Talk:Microascus brevicaulis

This is a merger of two articles
Edits from October 29, 2013 to 19:38, 16 November 2013‎ are from a newer article called Scopulariopsis Brevicaulis. That page was edited only by and  prior to my turning into a redirect. Edits prior to that time were a stub article called Microascus brevicaulis. Edits since that time are the merged article. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The histories of the two pages have been merged. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Name uncertain
http://www.mycobank.org/Biolomics.aspx?Table=Mycobank&Page=200&ViewMode=Basic refers to a 1998 paper,
 * Abbott, S.P.; Sigler, L.; Currah, R.S. 1998. Microascus brevicaulis sp. nov., the teleomorph of Scopulariopsis brevicaulis, supports placement of Scopulariopsis with the Microascaceae. 90:297-302

which recommends that this be named Microascus brevicaulis.

http://www.mycobank.org/BioloMICS.aspx?Table=Mycobank&Rec=36461&Fields=All refers to a 1911 paper,
 * Scopulariopsis acremonium (Delacr.) Vuill., Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France 27: 148 (1911) [MB#101682]

to support naming this Scopulariopsis brevicaulis.

The student or students working on this page should research post-1998 papers to see which one is the most accepted name. If there is not yet a scientific consensus on the name, at least make the page use a consistent name and, if necessary, WP:MOVE it to Scopulariopsis brevicaulis over the existing WP:REDIRECT and include a section in the article discussing the uncertainty of the name. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The work by Abbott remains the definitive taxonomic survey of this group. Based on where fungal nomenclature is currently, having discarded the provisions for separate names for different states, and that there is no longer priority given to teleomorph names, it is possible that this fungus may revert to Scopulariopsis brevicaulis. I don't expect this to be resolved for a while though, so its probably best to stick with Microascus brevicaulis for the moment. Medmyco (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if there is an ongoing scientific discussion related to the taxonomy of Fungi, this should be written up either as an article (if the scientific discussion itself meets WP:Notability and other criteria for inclusion) or as an essay or guide under the auspices of WikiProject Fungi so that writers of Fungus-related articles are aware of it. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot has happened in fungal nomenclature over the last few years, culminating in major changes to International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants at the Melbourne Code released in 2012. What emerged was a policy that has become known as One Fungus = One Name whereby the long-standing practice of naming separate states is obsolete. Furthermore, the default priority of teleomorph names, where available, was also eliminated. Mostly this only really applies to ascomycetes, and since the bulk of folks contributing here are interested in basids, I don't see major issues. But for those of us who work in this area, these are very interesting times. I'd be happy to provide a few good articles on the changes and their implications if you're interested. Medmyco (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in fungi, except that I like portobello mushroom burgers. The place to have this discussion is at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi.  Whether this should be written up as an article or as a "project document" within WikiProject Fungi is something that needs to be discussed. In the meantime, please make sure the articles you mentioned are current and that they have all the appropriate WikiProject-related templates on them (e.g. plants, fungi, etc.) davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Over-referenced?
In several places, a sentence or group of sentences are followed by two or more references. If any single reference covers all the points mentioned AND that reference is a reliable source, delete the other. In general, the fewer references the better PROVIDED that each point that needs to be backed by a reference is backed by one and if possible, that it is backed by a "reliable source" reference. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. But this is one of 30 student assignments, so I've done an initial triage on it before going on to the next, but certainly there are still some issues. Here I think it might be worth deleting the case reference, which does not add info, and stick with the de Hoog and/or the Onions text depending on the fact. I find it tough to work on text with in-line citation too, so I'm inclined to consolidate the references. But I don't have time to deal with it at the moment since 29 other articles beckon. Medmyco (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please encourage the students to re-visit all of their articles and each others' articles during their free time (I realize this means probably not until after final exams). After all, their work will "live forever" (well, for years anyways) and the better shape it is in, the better for everyone.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)