polish pages as redundant as the English seem to be? It certainly makes updating interwiki links if everything is in a nice, one-to-one correspondence, although of course that may be worth sacrificing if the articles work out better the other way. Rigadoun (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the articles that will correspond most closely would be the ones for "wood blewit", since that's the most widespread and widely collected. Also, it is actually possible to put more than one interwiki link for a given language on a page. Peter G Werner 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just realised looking at the Moncalvo study is that the Wood blewit is far away from C. clavipes which is the type species so heaven knows what that group of Clitocybes end up being called...Cas Liber 07:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true – the type of Clitocybe is C. nebularis (aka Lepista nebularis), which is quite close to Clitocybe nuda and the rest of the core Clitocybe group, according to Moncalvo. For more on the taxonomic status of Clitocybe and segregates from it, see Harmaja 2003. Peter G Werner 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no disagreement about this, I'm going to go ahead and do the merge. Peter G Werner 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the article in its current state is of rather poor quality in terms of content and organisation. I find that the only reasonable excuse for merging has been the actual lack of content about both species mentioned as individuals, and not the relationship they share in one of many common non-scientific names. I reckon that improving the content justifies a future split. While I'm no expert on what the prevailing taxonomic opinion regarding Lepista is, the authority I rely on has always been Index Fungorum. I have not seen in the studies provided evidence that suggests Lepista nuda and Lepista saeva are not Lepista, although I may have missed it. Currently, Index Fungorum lists the two species as Lepista nuda and Lepista inversa. What is the final verdict as of 2009?--Paffka (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed dubious sentence
"Allergy symptoms vary among people. Consumption could cause a few days of sickness and even in some cases death."

I removed this as it is in all likelihood highly inaccurate. I also removed the "poisonous" tag from the taxobox – if you count allergic reactions in some individuals, then practically all edible species should be tagged as "poisonous". Perhaps an "edible with caution" tag might be created for species with a large number of allergic reactions, though. (BTW, people have actually died from eating morels raw.) Peter G Werner 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blewit. 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/20090107023310/http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomblewits.html to http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomblewits.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Blewits
Blewit is a false singular. The word is blewits. (Look in any dictionary.) Please can somebody change the page name - I don't know how to do this. BioImages2000 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

New binomial
So I guess this is Collybia nuda now, per Fungal Diversity journal. doi:10.1007/s13225-023-00527-2 Not going to boldly do anything but leaving this here unless someone is braver. jengod (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)