Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 12

Name changes - What to do about them.
If I find an article where the binomial appears to be out of date, what should I do? What authority is acceptable for a page move? I am checking against Index Fungorum/Species Fungorum, but I don't know whether they are considered sufficiently reliable by this project to move a page without further discussion. I do not generally have access to the sources listed in IF/SF, nor the knowledge to assess their reliability, as I am not a mycologist, and have no formal education in biology since high school, but I do create biodiversity lists on Wikipedia, and have helped with national checklists for marine animals.
 * Nothing
 * Leave a note on the talk page
 * Move the article to the new name, leaving a redirect
 * Something else

What level of cleanup is expected after a page move?

If this advice is already somewhere in the project documentation I did not find it.

Please ping with replies, Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ; I suppose the discussion directly below serves as an example of what might be done when a name needs to be updated. Index Fungorum/Species Fungorum are top-notch sources for determining if a taxon is currently accepted, although it's even better if MycoBank also gives the same opinion; if they don't agree, one of them might just be slow updating a recent change, but often a literature dig is required to sort it out. For cleanup, it's best form if the redirect page gets a fungus template added. Feel free to drop difficult cases here. Esculenta (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, will do. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Some questions about fungi Wikipedia articles for Kew Gardens
Hi all

I've made a contact with someone at Kew Gardens who is head of fungi, I'm hoping to work with Kew to share some content on Wikipedia and Commons. I wanted to give her some information on the state of fungi articles on English Wikipedia, a couple of questions:


 * 1) How many fungi species articles are there? I see from the article assessment there are 20,000 articles but assume this includes families etc
 * 2) Is there a main recongised source of information for funghi articles like Plants of the World Online is for most articles covered by Wikiproject Plants? Is it index fungorum (also run by Kew)?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's hard to get a good estimate of the number of species articles. I gave you an estimate for number of plant species articles, but plants make more use of automatic taxobox/speciesbox, and plant higher taxa are consistently placed in categories for their rank. There are 14,118 fungus articles with taxoboxes. There are 3997 articles in Category:Fungus genera, 503 in the category for families, 146 in the category for orders and 41 classes. That leaves 9431 articles, but some of those are going to be infraspecies, or higher taxa that aren't in a rank category.


 * Mycobank is another important source, along with Index Fungorum. There hasn't been any discussion regarded whether Mycobank is preferred over Index Fungorum or vice versa. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much, super helpful. John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Attamyces - inactive taxon. Unsure how to redirect or delete.
EDIT: I found the answer. For future reference for others the solution was to add this at the top of the page (using source editor) on the Attamyces page to redirect away from it.

Replace brackets with curly brackets.

Hopefully this was the correct thing to do?

EDIT2: The redirect was changed by another user to the genus page for Leucoagaricus. So for future reference for others I presume that this was the correct course of action. As it was a monotypic genus and they redirect species page to the genus I was not certain myself on where to send the inactive genus page. Thanks for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MycoMutant (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

————————

The monotypic Attamyces bromatificus is a synonym for the leafcutter ant fungus Leucoagaricus gongylophorus.

http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=309369

I presume at some point they were merged based on DNA but I've yet to find a source on when or how this happened.

I think Attamyces should be redirected to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus or else deleted. I'm new to editing and don't know which action is more appropriate or how to perform such a thing. I have added a note on the Attamyces page explaining that it is a synonym with a link to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus and I've also taken the description and reference from the Attamyces page and included it in the L. gongylophorus taxonomy.

Hopefully someone more experienced can help me out here or tell me what to do.

Thanks (also if anyone knows of any other ant associated fungi let me know and I'll look into them. I've gone on a bit of a dive at the moment and submitted a page for Myrmecopterula too but most everything else I'm finding are just L. gongylophorus, unspecified Leucoagaricus or Leucocoprinus species or lacking in solid information). MycoMutant (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Attamyces is a generic synonym for Leucoagaricus, it should redirect to that genus (I've changed the target). The species name Attamyces bromatificus should redirect to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus. Redirect pages like these should get tagged with on their talk page (to help with future searching/record keeping/maintenance). Nice work on the mushroom pages! Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the assistance and for redirecting the other defunct Leucoagaricus synonyms. I was unclear on the correct course of action since Attamyces was monotypic and monotypic species always redirect to the genus page so the Attacmyces page was sort of the page for the ant fungus species itself. I've always struggled a bit with markdown stuff as syntax makes my head hurt but I'm having a lot of fun diving into these old journals. MycoMutant (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How about a page on the 'Applied Use of Fungi'?
Dear WikiProject Fungi community,

Hello! We would like to create a Wikipedia page on the 'Applied Use of Fungi' given the enourmous use fungi are currently being investigated and exploited for. We would like to ask here if there is some objections or other considerations to take into account.

We want to call this initiative the 'Visible Fungi initiative' and we seek to liaise with fungi 'practitioners' (researchers, artists, collectors, DIY, enthusiasts, growers, etc.). Applications of fungi can be in architecture, art, citizen science projects, fashion, industry, materials, patenting, etc.

We aim to encourage fungi practitioners to (i) edit the page themselves, (ii) share examples with the hashtag #VisibleFungi on social media (Twitter), and/or (iii) upload images & files on fungi on Wikimedia commons.

We aim to cross-link existing pages into and from the page Applied Use of Fungi. We speak various languages and would like also to encourage people to translate the page and write in different languages (and help with translation whenever we can).

In general, we also seek feedback from the members of the WikiProject Fungi community if they share the feeling that fungi are underrepresented on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons (e.g. media files on 'fungi' seem to be dominated by mushrooms).

Thank you for the feedback! CorradoNai (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Inactive type species - best to remove hyperlink or redirect to synonym?
Not sure on the correct protocol here. On the Leucoagaricus page Leucoagaricus macrorhizus is listed in the taxobox (correctly) as the type species but has since been reclassified as Leucoagaricus barssii. Is it worth creating a redirect page to it or just removing the link and leaving the old species name in as plain text? I wouldn't bother for defunct synonyms usually but since it's the type species it seems like it might be worth doing. MycoMutant (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or put ? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Added a brief note on the Leucoagaricus barssii page about the type species being reclassified.MycoMutant (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Reclassification of many Coprinellus species as Tulosesus (2020)
I've created a genus page for Tulosesus with a list of species from Species Fungorum and for now I've linked the species to their Coprinellus synonyms, the ones with existing pages anyway. I'm happy to modify the existing pages and add more details since most are very sparse but I don't feel totally confident/competent in doing the redirects or renaming solo yet. So could do with some assistance from more experienced users here.

It seems worth doing since ink caps are a common one for ID requests and I'm seeing some confusion with the odd person using Tulosesus. MycoMutant (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you move the page, the redirect will be created automatically.
 * Just go tot Coprinellus spcies article and click the move tab. Enter the new page title (just change the genus is the new name textbox) and give a reason. I've moved Coprinellus amphithallus to Tulosesus amphithallus.
 * Sometimes the move might be blocked if someone has set up a redirect at the new page name. It wasn't an issue for the one I moved. Then you need to ask someone to do a more complex move which requires additional permissions. Asking here should be OK as I think some page movers watch the page. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look tomorrow and use the one you did as a example to work out how to do the others.MycoMutant (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an option to see which links are redirects, displaying them in different colours. This can be very useful when navigating the taxonomy.
 * You have to edit your commons.css file (User:MycoMutant2/common.css; you will need to create the file) to add the following:
 * As always, if you have a problem/question just ask. There are lots of people here who want to help newcomers, which we all were at some point. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 19:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All pages have been redirected and updated. I'll do another pass of them later to check for any mistakes but I think it's all good. Thanks for the CSS snippet. It made it so much easier to keep track and I wouldn't have thought to do that.MycoMutant (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All pages have been redirected and updated. I'll do another pass of them later to check for any mistakes but I think it's all good. Thanks for the CSS snippet. It made it so much easier to keep track and I wouldn't have thought to do that.MycoMutant (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

New task force
started up a lichen task force this week. A few of us have joined it already, and we're eager to expand our numbers. We're busily tagging appropriate articles at the moment, but have big plans for improving the 'pedia's coverage of all lichen-related topics in the future. If you're interested, please join us! The shortcut is WP:Lichen. MeegsC (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Using a sortable table for species list containing observation totals.
I haven't seen this done before so I don't want to commit it to the List of Leucocoprinus species page without getting some feedback here first.

I've drafted the list in my sandbox:

User:MycoMutant/sandbox2

My own critique of this idea:


 * It works ok on mobile but does increase the page width compared to the existing list making horizontal scrolling necessary. This could be addressed by retaining the existing, basic list and adding this sortable one under a second header.
 * This format makes copying things harder than the existing list and won't produce 'Leucocoprinus birnbaumii (Corda) Singer (1962)' as the other does without throwing spaces in between. Also addressed by retaining existing list.
 * The number field on the left isn't useful to search by since it performs the same function as the alphabetised list. It is just handy for seeing the total number of species but this may only be useful to me. If the original, alphabetised list is retained this one could be reorganised to default to arranging species by the most common first. Field title could be changed to 'most common' or some such.
 * Authority could be split into the original describer and the authority who reclassified it but this may just over complicate things since novel species would have a blank or repeated field.
 * Likewise a second year field could be added for the original description year but again I think this would be too much.
 * The journal references to the description could be included or referenced but as these are on the species pages I don't think it is needed here.
 * The observation fields could be reworded to shorten them and they could be restructured. I avoided presenting the GBIF data alone without iNaturalist recordings and then having the total iNaturalist ones as the second field since the number of observations on iNaturalist itself is not the same as those in the GBIF dataset. I do think it is necessary to separate them however because it introduces significant bias and errors into the results for the species which the iNaturalist auto recognition most often suggests.
 * Region data will be added in a new field when I have finished creating pages and combing through the information. I think this will be useful to organise the species and look for ones in your area.
 * A field could be added for the species recorded as appearing in plant pots or greenhouses (since these are surely why most people end up on the Leucocoprinus pages) or this could be included in the region field since only a small number are. 'Worldwide. Found in plant pots.' maybe? I don't think including a separate habitat field would be necessary since many species are recorded on wood and soil so it wouldn't really be searchable.
 * I will probably add in links for the authority names when I'm done.
 * If the original list is retained then species with no observations could be removed from this one however then the year and region organisation for them would be lost.
 * This is the first time I've tried to use a table on here - let me know if I have made a mistake or if there is a better option.
 * I am sure there is probably a way of doing a sum on here so the without iNaturalist field could be generated by subtracting the figure but I wasn't able to find out how quickly so just did it manually.

Surprisingly this did not require significant time or effort to compile (so glad I bought an expensive gaming keyboard with a built in macro recorder) so if you think this is a bad idea please tell me and I won't mind. It should not be difficult to update periodically. Appreciate any feedback people want to offer and feel free to edit sandbox 2 to experiment with it.

Thanks. MycoMutant (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some comments from Esculenta (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC):
 * says Index Fungorum accepts these species, but links to Species Fungorum (similar, but different)
 * in general, separate species list articles are created if there are over about 100 species in the genus. There’s no exact rule, though, but I'm wondering if the list could just be accommodated on the genus page? Of course, if you included species "formerly" placed in Leucocoprinus that would extend its length considerably
 * not sure how useful the numbering is, since the # of species is stated explicitly at the start.
 * also don't think being able to alphabetically order the authorities is useful (unless one is willing to put in the code to properly sort it, see e.g. the code behind List of Armillaria species for an example of this; even then is it that useful?)
 * not sure how I feel about giving such prominence to GBIF and iNaturalist observations; regarding my area of interest (lichens), identifications on iNat are typically dubious (see to see what I mean), but hopefully people more knowledgeable about these platforms will comment
 * good idea to include the explanatory blurb about GBIF and iNAT, but without citations, it reads like WP:OR
 * nitpick: author citations are usually written without spaces (on Wikipedia) (e.g. “(A. Pearson) E. Ludw. & P. Mohr” -> “(A.Pearson) E.Ludw. & P.Mohr”
 * might want to ask for more feedback on the WP:ToL talkpage, as there's more species list-article creators there who might have opinions on the formatting. Esculenta (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Realistically I think that right now this is probably way more useful to me than its going to be for anyone else. (Sorry this reply got long, feel free to skip it if you're busy. Tl;Dr: I agree, thanks for the feedback).
 * • I originally copied the date and index fungorum text from an existing species list page which I updated due to a recent reclassification. I'll change the name and link it to the the species fungorum section on the Index fungorum page instead.
 * • Wasn't aware of that guideline. I created the Leucocoprinus species list page because I didn't want to flood the genus page with 70 odd red links which would only prevent people finding the common species. My thinking was that over 50 was probably too many if most were too uncommon to be of interest as it just made the page tedious on mobile.
 * Before I started editing I used to use the selected species list on the genus page to try to identify species in plant pots and it was annoying how many didn't have pages. So I wanted to maintain that for common species which people will realistically encounter whilst keeping the full list separate since most are so obscure.
 * The Leucocoprinus page and the one for L. birnbaumii see a reasonable amount of daily traffic and I expect most people are there after finding mushrooms in their plant pot so I've tried to make it amateur accessible. Hence bogging it down with random species only found once in some remote rainforest a century ago seemed like it would just put people off.
 * • Numbering I started using instead of bulletpoints for long lists after picking it up from an existing list page. When I updated it I just kept the formatting consistent as I presumed it was done for a reason. I find it useful but yeah probably doesn't make a difference to most people who aren't getting weirdly obsessed with Leucocoprinus species.
 * • Authority I thought might be useful to arrange by name in order to find species classified by the same person but yeah without coding it isn't going to work. It's only useful to me whilst I'm hunting down species classified by the same authority in the same publication. Just included it to test out really but probably should be collapsed back into the species list.
 * • Most of the GBIF ones generally look good once the iNaturalist data is removed. I split it into two fields to see how much difference it makes and it is significant. I think just removing the iNaturalist data entirely is best. It may also be worth filtering GBIF to remove some other sites to just keep the recognised institutes in there but this was a quick hack.
 * Yeah iNaturalist is very dubious. Only really useful to see which species are the most well known I think.
 * • Yep no citations right now, just knocked it up quickly to clarify the list idea before posting on here really.
 * • Regarding authority abbreviations:
 * I had been considering going without spaces and updating everything I had done so far. Wasn't sure on correct protocol as I'm seeing a lot of inconsistency. I was just maintaining the spaces after pulling the info from SF and running it through my notepad macro to format them.
 * I saw that Mycobank uses spaces too so this seemed like the correct protocol. I've been using www.ipni.org to look up abbreviations and I did notice that spaces make its search fail. However I put this down to a lazily coded search function since if they don't use spaces they might as well just concatenate strings after fullstops to remove them. (Side note: I'm shocked at how poor the search on many of these sites is for finding journals and such.)
 * Whenever I add a new authority I find the correct wiki page for them and drop the markup into a sorted txt file so I've got a list of the most common ones I need. It's no hassle at all for me to update all of them to not use spaces. So if you say thats the correct way to do it I'll update my work. Thanks for clarifying.
 * I think I'll leave the list as a basic one right now and ruminant on this table idea as I go. It's really useful to me at the moment but I expect realistically it will need to be better arranged and coded to be of use to others. Arranging by region for instance isn't going to work when they have several.
 * Thanks for giving me someone to bounce ideas off, it's always helpful. MycoMutant (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the consistent things about Wikipedia is the inconsistency of formatting between different projects. Both abbreviated and unabbreviated forms are "correct", and in theory, redirects with both spaced and unspaced versions should be made (eg. Mull.Arg. and Mull. Arg. both "work"), but you can peruse the multi-article List of botanists by author abbreviation to confirm the botanical standard used here (most mycologists are on those lists). As a personal preference, I think it's a good idea if the species list (whether it be stand-alone or on the genus page) has brief information on distribution. For rare species this may just be a specific type locality, for others it can be summarised as cosmopolitan. Of course, then citations will be needed ... Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I typically go with linking the abbreviation to the page name rather than relying on redirect pages as I have noticed they aren't reliable. So I've got all the ones I've used in a list. I'll do a find and replace on the txt file so future pages will be created without spaces in authority abbreviations.
 * Yeah I think adding distribution is definitely worthwhile. It's part of why I was looking at the sortable table format as the usual (North America) or (Europe) bits I see tagged on after authority names aren't always too easy to browse. For things like the Amanita list I sometimes just ctrl f and highlight all with Europe as a quick reference to look for species but it's not ideal on mobile.
 * Planning on adding distributions once I've got the pages done. Intending to revise the habitat and distribution section on most with links to verifiable observations where possible to try to better gauge distribution. Only started with this genus as I wanted the information myself for something and couldn't find it. Figured compiling all the references on Wikipedia as I collected them was just the best way to keep track. So the more easily browsable I can make it the better for me too.
 * Whilst I have you, question regarding categories. Example: Leucocoprinus cygneus (J.E.Lange) Bon (1978)
 * Should the category be Fungi named by Bon, Lange or one for each? Presume species described year category should be for original description rather than most recent classification.
 * Thanks for helping. I think I'm getting there gradually. MycoMutant (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The intention for the category (this same topic seems to come up on the ToL talk pages every few years) is to give authorship credit to the person who first validly published the name (specifically, who first published the specific epithet of the name in use), so this taxon should get Category:Taxa named by Jakob Emanuel Lange and Category:Fungi described in 1940 (the year the basionym Lepiota cygnea J.E.Lange was validly published). Admittedly, there aren't any instructions about this on the category page, which perhaps explains why this is frequently done incorrectly! There are more complicated instances (for example, when "ex." is used in the author citation), but the principle above should cover 90%+ of the examples you'll find. Esculenta (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was trying to decide the best course of action by comparing to some of the most detailed species pages out there but I was finding a lot of inconsistencies. That's cleared it up. Thanks. MycoMutant (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was trying to decide the best course of action by comparing to some of the most detailed species pages out there but I was finding a lot of inconsistencies. That's cleared it up. Thanks. MycoMutant (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

How do I participate?
How do I participate in this Wikiproject Fungi? Also reply to me as soon as you can.BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , to join, add your name to bottom of the participants list. Then you can add User WikiProject Fungi to your user page if you want to use a userbox to identify yourself as a project participant. Then pick a fungal species that doesn't already have an article and write about it! Or go to the Article needing section on the project page, and help to fix one of the known issues. There's also a list here of articles that need fixing. Feel free to ping me if you have other questions. MeegsC (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Do monotypic species articles have to be replaced by their respective genus' article? (unrelated: I would like to join the project)
Hello, I have been creating several articles on species of fungi that didn't previously exist on Wikipedia. Some of them are the only members of their respective genera, but I was still making the articles about the species themselves since not only are they the lowest and therefore most basic taxa, but they're also the taxa better described in their scientific publications. Today however one member of this WikiProject redirected one of the species page's entire content into their genus page while I was still adding info to the species page. Is there some priority rule about this that I'm not aware of? If so, I would like to know as soon as possible since species pages are mostly what I currently work on, not just regarding fungal species but also species from the Protozoa and Chromista kingdoms.

On an unrelated note, because I don't want to occupy two sections, I would like to participate in this project! Since I'm already creating pages for fungal taxa I'd like to join the collaborative effort and help where I can. Snoteleks (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, forgot to add. The species and genus pages in question are Cryptocalicium blascoi and Cryptocalicium. Thanks) Snoteleks (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Answered this already at my talk, but adding here too: the conventions for monotypic genera (and higher taxa) are covered at WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. To join the project, sign your name at the bottom of the participants list and you're off to the races! Esculenta (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Snoteleks (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those two articles should be merged. It's always a good idea to take a look at other similar articles to see how they are structured. When two different possible article names refer to only one actual subject, all the info is contained in one article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, as one can argue that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will do this with all my monotypic genera pages from now on. I will also do the same with the ones I already made of species in monotypic genera. Snoteleks (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Monotypic taxonbar: how to put them all in bold text?
Hey, so regarding the automatic taxonbar, I can't figure out how to make the parent taxa that are also monotypic appear in bold text instead of as a link to a redirect page. I see no difference in the code between the pages that do this and my pages that don't do this yet. Help? Snoteleks (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the taxonbar code, use the parameter from1= for the Q-number of the taxon the page is named after, and from2=, from3= (etc.) for the Q-numbers other pages you want to link to. In some pages for individual species, from2= is used for the basionym (if the species has changed genus); if the Wikidata entry has a field for basionym filled out, I think it makes this link (from2=) automatically. Esculenta (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I take it this is about automatic taxobox, not taxonbar; specifically Nanomonadea and Uniciliatida (but the article should be at the title Uniciliatida). To answer the question though, use a pipe to link to the article title in the taxonomy template's link parameter. See for example, Taxonomy/Cryptocaliciales with "|link= Cryptocalicium|Cryptocaliciales". Plantdrew (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it worked! Snoteleks (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page move help
I need some help with a page move. Usnea longissima needs to be moved to Dolichousnea longissima over the redirect. According to the Catalog of Life and Species Fungorum, the latter has been the correct name since 2004! MeegsC (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are more likely to get a rapid response if you ask at Requested moves/Technical requests. Editors there may not understand taxonomy well, but are usually willing to move species pages on the basis of synonymy. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * move made; some fixes as well, but there may be more needed; need a ref for the current name. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks ! I'll work on getting those changes made today or tomorrow. MeegsC (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The latest lichen task force newsletter...
... is now available here, if you're interested in seeing what we're up to. MeegsC (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A lichen task force update
MeegsC (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Notifying of a new WikiProject: Protista
Hello fellow wikipedians, I have recently uploaded a proposal for a wikiproject regarding protists and am trying to get more people on board. This new project's scope would be all protists alike: amoebae, "pseudofungi", brown and golden algae, foraminifera, and any other eukaryotic organism you can imagine that isn't a plant, an animal or a fungus. If you're interested in supporting it or participating in it, please list your username in the Support section of this page: WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Protista. Thank you! Snoteleks (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion
There is a discussion at Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Big reveal
For months I've slowly been working on a draft for a huge Taxonomy of Fungi page, here: User:Snoteleks/Fungi. It's still in progress, with more than half of the genera still not added, but I've put a lot of effort and days into it, and I think it's time for this WikiProject to know about it. Would love to hear criticism. I've switched back and forth between formats (genera with authorities vs genera alone, using * vs using : for spacing, etc.) and I believe I've reached an ideal one, similar to Taxonomy of Protista. I also need help with the introduction of it, since I want it to be stylized like Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae, where the introduction is dedicated to the history of taxonomy. Also, should I move it to a draft page? ☽ ☾ 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two quick comments. Wouldn't "Classification of fungi" be a more appropriate title, as it seems to be all about classification (same comment for the Protista article). Also, some of classification in the Wijayawardene et al. article is not universally accepted, particularly the changes resulting from the application of the "temporal banding" technique. See, and some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi/Lichen_task_force. I should also add, that unlike the situation with the Orchidaceae, which can be reasonably summarized in that article as it deals with a (relatively) small group, there really should be a separate article about Fungal taxonomy. In fact, I have a book right beside me, "Principles of Fungal Taxonomy", which suggests that it is a topic too large to be summarized in a few paragraphs. Esculenta (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to omit genus authorities; this is a massive list, and genus authorities would making it even bigger while providing little value to most readers. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How will you be handling fossil (e.g. Cryptodidymosphaerites etc... found at The Kalgutkar and Jansonius Database of Fossil Fungi) and problematic taxa (e.g. Prototaxites etc...)?-- Kev  min  § 21:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The November issue of the lichen task force newsletter...
... is available to read here, for anyone who is interested. MeegsC (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The January issue of the lichen task force newsletter...
... is available to read here, for anyone who is interested. MeegsC (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Psilocybin nominated for Featured article review
I have nominated Psilocybin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

February lichen task force newsletter
The February edition of the lichen task force newsletter is now available. MeegsC (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Fungi in Art article draft - your fedback is highly apprciated
Hello fellow fungi aficionados, I have created an article for submission on Fungi in Art. It's currently submitted from my sandbox. It's actually very long. I would thoroughly appreciate your contribution in reviewing the article and any feedbacks on how to improve it. I have transcluded several passages from exhisting pages (although these sections might need some editing and improvements too, later on). I hope the page will be accepted easily. I am excitied about seing this going live, I think it is a fascinating topic. Many thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * can you please include a link to your page? I haven't been able to find it! MeegsC (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found it! It's at Fungi in Art for anyone else interested. MeegsC (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could probably do with some more references in the opening text. For instance for a sentence like 'Presence of fungi in the arts abound from across the globe and among different cultures since at least 1500 BCE.' MycoMutant (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MycoMutant. I though referenceing should not be done in the lead part of the article? In any case, all information is substantiated/referenced below. CorradoNai (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Help in defining the importance of a page
Hi, fungi aficionados. I've nominated the fungi in art page for GA review. Although the category is art and architecture, as I feel more relevant than biology and medicine or others (I might be mistaken), I'd truly appreciate any help or suggestion from the WikiProject:Fungi community.

In particular: How to define the importance? I feel it should be higher than 'low importance' as per this page on assessing articles, it is not 'mainly of specialist interest.' As it is not 'only notable within its particular field,' it could perhaps even be of 'high imprtance.' But I might be blinded by my own interests and involvement with it. Please help! Many thanks, CorradoNai (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tuber rugosum
How do I determine if this is an accepted species? Is it notable? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * www.speciesfungorum.org
 * www.mycobank.org
 * www.indexfungorum.org
 * Those are the places to search. They do not have a species by that name. When I googled it I found a PDF with presentation names at a mycology conference from 2019 which contained:
 * 'Tuber rugosum sp. nov.: a new spiny-spored truffle species from North America'
 * https://iwemm10-nagano.com/IWEMM10.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjQ5MrGj9X9AhWyQ0EAHe5eDbcQFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw0cLm_KfMZ9vRh-cIEgDLN3
 * Searching that I only found:
 * Tuber luomae, a new spiny-spored truffle species from the Pacific Northwest, USA
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32904139/
 * One of the authors is the same as cited in the presentation (appears to head a lab specialising in these kind of fungi) but it doesn't mention Rennick or the Eaton Rapids location so it seems to be unrelated. That appears to be all that is out there beyond the local news article. Maybe the species name hasn't been formally published yet or perhaps it turned out to have already been something that was documented. You could have a look at the paper and comb through the references to see if you can find any more information though. There is nothing on research gate or Google scholar so doesn't seem to have been published. You could always write up a page for that one instead though - I think it is worth it for any species. MycoMutant (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I/d help needed at RefDesk
Can anyone help with Reference desk/Miscellaneous please? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

How about a virtual Edit-a-thon?
Dear all, how about having regular virtual edit-a-thons on Zoom? Like once a month, 2-3 hours. I could use blocking some time for editing Wikipedia, and this could also be a nice occasion to connect among members of the WikiProject Fungi (and others too if they want to join). We could do some focus work and also use the time to ask each other questions or briefly present what we are working on and what are projects which excite us. Personally I feel I could learn from more experienced Wikipedians. I would be very happy to organise and host but I wanted to check if there is some interest! Let me know, thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm game! However, I'm often in the field and away from internet connections, so it will depend on when it's scheduled for. If we do make it a monthly thing, we may want to vary meetup times too, to allow Wikipedians from all around the globe to participate... MeegsC (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will lead a session of an edit-a-thon organised by the ASM and everyone is welcome to join! It's my first time doing this, so we will see how it goes. This might be an occasion for everyone to have 2h focus work on whatever they are working on, but also to connect and exchange experiences. It's set at 5-7 AM UTC, so early morning CEST time, around noon SE Asia (depending on where), late in at night US time:
 * You can see more information here: https://asm.org/Public-Engagement-1/Public-Engagement-Opportunities#day-of-editing
 * You can register here (session 1): https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=A2vijUeuKEq5zU0LQALVnxvOn3QZCX5HnVF-H-4RiChURFJUMDBYT05OUEFHRlNDTThBRkZMOEhFOS4u&web=1&wdLOR=cC2F1734F-8961-45E7-ACE6-20B718EA7505
 * Or you can just join using this Zoom link (Meeting ID: 743 6471 8259, Passcode: ZwApD2): https://us04web.zoom.us/j/74364718259?pwd=4agVyboFSOzHghOqwzEe2z83kOIaj4.1
 * Curious to see how it goes! See you there perhaps CorradoNai (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Something helpful, I realise, is to mention the day an event takes place. (apologies)
 * It will be on Friday May 5th! CorradoNai (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well darn; I'll be in the field and away from internet then. Good luck! I hope I can make the next one. MeegsC (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 lichen task force newsletter
The May edition of the lichen task force newsletter is now available. MeegsC (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Lenzites elegans
Lenzites elegans is a muddle between this name and Trametes elegans. It needs sorting! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for forma specialis taxa
Please see WT:Automated taxobox system for a question about taxoboxes in articles about forma specialis (f.sp.) fungus taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hypoxylon tinctor
Just a heads up that the species Hypoxylon tinctor is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Hypoxylon tinctor. It could also use some eyes for expansion or what genus it actually belongs in since it looks Hypoxylon and Camillea have had some restructuring that's become a bit of a rabbit hole for me. KoA (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added my support for retention. I think the article should be at Camillea tinctor. The move to Camillea proposed by Laessøe et al 1989 seems to be accepted, as both Kew's Index Fungorium and Mycobank have that as the current accepted species name, with Sphaeria tinctor  as basionym and Hypoxylon tinctor  as an objective synonym. They place it in Graphostromataceae, which is supported by the genus placement in the newer phylogenetic study you cite (Wendt et al 2018). Outline of Fungi (based on The study of Wijatawardene et al. 2022) also recognises genus Camillea in Graphostromataceae, with Hypoxylon in Hypoxylaceae. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now moved to the current name. Esculenta (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Fungi in art
There is a discussion on the talk page of a new article, Fungi in art, by a new editor. The article needs improving/trimming and could benefit from additional eyes of editors of WikiProject Fungi. Netherzone (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Outline of lichens
I've nominated the outline of lichens for featured list status. Any additions / corrections / suggestions for improvements appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the mushroom characteristics in Mycomorphbox
Should we create a category regarding to mushroom characteristics in the Mycomorphbox? These will be the mushroom characteristics category: The purpose of these category is to help readers navigate the mushroom characteristics to help them find which mushroom they could found or is it safe to eat. Should we create those categories? Vitaium (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hymenium type of the mushroom
 * Cap shape of the mushroom
 * The presence of stipe and volva
 * Habitat of the mushroom, and
 * The edibility of the mushroom.


 * Oppose None of these are really Defining characteristics of a mushroom. Even if these categories were created and fully populated, mushrooms could not be identified to species based on any one of these categories (the reader would have to know how to search by category intersections in order to identify by multiple categories, and that would still be insufficient to ID to species). Cap shape and habitat can have multiple values. Some of the mycomorphbox values for edibility are subjective: choice, edible, inedible, unpalatable. Wikipedia categories aren't really suited for the proposed purpose. Plantdrew (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the intention that should emit the categories itself? If so, oppose per WP:TEMPLATECAT. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Plantdrew above also I do not see any value information addition to this proposal, particularly the last one of edibility. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 23:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is that edibility is a much more complex characteristic. There are mushrooms that are not edible unless cooked. Or there are unedible in combinations with various ingredients (eg. alcohol like in the case of Coprinopsis atramentaria). Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I definitely see this getting into WP:NOTHOWTO policy territory as these characteristics are often used for mushroom identification for foraging. That's something I feel like Wikipedia should be staying relatively far away from and leave that to sources specialized in that themselves even without the policy in mind. If anything it's a similar parallel to WP:MEDRS we the encyclopedia starts trying to meter out info on what may be "safe" to eat. KoA (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Caliciopsis pinea
I recently created an article for Caliciopsis pinea. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a taxobox (with image) and taxonbar. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. &#x0020;This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

November lichen task force newsletter...
...is available here. MeegsC (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

December lichen task force newsletter
The December issue is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

January lichen task force newsletter
The January issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have taken on the listed challenge of updating the Gassicurtia article with the new species the newsletter says are now recognized by Index Fungorum.
 * The newsletter links: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/?taxonKey=4MB5 ... the Cataologue of Life... so I also added that page for each species on there as a source for all the species.
 * But also the newsletter makes reference to the Index Fungorum as the source we are meant to reference.
 * So I also used the following from Index Fungorum,
 * http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp + searching "Gassicurtia"
 * And cited IndexFungorum as being as of January 2024...
 * The added species are
 * 1. Gassicurtia azorica (2020), <- on IF & CoL
 * 2. Gassicurtia lignatilis (1837), <- on IF but not CoL
 * 3. Gassicurtia lopesiana (2021), <- on IF & CoL
 * 4. Gassicurtia pruinosa (2021), <- on IF & CoL
 * 5. Gassicurtia silacea (1834) <- on IF but not CoL
 * So that adds 5. I think at some point someone added 1 without updating the # of species, because the Gassicurtia article said as of January 2023 IF had 30 sp., I add 5, but currently from a list matching this one IF says Gassicurtia has 36 sp.
 * Let me know if in your opinion or anyone else's in the lichen taskforce has corrections/feedback for how I added these + edited the page. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming who named a given Fungi species, genus, etc and when
Hello! Please let me know if this is not the place to ask this question. I am asking here because it is specialized to our subject area, not a general Wikipedia/editing question. I have also been looking around the useful information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life to see if there's a style guide or similar that might spell this out, but haven't found that yet.

To narrow it down, I am going to use Cystofilobasidium macerans as a specific example.

The question is:

When naming the authority for who established the name of a given fungi species, if there is a history of the species being established under one phylogeny, then moved in order, genus and family, then moved in genus again, the name and date that should be listed as the authority in the Taxoboxes is:
 * whoever published the first time - as in Rhodotorula macerans (1956 Fred.)
 * whoever published the most recent taxonomic change - as in Cystofilobasidium macerans 2009 Sampaio (abbreviated Samp. so far as I can tell)

I assumed it would be the first option, that the moment the organism has a specific name, that is the moment it is established and the person and date should come from that publication.

However, when looking at IndexFungorum and MycoBank for Cystofilobasidium macerans, both seem to list "Samp. 2009", despite, in IndexFungorum's case, noting that it has an older synonym. What's up with that? Is it somehow a mistake? Or related to the 2011 folding in of teleomorphs and anamorphs? A product of me misreading these sources?

A follow up question is:

When trying to identify who should be cited, is it considered original research to observe who is the last author on the paper establishing a genus or species (etc) ourselves? Or should we wait until IndexFungorum or MycoBank or a similar source have themselves identified which individual name should be used as the authority? My working assumption is yes, we should wait until it is stated. And if we find those sources appear to be wrong, we should alert those repositories with the evidence we think we have and remedy it that way.

As you might suspect, my example isn't arbitrary. I am working on a draft for Cystofilobasidium macerans and ran into these questions while trying to figure out who to list, and how to format it. MariahKRogers (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This depends on the code (zoology v Botany) and fungi use the botanical code, which is normally Genus species (original combination author) revision author. You can see an example at Mycobank: Cystofilobasidium bisporidii (Fell, I.L.Hunter & Tallman) Oberw. & Bandoni. So I'd expect your example to be Cystofilobasidium macerans (1956 Fred.) Samp., but for some reason the sources all seem to give Cystofilobasidium macerans Samp. (Mycobank, Index Fungorum, Wikispecies). It could be a mistake replicated in the different sources or there may be a technical explanation that is beyond me.
 * As for your question on determining the author, it's best to wait for a secondary source. However for a new species, I don't think it original research to use the whole author list as the authority, although sometimes the naming authority includes only a subset of the authors, which usually should be stated somewhere in the article. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the resources and answer on both questions. The format of including both makes sense, and on reflection I have seen that format before and had not known or thought about what it signified.
 * I will write to IndexFungorum and MycoBank about Cystofilobasidium macerans (1956 Fred.) Samp. versus Cystofilobasidium macerans Samp. 2009 and then if there is a technical explanation, can report back, and if it should be changed and they correct it, then I can fix it on WikiSpecies, wherever else it appears, and in my draft. MariahKRogers (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain giving Sampaio as the authority stems from the 2011 one fungus, one name changes (which I don't understand very well). Sampaio's paper was published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology which is a journal I expect to be extremely rigorous about technicalities in nomenclature.
 * In the paper, the authority is explicitly given as "Sampaio". IPNI has the abbreviation "J.P.Samp." You can not assume that the last author nor the full author list should be credited as the authority. Frequently you will find that authorities for new species names are explicitly given within the body of the paper establishing that name.
 * MycoBank has a record for Rhodotorula macerans. Not having that as a synonym of Cystofilobasidium macerans appears to be an error on their part (perhaps they rely on algorithm to match authority strings in cases of recombinations; such an algorithm would fail in this case).
 * Synonyms should be listed in the taxobox, with the authorities associated with those synonyms. Cystofilobasidium macerans should have Rhodotorula macerans Frederiksen and Cryptococcus macerans (Frederiksen) Phaff & Fell listed as synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That fits with what I heard back from Index Fungorum, I think.
 * "For many decades the names of the various (typically two but sometimes more) morphs of the same species were separated but now they are united. This means that names published as new combination based on an anamorph name and a teleomorph genus (or vice versa) were not permitted … but now they are, the result of which is that many author citations (not ‘authority’) are now corrected. However, names published as new species with a cited taxonomic synonym cannot be corrected."
 * And this source - https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.004390-0 underlines how the Rhodotorula macerans that became Cryptococcus macerans was the anamorph, specifically. "Anamorphic stage: Cryptococcus macerans (Frederiksen) Phaff & Fell."
 * Paul, in replying, continued,
 * "The correct form for the author Debra E. Frederickson is ‘Freder.’. The author ‘Fred.’ Is https://www.ipni.org/a/12141-1." -- Paul (from Index Fungorum)"
 * He is discussing Freder. vs Fred. as I asked for some clarity on that as well because I.F. has it as Freder. while https://biotanz.landcareresearch.co.nz/scientific-names/1cb1b82a-36b9-11d5-9548-00d0592d548c and a couple other places seem to list it as P.S. Fred. or Fred.
 * That now doesn't matter too much to the C. macerans article project, considering we will be listing the authority as J.P. Samp. 2009, but this still slightly confuses me because in: Frederiksen, P.S. 1956: A new Rhodotorula species, Rhodotorula macerans sp. n., isolated from field-retted flax straw. Friesia 5(3-5): 234-239 ... P.S. Frederiksen doesn't strike me as the same person as Debra E. Frederickson. But I could be wrong, and I am still trying to get back to the resource I had found before for looking up these abbreviations.
 * In any case going back to the name itself, and what we're learning from it, it sounds like the key factor in it being treated as a totally new name is that it combined parts of both telemorphic and anamorphic names. So, in cases where the merger was purely keeping one or the other, the longer list of names going back would still be there.
 * Does anyone know if when he said "many author citations (not 'authority') are now corrected" -- is that indicating the term authority for this is inaccurate, or out of date, and they're calling it author citations? Or am I misreading him? This aspect of mycology/taxonomy is largely new to me but I want to become fully literate in it. MariahKRogers (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification on the last author question. So, we should look to who is actually being named by the paper itself as the authority/citation and ideally see what Index Fungorum and MycoBank do with it. MariahKRogers (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Author citation" is the term defined in the ICNafp (the ICZN calls the equivalent concept just "author"). I guess I'm used to thinking of "authority" since that is the parameter used in Wikipedia taxoboxes (and since the codes use different terms, I'm not going to worry about the taxobox parameter). But technically "author citation" is the correct term.
 * Your correspondent has mixed up Frederiksen and Frederickson. IPNI doesn't have a record for P.S. Frederiksen. IPNI is less comprehensive for mycologists than botanists (I suspect Sampaio might not even be aware that IPNI has assigned him an abbreviation).
 * "Many author citations are now corrected": I guess is referring to changes per one fungus, one name, but it might also pertain to standardizing authority citations to use IPNI abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information about "author citation" vs "author" vs "authority", also for noticing Frederiksen vs Frederickson... I typed those out multiple times and didn't see it. Evidently as you say my correspondent with Index Fungorum hasn't either. Easy mistake to make; I'll report it while thanking him for responding. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information about "author citation" vs "author" vs "authority", also for noticing Frederiksen vs Frederickson... I typed those out multiple times and didn't see it. Evidently as you say my correspondent with Index Fungorum hasn't either. Easy mistake to make; I'll report it while thanking him for responding. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Medicinal fungi
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Medicinal fungi that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)