Talk:Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca


 * I used google translate to make some sense of Bernhard Studer-Steinhäuslin's moving it to Clitocybe ("can only be a Clitocybe"! He says..). I have found Rene Maire's material hard to find online....frustrating....does Singer talk about the genus at all? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After some digging I found the full citation, and enough of a Google Books snippet preview to make this statement. I know Singer does discuss it because Grgurinovic 1997 paraphrases his generic description in her book, but I don't have Singer handy (it's at the library). Will have a look next time I visit. Sasata (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, just looked up Bruce Fuhrer's book, which says it is found in uplands, but says it has yellow spores...so I am pausing before using the book as a ref until I find some other sources from Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do recall one source saying the spores were white to cream coloured (will add that to the article when I refind it), but that's still a ways off from yellow. Grgurinovic 1997 only includes Hygrophoropsis psammophila, not this species (but the book only covers south Australia). Sasata (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok happy to leave that for the time being anyway, until/unless further information comes to hand. It'd be unusual if it were the same species and not introduced anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Pre-GAN update
Apart from fleshing out the ecology segment (I suspect it's worth incorporating some more of the Fransson 2004 article in it), is there more worth adding that is findable? I will see if mushroom texts have more on tuesday as I can go to the university library then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite done hunting through my library for tidbits, and I'm sure that the similar species section can be fattened a bit with . Sasata (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm done scraping my books. Will add from source above (if you don't get there first) tomorrow, but I think it's pretty close. Sasata (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

FAC notes

 * There is some more stuff that could be added from Singer 1946, e.g. variety nana, Hygrophorpsis tapinia could go in Similar species, additional synonyms, perhaps some extra details about distribution. Some info also good for the genus page. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great/go for it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing much coming up in my search for distribution material other than that it is widespread.....ok ready to send it down the line...(i.e. I think it has come together nicely).Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A few questions
I have just gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb. It is quite well written as it is. I just made a few small copy-edits. There are two things I wanted to ask about. They're not major issues, just something to consider.
 * NB: Your copyedits are fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1) The last paragraph in the section Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca begins with these two sentences:


 * Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca has been confused with the true chanterelles (genus Cantharellus) because of overall similarities in appearance. Later mycologists thought that the forked gills, frequently off-centre stipe placement, and dextrinoid spores suggested a relationship with Paxillus, and the genus Hygrophoropsis was classified in the family Paxillaceae by Rolf Singer in 1946.

I was thrown off by "Later mycologists". At first I thought it was "Later, mycologists...", with the period missing. Then I realized it probably meant "mycologists working in years following the ones who were confused [first sentence]". However, the lack of any indication of time (year, decade, century) in that first sentence, coupled with present perfect tense ("has been confused"), which tends to suggest fairly recent activity (which is at odds with the 1781 year in the note), makes the reader "at sea" as far as time, and the word "later", in "Later mycologists", doesn't help at all. (Later than what?) (And even if the reader reads the note accompanying the first sentence and sees "Jacquin" in 1781, he might wonder whether it was only one mycologist who was confused, and, if so, why present perfect "has been confused".)

To clear this up, I suggest:


 * either naming at least two mycologists/scientists who have confused Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca with the true chanterelles and/or giving a year, years, decade, decades, or century, or centuries to indicate when they were confused, or


 * changing "later", in "Later mycologists", to another, more precise indication of time, or


 * both. You might also consider using past tense instead of present perfect tense in the first sentence if those mycologists who were confused lived quite a while ago.
 * Yes...this has been a headache. We think Rolf Singer was the first one, in around 1946, but I will wait to hear from on a good way to proceed.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok - I had a think about it. I flipped the classification in Paxillaceae sentences as the 1946 classification by Singer was the landmark development. Then placed the other segment after. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

2) The section Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca, begins with these three sentences:


 * The false chanterelle has been described as edible (though not tasty) by some experts, but other authors report it as potentially poisonous. Indeed, Fries described it as venenatus, meaning "poisonous", in 1821. David Arora speculates that the confusion about edibility may be a result of misidentification with Omphalotus species.

You might consider adding a bit to the third sentence to indicate that the Omphalotus species is actually the more poisonous species, something like this:


 * David Arora speculates that the confusion about edibility may be a result of misidentification with the more poisonous Omphalotus species.
 * I made it "undoubtedly poisonous" as they are undoubtedly poisonous. "more poisonous" implies toxicity in H. aurantiaca, which is not certain.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can drop "undoubtedly", without losing any meaning? Sasata (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first one, I'd like to suggest a re-arrangement of the sentence. Here are the first two sentences of the paragraph as they are now:


 * Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca has been confused with the true chanterelles (genus Cantharellus) because of overall similarities in appearance. However, the genus Hygrophoropsis was classified in the family Paxillaceae by Rolf Singer in 1946, the forked gills, frequently off-centre stipe placement, and dextrinoid spores suggesting a relationship with Paxillus.


 * To improve the flow of sentences (that is, the ideas in the sentences), since the first sentence ends with the misleading "overall similarities in appearance", the beginning of the second sentence should start with the meaningful differences in appearance between the two species. If I understand this correctly, the differences suggested a relationship with Paxillus, which led to the classification. What do you think of this? –


 * Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca has been confused with the true chanterelles (genus Cantharellus) because of overall similarities in appearance. However, the forked gills, frequently off-centre stipe placement, and dextrinoid spores of H. aurantiaca suggested a relationship with Paxillus, prompting Rolf Singer to classify it in the family Paxillaceae in 1946. – Corinne (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Corinne: this change looks fine. Thanks for tightening up the prose! Sasata (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking "definitely" might sound better than "undoubtedly". It would contrast with the "maybe" or "possibly" poisonous described earlier in the article for H. a. Corinne (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...also musing on Sasata's comment that the qualifier could be just dropped altogether. "Definitely" sounds fine too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just some thoughts about this sentence, recently revised:


 * It is widely distributed and found on several continents, growing in woodland, heathland, and on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping.


 * (a) Perhaps to a botanist, "widely distributed" has a particular meaning, but to the non-expert, there does not seem to be much difference between "widely distributed" and "found on several continents". If something is found on several continents, it is apparently widely distributed. Is it absolutely necessary to include "widely distributed"? If "widely distributed" means "found growing in a wide range of habitats", your examples later in the sentence kind of say that, so perhaps another reason not to keep "widely distributed".


 * (b) I see that Ceoil changed, "where it grows..." to "growing". Normally, I often reduce a clause to a participle, but here, I think the clause sounds better. It makes the sentence flow more smoothly and quickly. The participle, following a comma, slows the sentence down, something you don't want so early in the lead. Besides that, adding "growing" introduces a third "-ing" to the phrase, with the two gerunds "gardening" and "landscaping". Corinne (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ceoil I'm not sure why you think you would have to "defend yourself". You haven't been accused of anything. I notified you just in case you might be interested in a discussion regarding wording, related to your recent edit . Corinne (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting quandary - on the one hand I agree to minimise '-ing' constructions, but on the other I find it a bit weird saying "found on several continents, where it grows.." as we are talking about everywhere it is found. "where" to me would imply somewhere specific. But YMMV. I really can go either way on this. Any other opinion on this?, on "where it grows" vs "growing" in subordinate clause? (see here. Myself I am going to bed now...back later....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if "fungus" is to be removed, the article "a" before "widely distributed" needs to be removed. Corinne (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber Following this edit, the sentence now looks like this:


 * It is widely distributed, and on several continents grows in woodland, heathland, and on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping.

Grammatically, it's all right, but stylistically, is sounds awkward. I still need to know if being "widely distributed" means something different from being distributed widely over the earth (i.e., on several continents and/or in a variety of habitats). (Even if it does mean something different to a botanist, it sounds awfully similar to a non-expert, so seems redundant.) If it means something different, and it's important to say it, I think another way needs to be found to say it. If it means pretty much the same thing, then either "is widely distributed" needs to be removed or the following information needs to be constructed so it becomes an explanatory phrase for "is widely distributed", not expressed as something different. Perhaps something like this would work:


 * It is widely distributed over several continents, growing in woodland, heathland, and on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping.

(The way that last part is worded, its growth on woodchips is made to sound equally as common as in woodland and in (or on) heathland. "On woodchips" is also a different kind of location from woodland and heathland. I think some effort should be made to separate it from the other two, something like this: "growing in woodland and heathland, and sometimes on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping".) or:


 * It is found on several continents, growing in woodland and heathland, and sometimes on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping". Corinne (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I changed to It is found across several continents, growing in woodland and heathland, and sometimes on woodchips used in gardening and landscaping., as "across" carries the connotation of widespreadness, thus eliminating the need to use "widely distributed" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Third picture
Is the third picture in this article -- currently illustrating this article on the front page in "did you know" -- really a false chantarelle? The mushroom in that picture does not, to my eyes, look anything like the mushroom in the article's other pictures, and also does not fit the characteristics described in the "mycological characteristics" infobox. --Aqwis (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than the gills being subdecurrent (which is normal for a young specimen; the gills become more strongly decurrent as the mushroom ages), it looks like H. aurantiaca to me. The deeply-orange coloured and forked gills, inrolled rim, and darker coloration on the stipe base all support this id. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition of Sitta
Okay, so this reference was recently added citing edibility. Is categorised as "Not recommended" )More or less especially consumed, with presence of critical issues) acc. to google translate. The author has published with Denis R. Benjamin (See .). In the book he adds that the one attibuted case of poisoning he knew of could be attributed to an idiosyncratic reaction as only one of three people eating it got symptoms. He concludes that it is harmless and eaten in Spain and France and can be sold in France and Belgium. It is not recommended in Italy due to its similarity to poisonous species. I will add this as useful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)