Template:Did you know nominations/Lenzites warnieri

Lenzites warnieri

 * ... that Lenzites warnieri (pictured) produces fruit bodies only once?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Serangan Fajar

5x expanded by Tomcat7 (talk). Self nom at 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Expanded five-fold on 1 January, picture meets eligble criteria, and offline sources accepted in good faith. Good for the main page. ComputerJA (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Not quite; aside from the awkward phrasing of the hook, the hook itself is contradicted later in the article – "and produces numerous fruit bodies in autumn." Sasata (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are right, the fungus produces more than one fruit body. I removed the last part of the sentence, since I don't think it is very important. --Tomcat (7) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png  What's happening with this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg The page is ready for DYK. The discussion above only pertains to whether one or more fruit bodies are produced; the fact remains that the fungus only produces fruit bodies once in its lifetime. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg A different hook will have to be found. One of the sources used in the article contradicts the (older) source to which this fact is cited, and I've removed it from the article. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see another hook:
 * ALT1: ... that DNA analysis suggests the mushroom Lenzites warnieri (pictured) may belong to the genus Trametes instead of Lenzites? --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds ok. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png New ALT1 hook needs to be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook is supported by an inline reference. The image is suitably licensed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg There's still a problem here; I have the source to which this hook is is cited, but the book does not support this. I suspect the hook fact may by supported by Tomšovský et al. (2006), but I cannot confirm this, and the abstract does not confirm either. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the mushroom Lenzites warnieri (pictured) likes it hot and causes white rot? --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  12:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png ALT2 needs reviewing. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase "likes it hot" is gratuitously colloquial, I suggest it just be dropped and only the bit about causing white rot be retained. Either that or the "likes it hot" phrase be rephrased in more appropriate language. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is colloquial. The bit about causing white rot is nothing special (there are a lot of white rot fungi). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's casual phraseology and imprecise language, unless that kind of language is being employed for a specific reason, it doesn't belong on the main page. You may be right about the white rot, the hook would probably be acceptable if more appropriate language was substituted for "likes it hot". Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By which WP DYK guideline is that inappropriate language, considering it refers to a habitat preference of the species? --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  12:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I could give you a detailed explanation, but rather than waste more time discussing it, I think I will just propose an alt of my own:
 * Actually, you have no such explanation whatever; but it is okay to dislike a hook! ;) --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  09:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT3: ... that the mushroom Lenzites warnieri (pictured) thrives in a hot climate and causes white rot? Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Reviewer needed for ALT3. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Alt3 good to go. Other alts struck. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I prefer ALT 2. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Wait!! I vote for ALT2!! We have consensus majority! --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  12:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not too strict about which hook should be added. Both ALT2 and 3 are good; the first is rather comical so may attract some people, the second is good and interesting, too. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally convinced the article text supports the contention that this thrives in a hot climate. The article does say "Because of its required high standards (what does this mean?), the fungus is rare in the northern latitudes." But really, the fungus is rare everywhere. And previously, it says "Their primary habitat is the southern Central and Northern Europe." Northern Europe doesn't have a particularly hot climate. Most of the distribution section described isolated finds of this rare species, so it's hard to generalize about habitat preferences. I've had problems coming to grips with this article, as I can only access about half of the references, and I've found source material that's contradicts what's written in the article, so I have to assume it's in the sources I can't see. How's this for a less contentious hook:


 * ALT4: ... that the fungus Lenzites warnieri (pictured) was first collected from the resting home of the French physician and politician for whom it is named? Sasata (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go with ALT4! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  05:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My hook was basically just a rephrase of the previous hook, I didn't take a close look at the article to verify it but the phrase "mycelium only grows in high temperatures of 37C" jumped out at me, but perhaps this doesn't refer exactly to "climate". It might have been more accurate to say "thrives in high temperatures", but your hook might be a better option, unfortunately I can't verify it because the original source appears to be Latin and translates poorly in google translate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the "not in citation given" and "clarification needed" templates addressed. But more important, the specific article sentences that ALT4 are taken from will need to be inline cited for ALT4 to be approved, and I'm not convinced that they accurately reflect the sources. The use of "Ferme de Kandouri", for example: it seems to be a Latin rendering of a section of Algeria (the italics would seem to indicate it's a formal name of some type), but to say "on a Ferme de Kandouri area" makes it read like a guess. If there isn't a way to determine what "Ferme de Kandouri" is, it shouldn't be used. I've struck ALT2 and ALT3 because of the issues Sasata raises, but ALT4 needs better citing to be usable. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT5: ... that the mushroom Lenzites warnieri (pictured) thrives in high temperatures and causes white rot? Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also the ALT3 hook. Just sayin' --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  12:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Just to clarify: I consider the "Ferme de Kandouri" sentence of the article to be problematic, and don't believe the nomination can be approved until it is fixed. And I think Sasata's comment about not being convinced that the article supports the hot climate contention knocks out ALT5 for the same reason it did so with ALT3. ALT4 still has the issues I noted above. Tomcat7, are you planning to address these issues? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT5 doesn't say "climate", it says "temperatures", per the article itself which says the mushroom's mycelium only grows at high temperatures, ideally at 37 °C (99 °F). Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have talked with the main contributor, and he stated that the ideal temperature in culture is 37°C, but it may grow at much lower temperature. 16°C July isotherm merely means that the middle temperatur is 16°C in July, not that it grows at that temperature. If there the sun shines 10 hours and the temperature is 30°C by day, then it may even grow in Russia and other colder regions. Also the fungus is very rare and the only source for that is the current one in the article. Basically there should be no uncited information. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "DNA test" should problably be changed to "DNA study". I asked about that polyphyletic phrase. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think at this point it's clear a new hook will be required. Suggested alt:
 * ALT6: ... that a possible conspecificity between the mushrooms Lenzites warnieri (pictured) and Daedalea quercina was not resolved for decades? Gatoclass (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Sorry, but that hook doesn't work for me. First, a minor point: the word "mushrooms" should be changed to "fungi". More significantly, it's not clear that the hook is supported by the article. The article says a possible conspecificity was "long discussed", but it's not clear that it was ever truly resolved. The article does say that a 1969 study "proved" them to be separate species, but controversies over taxonomy don't get "resolved" until the disputing parties accept the evidence. Indeed, the source cited to document the "long discussed" statement, which was published in 1976, goes to some length to document the evidence the author used to differentiate the species, thus suggesting that the question wasn't resolved by the 1969 study. --Orlady (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Several statements in the article make me skeptical of the article's overall reliability -- and to wonder if I'm reading a poor translation from another language (or multiple other languages):
 * In the lead: "...appears on the trunk of different leaf tree species...". The term "leaf tree" is not one I know. It's not a scientific term -- and it does not make any sense scientifically because all trees have leaves of some kind -- for example, pine needles are leaves. A Google search confirms that it's also not a standard English term. The link does redirect to [Broad-leaved tree]], but IMO that just demonstrates that you can't believe everything you find in Wikipedia. ;-)
 * Also in the lead: "It produces spores until becoming fruitless." Since spores are its fruit, what this says is "It produces spores until it stops producing spores" (akin to "It lives until it dies").
 * Under "Taxonomy": "The first fungus has failed DNA tests" is already flagged as needing clarification. I agree. The meaning isn't at all clear.
 * Under "Ecology" there is a statement about an association with "heat- and water-absorbing trees". That raised my eyebrows. I've never heard of this typology of trees, which seems very odd (not to mention unscientific). Trees aren't normally said to "absorb" water (trees aren't like Sphagnum, which does absorb water), but all trees take up water (water is necessary for life). Thus it's not obvious what a "water-absorbing tree" is. The term "heat-absorbing" is even more perplexing (is this supposed to be a distinction between trees that obey the laws of thermodynamics and trees that don't?). The list of genera of trees that this fungus is typically found on did lead me to the inference that the fungus is most often found on trees that do well on wet sites (i.e., riparian species), but the article doesn't say that -- and I don't have access to the cited source. --Orlady (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I think the hook issue could be easily resolved by substituting "discussed" for "not resolved", but I'm not sure whether there is any fix for the fact that you are "skeptical of the article's overall reliability" when most of the sources are offline; are you suggesting the article be rejected on that basis? Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, while the article does support the words "long discussed", the cited source does not. The German-language source indicates that Bresadola linked this fungus with Daedalea quercina in 1916, another worker assigned it to genus Trametes in 1934, and (if I read the text correctly) two other workers (papers published in 1938 and 1953) assigned it to Lenzites reichardtii. That does not indicate "long discussion" regarding Daedalea quercina, although it does indicate longstanding uncertainty about its correct taxonomic classification. The article is not consistent with my reading of the source. Put another way, the source doesn't support the hook fact.
 * As for my doubts about the article's overall reliability, I have identified several nonsensical statements in the article. I don't need sources to tell that these statements don't make sense. That observation leads me, as reader, to doubt whether the rest of the article can be trusted. --Orlady (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe as the author of the German original I can shed some light on this issue: Field mycology is messy, and it's especially messy in Europe. I reviewed a fair share of the French, German and English literature on this species (and even some Spanish papers and Italian Books) when I wrote this article and in discussion with several other fungi authors at the German Wikipedia I have tried to make sure that the statements in the German article are accurate. However, since translation is always tricky, I cannot guarantee that the English article is overall consistent.
 * Concerning the name of the taxon, there has been a long enduring controversy in European literature. However, since the species is rare and not especially exciting, this debate has received little attention and proceeded in slow motion over several decades. Sophisticated fertility tests were a speciality of French mycology back in the 1960s, while German and Austrian mycologists stuck to mere morphological analysis which yielded results that were fas less unambiguous. While the species status of L. warnieri was essentially resolved in French mycology after 1969, German mycology stuck to D. quercina f. daedala much longer. Plus, most controversies in science are not resolved via consent, but via alienation of dissenters or their death, the latter happening to the German/Austrian field mycologists in this case. Nowadays, we have DNA analysis, which does not support conspecificy of L. warnieri and D. quercina either.
 * Research on this topic wasn't very easy, since the relevant papers are spread over several journals, decades and languages; the original original description is apparently not attainable at all. If there are any questions or doubts about the article or the sources, feel free to ask me on my German talk page, I'll do my best to answer them.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I think they will be very helpful in figuring out a path to take with this DYK nomination.
 * This is the first time I've seen an indication that the article was created as a translation from the German Wikipedia. Among other things, that explains the peculiar reference to "leaf tree species" in the lead section -- that was a literal translation of the component words in the German compound noun Laubbaumarten. Laub=leaf, Baum=tree and Arten=species, but that does not necessarily mean that the English equivalent term is "leaf tree species". In accordance with Copying within Wikipedia, I've inserted Template:Translated page on the article talk page; however, I don't know what versions of the two articles should be identified in the template. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png  I've spent a lot of time with the article, mostly retranslating some of the passages that I previously considered to be nonsensical in English. I also added a new reference and revised some content. A hook that I believe is thoroughly supported by the article and cited sources is:
 * ALT7: ... that there is long-standing uncertainty about the relationship of Lenzites warnieri (pictured) to other polypore fungi? --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Orlady, have you been able to figure out the meaning of the phrase "Durieu and Montagne gathered it on the Ferme de Kandouri area"? To me, it is still quite unclear, and part of the nonsensical translating you mention. As best I can determine from online language dictionaries, "ferme" in this case may mean "farm" or "farmhouse", so maybe a farm or farmhouse in/of/around Kandouri? If I hadn't mentioned this as problematic more than once earlier in this review I might let it go, but I really think it needs attention, as this is where Lenzites warnieri was found. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh -- that's one thing I didn't figure out earlier. I've finally looked at the Latin source cited. Apparently "Ferme de Kandouri" is or was the name of M. Warnier's retirement estate (the words are italicized in the source). Whatever it is or was, it's clear from the source that it is or was in Algeria, and that the specimen was collected from the trunk of an elm tree there. I'll go edit the article to remove the name Ferme de Kandouri (because I don't think it's important) and otherwise clarify. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Ready for a new review; "Ferme de Kandouri" has been removed from the article, and that section now makes sense. Thanks, Orlady; I appreciate your work in making this a much better article. I've struck the earlier hooks, leaving only ALT7, as all of them had issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article created by Pharaoh of the Wizards on September 3, 2012 and 5x expanded by Tomcat7 beginning January 1, 2013. Readable prose size 8,646 characters as of today. GFDL compliant. I added external link to PDF document in support of ALT7 with direct quotation. Good to go and ... Bon voyage. Thanks, Poeticbent  talk  18:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition, Poeticbent. However, I'm removing the link to the planta.cn website (the host of the PDF that you linked to), as it appears to be a copyright violator. The journal website links to this page, which indicates that the publisher does not authorize any electronic sharing of that article. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Thanks, Orlady. I would leave the "format" info which is safe and correct in all cases, i.e. "format=PDF file, 370 KB available for purchase". Poeticbent  talk  19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I added a note on format and availability. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)