Talk:Cerioporus squamosus

Edible
the article claims this mushroom is both edible (right at the beginning) and inedible (in the infobox and as a category). I understand it is actually edible but not real tasty, but I think that still classifies it as edible. xschm (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the following *NOTE* (unsigned from IP address 74.46.218.146) from the article to here on the talk page. It would seem to agree with the above comment, so I placed it under this section. Hamamelis (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I eat it all the time and I think it is very tasty, it just needs to be cooked correctly. Great by itself when cooked in oil and lime, great breaded and deep fried in slices, and especially great in some stew (although a tad chewy no matter how you cook it). I think something subjective like taste shouldn't effect it being objectively 'edible' 169.198.254.67 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "' *NOTE* Please change that it is inedible from the category. Inedible means it is poisonous or un-digestible. This mushroom can be eaten. '"

File:Polyporus squamosus Molter.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Polyporus squamosus Molter.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 30, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-05-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New name
Cerioporus squamosus has not yet been published AND accepted by two or more scientific journals. (he minimum that is needed to officially change the name.) The classification should remain Polypous squamosus until the 2016 reclassification is agreed upon or published in more than one official source. (mycobank is NOT an official source). The 4th citation takes people back to the name polyporus and does not show adequate sources for the name to change and is therefore incorrect.

Unless proper information can be provided this page should revert to "polyporus squamosus"

It should not that IF Cerioporus is agreed on as a legitimate name that the new classification does not exist in any mushroom books or identification guides so just changing the name without adding information as to why after 129 years the name has been changed means that anyone doing additional research will be left confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.44.227 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) bob

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cerioporus squamosus. 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/20090107031452/http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomdryad.html to http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomdryad.html

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) 16:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing Terminology
Should references to Polyporus be changed to Cerioporus where applicable? Several pictures and such refer to 'Polyporus squamosus' despite the new classification. Weshawitz (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Annual versus perennial
I disagree with reference to this being an annual. These grow back every year. Would the author please review this? Nooksz (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)