User talk:NattapolMycetes/sandbox

Hi Nattapol,

Great job! Below are my suggestions for your article:

-There are several technical terms in the article that could benefit from links to other articles (or at least descriptions in this article for the average reader), including: "exothecial", "hypogeous", "peridium", "truffle", and "monotypic". Even though there may not be pages for them, you may also want to make sure every species mentioned is linked once, in case at some point a page is created for them. The Sphaerosoma and Boudiera species are not linked.

-The original article does not have any images. Consider including at least one of the organism itself. You may also want to include images such as those that depict different morphological structures, life stages, or a distribution map.

-Numbers under 10 should be written out (e.g. "One", "two", "three", "four").

-Under Taxonomy, you can reduce redundancy/wordiness by changing "Later in 1989" to "In 1989" and "Recently in 2019" to "In 2019". Instead of saying, "Not long after", you should provide a year.

-Under Morphology, there is a grammatical error in the first sentence and I'm not clear what exactly is meant: "...paraphyses covered with gelatinous sheathes and greatly exceed asci...". Should this instead read, "...paraphyses covered with gelatinous sheathes that greatly exceed asci..."? In the fourth sentence, "ranges" should be "range".

-Under Systematics, "reveal" in the second sentence should be "revealed". I would also put "biogeographically-defined" in front of the word "clades".

-Under Ecology and distribution, there are links to several countries that shouldn't have links: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Italy, and United States (California). I would reserve links to places only for those that seem like they would be less clear to the reader. For example, perhaps you would want to keep the links for Patagonia and the Canary Islands. Also consider breaking up "Ecology and distribution" into two separate sections, and moving "Distribution" up in front of Taxonomy. This way you could put a distribution map (if you wish to include one) along with a description of the distribution early on in the article.

Jwilli81 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Emily
Ruhlandiella is a genus of fungi within the Pezizaceae family. Ruhlandiella species are exothecial hypogeous fungi, which are essentially truffles that lack the outer layer or peridium. Ruhlandiella species are widely distributed in Nothofagaceae forests in South America and near Eucalyptus or Melaleuca plants in Australia, North America, and Europe.



Species
[please fix the spacing in this section, it's a little weird (should not be big spaces between the species names] Currently, there are seven accepted species of Ruhlandiella.

Ruhlandiella berolinensis Henn. 1903

Ruhlandiella lophozoniae Kraisit., Pfister, Healy & M.E. Sm. 2019

Ruhlandiella patagonica Kraisit., Pfister, Healy & M.E. Sm. 2019

Ruhlandiella peregrina Lantieri & Pfister 2011

Ruhlandiella reticulata (P.H.B. Talbot) E. Rubio, R. Tena, Ormad & A. Suárez 2010

Ruhlandiella truncata (P.H.B. Talbot) E. Rubio, R. Tena, Ormad & A. Suárez 2010

Ruhlandiella verrucosa (P.H.B. Talbot) Kraisit., Pfister, Healy & M.E. Sm. 2019

Distribution
Ruhlandiella species have been found onseveral continents across the globe. There are records of Ruhlandiella fungi from Argentina, Australia, Canary Islands, Chile, Italy, and United States (California). Ruhlandiella patagonica is the most common species in Patagonia, whereas R. lophozoniae is apparently rare. Ruhlandiella berolinensis has been found in Europe and North America. This could be a result of the import of Eucalyptus plants from Australia.

Taxonomy
Ruhlandiella was originally a monotypic genus, first described by Paul Christoph Hennings in 1903 based on a single species: R. berolinensis. His collections were made in a Berlin botanical greenhouse which contained Eucalyptus plants from Australia. In 1989, Warcup and Talbot described a new genus: Muciturbo with 3 species: M. reticulatus, M. truncatus, and M. verrucosus, from New South Wales. However, Rubio et al. (2010) recognized the strong morphological similarities between the two genera, and thus transferred M. reticulatus and M. truncatus to the genus Ruhlandiella, as Ruhlandiella reticulata and Ruhlandiella truncata. Not long after, another species was described from Italy as Ruhlandiella peregrina. Note that all these previous species were described either from Australia or Europe. In 2019, researchers from the University of Florida College of Agricultural and Life Sciences described two more species of Ruhlandiella discovered from deep Patagonian forests in South America (Chile and Argentina). These new species are Ruhlandiella patagonica and Ruhlandiella lophozoniae. Additional taxa, such as Sphaerosoma fuscescens and Boudiera parvispora, were also thought to be Ruhlandiella species. Further morphological analysis suggests that these two species do not belong to the genus Ruhlandiella.

Morphology
Ruhlandiella species are characterized by their exothecial ascocarp, highly ornamented ascospores, and paraphyses covered with gelatinous sheathes that greatly exceed asci in length. The color of the ascocarp varies ranging from white to brownish lilac, but typically becomes black with age or when exposed. Asci of Ruhlandiella do not contain opercula and range from 180 to 430 µm in length. The ascospores are hyaline, globose, [please include links here to the appropriate wikipedia pages] and range from 15 to 39 µm in diameter. The spore ornamentation is reticulate in all species except for R. truncata and R. verrucosa which have truncate ascospores.

Systematics and evolution
The genus Ruhlandiella is a member the Pezizaceae family 'and closely related to Peziza depressa, Peziza whitei, and Tirmania pinoyi''. [this is not necessary to include; if anything you would list the names of genera, not species, that are also in this family.]' Recent phylogenetic analyses revealed that Ruhlandiella'' is composed of two biogeographically-defined clades: Australasian and South American. The Australasian clade comprises Ruhlandiella berolinensis, Ruhlandiella reticulata, Ruhlandiella truncata, Ruhlandiella peregrina, and potentially Ruhlandiella verrucosa. The South American clade comprises Ruhlandiella patagonica and Ruhlandiella lophozoniae. It was suggested that the diversification of Ruhlandiella could be a result of the separation of Gondwana, which occurred roughly 35 millions [Gondwana broke up 135 million years ago, not 35!] of years ago.

Ecology
Not much is known regarding the ecological roles of Ruhlandiella fungi. From 1990 to 2018, Ruhlandiella species were thought to be ectomycorrhizal fungi, associated only with Eucalyptus, Melaleuca or members of the Myrtaceae family. Recently, researchers have shown that Ruhlandiella patagonica forms ectomycorrhizal association with Lophozonia obliqua and Nothofagus pumilio [indicate here which families these are in] and may help with seedling establishment of these trees. Furthermore, because the fruiting bodies of R. patagonica look like snail eggs, it has been hypothesized that ground feeding birds might act as long-distance dispersal agents for these truffles.