Talk:Cercophora areolata

Untitled
History and taxonomy,

where is it generally grown ?

Growth and morphology is there more information on what it looks like asides from spore form is this the only form that it appears in ? Physiology- first jotnote about secondary metabolites, Cercophorin A creates a solid white covering? or a solid white substance, and Cercophorin B and Cercophorin C create a yellow solid, instead of brackets to make it more clear.

try and link coprophilous fungi -> as it has a wiki page Sordaria fimicola also has a wiki page and ascobolus has a wiki page for the genus.

also decarboxycitronin cause 100% reduction in radial growth but does Roridin E not cause reduction in radial growth or do they provide the same defence,

I think

"Cercophorin A was most potent against Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus" should be shifted up to the 3rd jotnote after you mention have A-C have been found to have antifunal and cytotoxic activity, that way all the information about the secondary metkabolites stay together

what do you mean by the last jotnote " these secondary products are the first .." as in Cercophorin A-C or decarboxycitrinon, 4-acetyl-8hydroxy-6methoxy-5-methylisocoumarin, and roridin E or all of them.

maybe incorperate this fact into a sentence earlier on such as

produces the secondary metabolites Cercophorin A, B , C, which were the first metabolites to be reported from member of the genus cercophora? or whichever ones you mean

Habitat and ecology-

I think this should be mentioned when you mention horse dung. So is it both or like also found on porcupine dung Tkyw (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

At first glance, your article looks great. It seems a little lackluster in references. You can reference the different types of growth or ecological functions not just to papers or books you found relating to your fungus, but you can actually reference books that describe fungus growth or ecological functions, which opens up way more options for your references. I would also recommend referencing your Binomial name and Type strain. It's important to know where these came from and they are also stated facts.

For history and taxonomy, consider going into a little more detail to why they formed a supported sister clade. What makes them sister clades? Is it their morphology? Sequencing? etc.

For growth and morphology, you have done a very good job to describe the morphological growth and reproduction forms. However, make sure you elaborate on things like "Fimicolous. Coprophilous fungus.".

For physiology, once again, good job. However, a lot of these items can go into ecology since they affect other organisms around them. You should further elaborate on growth conditions like optimal growth between x and y degrees. Prefers a pH of x and etc. This is of course different from habitat, which describes where they are found.

For habitat and ecology, you should further explain the ecological functions of your fungus in the environment. For instance, why does it grow on porcupine dung? Does it break down any materials in the dung to help other species or does it cause damage to other species?

Overall very good start. Room for improvement! Best of luck. Frankyuoft (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Other points
Try to simplify some of the language so that it is a bit more understandable to the lay reader. E.g., fimicolous (it is implied by the context, but instead of this term you could use "dung-loving"); areolate (this is an important term since it is the root of the species name of your fungus, so it would be helpful to keep it included but find a good way to explain what it means), etc. Also, UAMH 7496 is not the type - the type is the specimen from Sweden you mentioned in the lead. I don't believe there is a living culture of that, only a specimen. Medmyco (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)