Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 2

Fungal article headings
Currently plants articles are generally found under scientific names whereas many bird and mammal pages are found under common names, with the corresponding Wikiprojects attempting to standardise that way.

Several fungi articles are known by common names already. Amanita phalloides is under Death cap and Destroying angel covers Amanita virosa and A. bisporiga.

I feel fungi are a special case distinct from plants as there is a much higher percentage of species complexes and similar taxa which are indistinguishable without the use of a microscope, thus the use of a common name for a group of species.

Does anyone else doing pages on fungi have a strong opinion on this? cheers Cas Liber 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the use of common names for species complexes, so long as that common name is well established. So "Destroying angel" is appropriate for the above-mentioned group of Amanita (which includes at least a half-dozen species). "Candy cap" for the article I'm working on for the Lactarius camphoratus / fragilis / rubidus group. Another group that probably should have a single article is "Porcini", which properly covers Boletus edulis, Boletus aereus, Boletus pinophilus and several other related species. However, when a common name clearly is synonymous with a single species, it would probably be best to stick with the convention of using scientific names for the article title, hence Death cap should be moved toAmanita phalloides. "Chanterelle" now redirects to Cantharellus and I think that should be kept – the genus Cantharellus as currently understood contains mostly what are commonly called "chanterelles". (Note that "yellow-foots" are now well-understood to be a Craterellus, so I'll make that change to both articles shortly.) Peter G Werner 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That always bugged me when I was a kid (Yellowfoots in Cantharellus) and now cladistics has made me feel better, sticking them with the horn of plenty...Cas Liber 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree – when cladistics and clearly observable morphology are congruous, that makes a strong case for reclassification. Peter G Werner 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I split lethal webcaps into two articles, Cortinarius rubellus and Cortinarius orellanus? I've considered doing it for a while, but hesitated as they'd share a fair amount of content. mic 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what Peter'll say :) - but if you have some material which differentiates tehm from each other then a good idea - if identical I'd say leave it. cheers Cas Liber 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of species of fungi in a particular genus
Lists seem to be common on wikipedia, and fungi is one area where I guess some thought has to go into any particular list to enrich its value. This is why I have put on common names, edibility icons and approximate geographical regions to give readers an idea a better overview of a particular genus. I think that some lists are the only way that link a genus (say, Amanita) to various member species. If the lists were delete wholesale then I think the way of navigation is tricky. Writing paragraphs would also turn into a textual list. It is true that some genera have so many species as to bring into question, for instance, the value of a mega-list of the 2000 Cortinarius species.

Possible options:

1. No lists - all species of a particular genus only in nice, informative paragraphs on the genus page.

2. Lists of selected species only - no redlinks. No putting on species until a fungus has its own individual species page.

3. Species lists but only where a species has a little extra info added (ediblity/common name(s)/geography). Redlinks OK as they may promote individual articles.

4. Lists contain all possible species.

I am opening this up so we can get some consensus and maybe post some more guidelines on the Project page. cheers Cas Liber 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am definitely in favor of option 4 - red links serve as a reminder of what articles need to be done in the future, and a comprehensive list gives an immediate sense of the size of a genus, in a way that a number (i.e. 150 species) does not. Debivort 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion, since the species list thing has been a pet peeve of mine. Basically, species lists as they now exist are far larger than any kind of meaningful list of notable species in a genus. On the other hand, they are inevitably do not include every named species in a given genus (which typically runs into the hundreds or even thousands of species). Hence, they end up being a highly random list of species, copies off of a website, out of a field guide, or whatever species a given editor happens to have heard of. These is not a good, selective criteria for inclusion, to put it mildly. Note also that Wikipedia does have established List guidelines and species lists should conform to these. Additionally, there's active discussion of proposed additions to the guidelines, and these discussions might serve as a good reference for the discussion here.  As for each of the specific proposals:


 * Option 1: Disagree, I think lists have their place as references to other articles on species within a particular genus. There are plenty of cases where it may not be appropriate to include discussion in the genus article of every species that has its own article (Psilocybe comes to mind), but direction to those articles is called for.


 * Option 2: Agree, with modification: Species that are highly notable, but for whatever reason lack an existing article should be included on such a list, even if it creates a redlink. This redlink would presumably be temporary in a case like that.


 * Option 3: Mildly Disagree, lacks good selection criteria. With some selection criteria, this idea might potentially be useful.


 * Option 4: Strongly Disagree! In fact, I think this option is sheer insanity, at least if you any kind of understanding of just how many named species are found in most fungal genera – typically hundreds, sometimes thousands. Most of these species will be highly obscure, often highly local in distribution, some only known from a single collection. In other words, not likely to be the subject of an article – ever. So what you end up with is a huge list of mostly redinks, and as Cas Liber mentioned, in the case of Cortinarius, something like 2000+ redlinks. I don't know how anybody could see such an undertaking as remotely useful.


 * One thing that hasn't been discussed is a policy about having species lists within articles vs stand-alone lists. I would say, if its beneath a certain number (say 5 or 10 species), keep it in the article, but if it runs beyond that, make it a stand-alone list. I've noticed that some editors seem to have a strategy of putting large lists at the end of articles so that they can fit in illustrations. This is not a good criterion for including something in an article, IMO.
 * Peter G Werner 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dang, I forgot to add that (about size of lists and whether they should or can be on a separate page). Sounds good to me (moving after about 10 or so, >5 makes for a pretty tiny list page) Cas Liber 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten or more goes into a stand-alone list sounds good. Peter G Werner 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also mention, a useful concept to keep in mind is that of signal-to-noise ratio. Ideally, a good list should be all "signal", easily getting the reader to a related article they want to get to. Articles that are large lists of redlinks, on the other hand, are largely "noise". Peter G Werner 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If our category system is well-organised, it can be useful for finding the articles we have on species of a particular genus. EgCategory:Aspergillus shows most (all?) of our articles on Aspergillus species, as well as a few related articles.  I guess this could help readers who want to find out about prominent members of a genus, without being overwhelmed by hundreds of lesser-known species.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for including species in articles
Related to the above discussion of lists, there needs to be some criterion for which species to actually write about is sections titled "Notable species" or some variation on this. For many articles, it seems like the selection of species is quite random, and quite often driven by what images the editor has in their personal collection or can find on Wikicommons. (Lactarius: A selection of well-known European species is a particularly egregious example.) I think this kind of random selection of species to discuss is something that adds to the sloppiness of some of the articles on fungal genera. Some criterion for inclusion is called for – species described as "notable" or "well-known" species really should be exactly that. (And not just what was coming up in your yard when you happen to have your digital camera handy. :) Peter G Werner 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm..I certainly think that looking forward there are species which stand out as ones to prioritize but deciding what it 'notable' and what isn't can be really subjective. Everyone has different interests and I am mindful that a photo speaks a thousand words. Wikipedia is not a book limited by production costs and as it grows so less and less 'notable' things can be written about. Personally I would love and article on every Bolete and Amanita and skip most of the rest, but then I got this Hygrophoraceae book and learnt about rare hygrocybes occurring in bush pockets near the centre of Sydney, named by a man who taught me chemistry at medical school...


 * PS: Australia is so dry that any sizeable fungus coming up is interesting!


 * I have loved learning about plants, fungi and birds which makes the ordinary fascinating. If I take a photo of some average, lets say, Lactarius and write a page on it I think it adds to the overall value, than if, say, only Curry-, Saffron- and a couple of other Milk-caps score articles. Just about anything can be interestin to the enthusiast and I don't think non-enthusiasts are going to be browsing Lactarius pages anyway.


 * My take on rules about what taxa to include would be to prioritize:
 * Deadly species
 * Edible species
 * Confusing species
 * Photogenic species


 * as a start, and not to delete any list or taxon but work to improve or correct it. If you feel a generic coverage is out-of-kilter because someone has written an article on Amanita lanei and not A. phalloides then write one on A phalloides.


 * cheers Cas Liber 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say deadly species, definitely. Edible species – that depends thousands of species are technically edible, but hardly anybody actually eats them. I'd say edible mushrooms that are widely sought after in at least one culture or geographic locality, particularly if the mushroom has commercial importance. I'd add hallucinogenic mushrooms that meet this criterion to the priority list. "Confusing" species – you mean, inedible or toxic mushrooms that can be mistaken for sought-after edible or hallucinogenic mushrooms, sure. "Photogenic" – practically any mushroom can be photogenic if the photo is well-composed. A criterion I'd add is if a species is particularly common and widespread over much of the world – for example, Stropharia aurantiaca, which one will find in huge abundance in woodchip beds from Australia, to Japan, to Europe, to North America. The species included now under Lactarius, for the most part, are just so random. I'd say the notable species, ones which are highly sought after and even commercially important, such as the "candy caps", as well asLactarius deliciosus as well as L. sangifluus and allies, which are widely gathered in Europe (and particularly popular in Catalonia). The "peppery" group of Lactarius is important, as a normally toxic mushroom, as well as for the fact that in Russia, these species are actually consumed (they're pickled in a process very much making kimchee – apparently, this renders them safe). But L. quietus, L. decipiens, and L. chrysorrheus? What makes these so important that out of 400 species these should be chosen for the article? Why these rather than say, the Lactarius alnicola that comes up in my backyard? Wikipedia does have a guideline called "no undue weight". Its a rule that applies not only to the neutrality of articles, but also to the amount of coverage you give to any aspect of the subject:


 * "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements"


 * As far as I'm concerned, choosing one set of relatively obscure species over any of 400 others does give those species undue importance in the context of the article.
 * Peter G Werner 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...If one wants to take an inclusive view of the term 'undue weight' then wikipedia is full of this - compare coverage of dinosaurs to fungi, or various pop culture issues, or astronomy which is very well represented. If you look at what is in the Featured Article list. This is what happens when there are 1000 volunteers editing what they want etc. I think this has to be take in context; timewise the lists are incomplete and will probably be a lot more complete than they are now. Books all the time choose various species to profile and illustrate - obviously most are picked because of their importance but many are random-just flick through any book on fungi, garden plants or any other host of naturalist topics. I think the information conveyed by a pic of a particular species is increased manifold by having an accompanying article. The milk caps listed are only the ones I could remember offhand (come to think of it, I must add L alnicola too...). Have a look at list of NGC objects in Astronomy - how different is that to Lactarius species? I planned to get edibility icons on all spp on lists to make them more informative. Anyway, the only easy way to get the importnat ones done is to make a list I suppose to divert attention to them, or otherwise push for a collaboration. Cas Liber 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on how long an article should be before splitting into subheadings
Anyone want to hazard a guess on this one? A couple of shorter articles the text of which I'd split into subheadings have had them recently removed. question is, how long should an article be before splitting into subheadings? cheers Cas Liber 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Places on image captions
I feel that having locations on any article with a biological entity is pretty important as it helps place the image in context. Does anyone else have a strong opinion either way? I worte this after reverting the image caption in the txobox of Boletus edulis. cheers Cas Liber 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to set up an official monthly fungus collaboration
Given the lack of FAs, is it time to at least flag a collaboration formally modelled on the following:

WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Dinosaur_collaboration

It is quite easy to set up cheers Cas Liber 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guideline: Avoid local bias
We don't yet have a style guide for WP Fungi, but a guideline I would definitely include is Avoid local bias. Here's a good example from an earlier edit of Sparassis:


 * "It generally grows on old Scots pine tree roots or tree stumps, with which it has a parasitic relationship. It can be found during autumn and late summer in North America and Europe."

Two things wrong with that – does it only parsitize Scots pine? That would surely limit its geographical range. A little reading about where S. crispa andS. radiata grow from sources outside of just one area would reveal that they grow with pines and spruces of all types. The statement about "late summer and autumn" reflect the peak mushroom season in temperate climates – Mediterranean climates have their peak mushroom season in late autumn and winter. Tropical and Southern Hemisphere mushroom seasons are different still.

Its always important when writing articles to keep in mind that Wikipedia is international in scope and that what's typical in your corner of the world may not be the same everywhere. Peter G Werner 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A userbox anyone?
What do we think? The stylised bolete is the one used on the italian Wikiproject Fungi Cas Liber 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great! I'm adding it to my page. Peter G Werner 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, two improvements are needed – 1) somehow get rid of the text reading "noinclude", 2) the title of the template should be changed from "WikiProject Fungi userbox" to "user WikiProject Fungi" to be consistent with other userboxes. (done)Peter G Werner21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Button mushroom proposed move (on talk page)
Dear all, I proposed a move to Cultivated mushroom however given the numerous names possibly Agaricus bisporus is a better bet....Cas Liber09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Jan 07
Righty-ho, try this......Fungi Collaboration —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Fungus Taxobox Collage
I have created this collage for the taxobox of the fungus page. Apparently no one visits the fungus talk page anymore. Werothegreat 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone would like to comment on it, or rant about it, or say "yes, please, put that in," please do so. I would greatly appreciate it. Werothegreat 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is, whether it looks smaller like this. The widest I've seen a taxobox I can think of is about 22opx, so lets try...



Hmm - looks OK to me. Cas Liber 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking of the individual photos, the bread is a teeny bit indistinct. Would be good to find one of those classic oranges or lemon with half covered in a classic green/white mould (Dang! I just threw one out last week....) Cas Liber 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When the collage is small, the chytrid is hard to see and the sporangium in the bottom center looks like a seedling. I think the collage needs pieces that will still be readily recognizable, even when the photos are quite small. Peter G Werner 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me. I've seen plenty of taxoboxes wider than 220px, so I don't think that's a problem. An interested user could always click on the picture to see it in more detail, or read the (hopefully detailed) caption which would accompany it. --Stemonitis 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately I'm happy fi you stick it on and have a play with it later. The other thing is maybe a collage on Agaricales (could include anAgaricus, Amanita, Lycoperdon and Fistulina hepatica.....and Boletales with a few boletes, Paxillus,Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca..... Cas Liber 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here goes nothing. I'm sticking it in the taxobox. Drumroll, please... Werothegreat 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment
I've added article assessment to the WikiProject Fungi template, which helps to show the quality of WP:FUNGI articles on Wikipedia. If anyone has time it would be good for people to assess the articles covered by the scope of this project. Thanks. ◄ §ĉҺɑʀκs  ►  11:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've assessed some articles and the classes have come through OK but their Importance is not on the graph. Are we supposed to do that manually?Cas Liber 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to wait for the next Mathbot run which occurs daily at around 3:00 am UTC. The table should then be automatically updated. SeeVersion 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot for more details. You can also manually run the bothere to update the list. I just ran it and the table has been updated. ◄  §ĉҺɑʀκs  ►  09:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha -cool. Thanks for the grid box thingy Cas Liber 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have to make comments? I thought I'd just assess articles by comparing them to those already graded...(Million_Moments09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Nope - don't need to make comments as such :) cheers, Casliber | talk  | contribs 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sporocarp and related articles
There's been a bunch of low-level and scattered discussion as to what to do with the articles fruiting body, sporocarp, basidiocarp, andascocarp. I have a comprehensive plan for these articles. Please have a look at it and discuss at Talk:Sporocarp. Peter G Werner 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've done the reorganization, as well as some expansion. Check out Sporocarp (fungi), Basidiocarp, and Ascocarp. The latter two are in much better shape then "Sporocarp (fungi)", though even that has good basic information. All could use at least a little bit of expansion.


 * Also, after all that reorganization, I notice that the article Mushroom is kind of a mish-mash of different contributions and not well-integrated with the rest of the fruiting body articles or any other topics covered by this project. It needs a lot of work, starting with the introduction (which should note that there is no exact definition of the word "mushroom".) Peter G Werner 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like a line of dominoes really - a collossal rewrite of a whole bunch of articles....Cas Liber 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer site
I'm also interested in contributing, but in a slightly different way. In particular I would like to use Wikipedia in coordination with theMushroom Observer website I have been working on. I believe the fundamental principles of the two sites are compatible, but, as I understand it, the current contents of Mushroom Observer are too close to basic research for Wikipedia. However, there is a need in the site for species definitions as well as some sort of glossary for mycological terms. I'm hoping that I can leverage Wikipedia to provide this information by encouraging the folks working on Mushroom Observer to contribute to Wikipedia. Is this a reasonable approach? Is this being done by any other websites? Nathan Wilson 05:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think field identification by experienced Mycologists that is chronicled on the Mushroom Observer website can subsequently be used as a valid reference in Wikipedia, documented, accurate and published scientific observation of natural history does not fall in the realm of original research. So as long as the reference is made by someone who is acting independently of the original source provider, that is you can not contribute an article to Wikipedia on a mushroom you have done all the work on, however someone else reading your work who is experienced enough to know the accuracy of your work may. --Matt10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: divide up Category: Basidiomycetes into subcategories
Discussion here. Peter G Werner 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I've begun submitting the GA-class articles to Peer review, with the aim of bringing them up to A-class articles. I'm submitting them one at a time, so that I can more effectively respond to suggestions for changes to the article. (I'm not sure if any of the GA-class articles except for "Yeast" are long enough or broad enough to be Feature Articles, but they can still be made into top-notch A-class articles, in any event.) Peter G Werner 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I've added a list for these to the main page for this project. Peter G Werner 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Saffron article
I just had a look at today's feature article, "History of saffron", then checked out the main article on "Saffron", which had been a feature article back in March. Its a truly excellent article, and I think an exemplar of how to cover the topic of an economically/ethnobotanically important plant or fungus. The article is strong on the biological, chemical, historical, agricultural, and economic aspects, including using breakout articles where necessary. I'd like to eventually get the "Psilocybe", "Amanita muscaria", "Agaricus bisporus", and "Tuber (genus)" articles into better shape along the lines of the "Saffron" article. Peter G Werner 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree - great article. I can visualise Amanita muscaria easily, well actually all of them in a simialr pattern. Will bookmark it. Cas Liber03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Microformat
Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally edible fungi
I think the option "conditionally edible" should be put in the mycomorphbox. E.g. Amanita rubescens is marked as edible or choice now. Conditionally edible would be more appropriate according to description. --Eleassar my talk 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky as some term all fungi conditionally edible as the y believe none should be eaten raw. An icon used in fungi text books was a mushroom in brackets to indicate edible when cooked. Cas Liber 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be good to have a "with caution" or "conditional" option that one could put alongside the existing edible or choice options. But I agree, you really could apply that to any wild mushroom. As for Amanita rubescens and Amanita novinupta, they are indeed regarded by many (including myself) as choice edibles, but only when cooked and with due concern for distinguishing them from poisonous Amanita. Peter G Werner 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can agree with this. Could someone create an image for "conditional"? --Eleassar my talk13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask - Peter, how do Blushers taste? are they worth it? cheers Cas Liber 07:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fungus Page needs more basics
I feel that there should be some section of the fungus page that talks about the basic anatomy of fungi, talking about hyphae and mycelia, and coencytics and all that fun stuff. Werothegreat 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * True, and that's just for starters. The "Fungus" article needs a ton of work. Hopefully at some point we can get enough people working on it at once to make a dent in it. Peter G Werner 09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I would get in there and do it myself, but it is an important article, and I have a feeling that if I just barged in and started editing things, there would be much more of an uproar than say, me editing my pet Lessoniaceae project. So, instead, I will present ideas.
 * How about one section, titled "Fungal Morphology", with something like this:
 * Though fungi are part of the opisthokont clade, all phyla except for the chytrids have lost their posterier flagella. Fungi are unusual among the eukaryotes in having a cell wall of chitin.  All fungi are made up of many thin thread-like structures called hyphae.  These hyphae can be one of two types: septate, or coenocytic.  Septate hyphae have "walls" between their cells, called septa, though these septa have holes that allow cytoplasm, organelles, and sometimes nuclei to pass through.  Coenocytic hyphae have no such marked divisions between cells.  Coenocytic hyphae are essentially multinucleate supercells.  Parasitic fungi have special structures on their hyphae called haustoria, which penetrate directly into a host organism's cells, allowing nutrients to be taken by the fungus.  All of a fungus's hyphae form a structure called the mycelium.  In mushroom forming fungi, the mycelium is normally underground.  In molds, the mycelium forms directly on the food source.  The only fungi that do not form hyphae or mycleia are yeasts, which are unicellular.
 * Fungi, unlike animals and vascualar plants, do not spend the majority of their life cycle in a diploid condition. When a spore begins to grow into a mycelium, the organism is haploid.  The haploid mycelium may or may not produce haploid spores asexually.  When one haploid organism encounters another, through growth of the mycelium, since fungi are not motile, the two may merge, in a process called plasmogamy.  The fungi then enter a heterokaryotic, ormultinucleate stage.  Usually, one nucleus from one parent fungus will pair off with one nucleus from the other parent.  Some fungi spend most of their life cycle in this stage.  At a given time, the paired off nuclei will merge, in a process called karyogamy, producing a diploid nucleus.  This will normally happen in a seperate reproductive structure, in basidiomycetes and ascomycetes, the mushroom.  The diploid nucleus will then undergo meiosis to produce haploid nuclei, which are then released as spores to start the cycle once again.

Something like that. Werothegreat 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Classification consensus
Peter (or any other mycologist for that matter) it would be good to get some direction on some other taxonomic issues in terms of consensus. This then bears on some article pages.

First up - how strong is the consensus on sinking Amanitaceae into Pluteaceae?

will list some others when I find them Cas Liber 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing published on this yet, but an upcoming paper which proposes a new classification scheme based on some pretty solid molecular work maintains the names Amanitaceae, Pluteaceae, and Pleurotaceae. They represent three strongly supported clades within a larger Pluteoid clade. Peter G Werner 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you join?
How do you join WikiProject Fungi? Do you just say your in and your in or is it more complicated. Well, anyway I'd like to join, what do I do? Dixonsej I created Horse mushroom a while back and I don't know much but I'd like to help.


 * Just add your name in the list of participants. You don't have to join to help out, but if you do want to, then that's all there is to it.--Stemonitis 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

DYK Proposal: Amanita velosa
I just wrote a fairly detailed article on Amanita velosa (just in time for its season here in California) and have proposed it as aDid You Know? candidate. Peter G Werner 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great; there's such a lack of articles that there's plnety of scope for new ones and hence DYK noms cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An active DYK as of now. Peter G Werner 11:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for reorginization of Psychedelic mushroom, Psilocybe, and Amanita muscaria
Basically, I propose to split up Psychedelic mushroom and part of Psilocybe, and merge the psilocybin mushroom-related sections into Psilocybin mushroom (Psilocybin would remain a separate article) and the Amanita muscaria-related info into Amanita muscaria. Psychedelic mushroom would be a disambiguation page.

Discuss at Talk:Psychedelic mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deuteromycota
I left some thoughts here on how to proceed with purging Deuteromycota and Deuteromycetes: Talk:Deuteromycota.

Chime in if you have some good ideas. Nemetona 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Toward Fungal FA
Yeast seems to be going well - must be getting close to nomination..Someone nominated Amanita phalloides for GA which is on hold. With some good articles I've been able to expand it quite a bit. Still need to get some more info on some of the toxins but am keen for more input. All feedback appreciated. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of mycologists
I have cobbled together a list of mycologists, from the raw category listings under Category:Mycologists. I am certain that many notable mycologists are missing (and it's also possible that some of the entries may not be especially notable as mycologists). Please add any missing mycologists, even those without articles at the moment, and especially those who are the authorities for scientific names of taxa we've already got articles about.--Stemonitis 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do fungi feast on radiation
 It's still mostly speculation, but still an interesting read. Thought I'd share it with other enthusiasts. Yet another reason to like these organisms :).

Amanita phalloides at FAC
OK, I've nominated the death cap at FAC now, so come and see if we're all happy with it, make or address any criticisms.cheers, Cas Liber |talk  |  contribs 05:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template
I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Batsch
Hi all. I have written an article on August Batsch, and noticed once I'd made it that it was one of your high priority articles to create; unfortunately, I know very little (OK, nothing) about fungi, basically putting it together by translating German and French sources, so would appreciate it if someone could check it to make sure there's no glaring errors on that count (or if you have anything else you think could be added, about his work, etc). Thanks. Neil  ╦  22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fungus stub subtypes
I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal to further divide up the increasingly gynormous fungus-stubs by taxon. Somewhat relatedly, if anyone has any ideas about what to do with the considerably overlapping, and about as large, plant disease stubs... Alai 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename of fungus phylum categories
I've put up the phylum-level categories for renaming to correspond to their main articles:nomination here. Please review my reasoning and comment accordingly. Alai17:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairy Ring
Can you help with this argument in the article Fairy ring?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Photographs
Hello, I was looking through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, and I found a LOT of species of fungi in the general list. In order to clarify and organize the category, please tag pages with or add that template into your boilerplate template for all fungi pages. Thank you. Doo -  dle  -  doo  21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fungi Photos?
Hi... I am an amateur  mycologist / photographer who has finally gotten a decent macro setup and I would like to contribute some photos to Wikipedia. How should I go about this? I don't really want to write articles, I would rather just do identification and photography. Is this useful? I tried looking around for requested fungi photos but I couldn't find a fungi requested photos subject. Yes, I kinda suck a Wikipedia navigation.

I contributed a couple of photos to the Psilocybe cyanescens page a few years back but I think I may have made more work then help for Peter W. Fall is rapidly approaching here in the northwest U.S. and I am psyched to get out and do some work, so let me know how I can be helpful without getting in the way.Madjack74 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also are spore photos useful? I have a microscope camera and normally take them for my own ID anyway... Madjack74 —Precedingunsigned comment added by Madjack74 (talk • contribs) 02:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the offer - best thing would be to make an account on Wikimedia commons, which is where photos are best uploaded to. Then make the thumbs on your userpage and alert me as I appear to be the most active member of WP: Fungi currently and I'll see waht I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Photos of any kind, including spores are very very welcome, especially if they illustrate articles that don't otherwise have any illustrations. Debivort 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet. I'll create a wikimedia account and hopefully start dropping photos soon. It has been a rainy cool summer here and I have high hopes for this fall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjack74 (talk •contribs) 16:01, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Spore photos are very useful. I would like to see every mushroom article include photos of the spores.   I have uploaded about a dozen spore photos from mushrooms I have identified to their respective articles, and I plan to do many more this mushroom season.  If you ID a mushroom that does not have an article and you have good pictures, you might as well start, even with a minimal description and put up the pic / spores.  Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Article request
As part of my ongoing work on Christmas tree cultivation, I have a fungal request. Also, I like to hand out barnstars. If that is any motivation. :)


 * Mycosphaerella pini, also known as Dothistroma pini (formerly D. septospora)

Causes Red band needle blight of conifers. IvoShandor 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

mycomorphbox levels
Hi all - I think it would be good to have a chat about what level article should receive mycomorphboxes. For example, the Morchella article has been tagged as missing a mycomorphbox, but I have not typically put them on genus-level articles, even when the set of characters is sufficiently specific at the genus level. So - do you think we should put the boxes on every article that is compatible with them - i.e. whenever the characters are specific enough, or stick to species articles? Debivort 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cell wall
Just dropping a note to say that Cell wall is the Collaboration of the Month for the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. Although it isn't rated by this wikiproject, it does contain a section on cell walls of fungi and fungal-protists. I've cited information on the walls of dictyostelid fruiting stages, but further contributions would make for a nice cross-project collabotation. --EncycloPetey 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox request
For Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum. I'm not sure what order, family, etc., it is in. - MPF 15:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Hello All - Alan Rockefeller and I have some questions about Categories. He started making genus-level categories as a solution to the problem ofCategory:Basidiomycota being too large. I jumped in and made a few others e.g. Category:Russula. Our question is - when we add a genus level category to an article, do we also remove "Category:Basidiomycota"? My instinct was no, because I don't mind large categories, and I don't find extra categories at the bottom of articles obtrusive. de Bivort 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If WP: birds is anything to go by, the answer appears to be yes, they are removed. I'm not fussed either way. I'd go for leading them in first off. They can always be removed later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

taxonomy of Gyromitra esculenta
Hi all, I was wondering - was the placement of Gyromitra in Discinaceae well- accepted these days? I read it here onmushroomexpert...previously they were in Helvellaceae. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Future FLC...
I am working on List of deadly fungi as a future FLC. Before I get too stuck into it, do we all think number and order and subject of headings in alright? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head - what about Galerina autumnalis and Amanita verna? de Bivort 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The former is now combined with G. marginata apparently, while i was about to put in the latter (and some Lepiotas etc.) but was just pondering whether layout/order/cats were right before marching on (less frigging aroudn alter.)cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah - with respect to layout it looks great. de Bivort 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been ruminating on this today...should we have scientific name first rather than second, and I was tossing up with a 3rd table at the bottom for species with significant toxicity (but that could be huge and somewhat open ended...)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Amanita ocreata at FAC
Amanita ocreata is a cuurent Featured Article candidate. cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 05:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edible_mushroom
Cleaned up the Edible mushroom page quite a bit. There are now 4 lists: cultivated, commercially picked wild, edible wild (noncommercial), and "conditionally edible". Additions to the Commercial Edibles would be most welcome, particularly with those familiar with the fungus sold in the markets of Eastern Europe and Asia, which I know are quite different from the commercial species of the US and western Europe, but I don't know what they are.

I am running into the same problem that Casliber was, in that a canonical list of all known-edible fungus in the world would be literally hundreds of entries -it would also be kind of useless. Thus the question: what to do about noncommercial edibles? I can think of a few possible solutions: 1)  Make an incomplete list of a scattering of "popular" noncommercial edibles.  I can imagine, though, that deciding which are "popular" would be problematic.  2)  Make this a list of links to pages of lists, divided by region. I could contribute about 40 or 50 species to a list of Edible Fungi of the Pacific Northwest; a complete list would be a couple hundred entries long but would be potentially useful. 3) Discard the list and simply mention that there are many other "edibles," some tasty, some disgusting.  I would appreciate some input regarding the best thing to do with this list.

Next targets: Mushroom hunting - this seems like an odd entry. Needs to have more about the actual activity, and links to the related Wiki entries. The "safety rules" are important but perhaps need to be phrased in a different "voice" - less like a guide and more of a report on the "typical" rules followed by those who hunt mushrooms. Mushroom poisoning - also an odd little article with some mis-information and a pretty non-encyclopedic tone.Revdrace 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good on you for having a go at these - I have found them all a bit of a headache really and figured they could all do with reorganising. alot of material is repeated between articles. My vote WRT Edible Mushroom would be a brief summary on notable species in each category in nice prose with a link to a list which could be exhaustive and very very long. I am a bit tied up (and on ^%#%#%$ dialup!!) at present but should have more time soon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypsizigus or Hypsizygus?
Which is correct? Both are found in PubMed but the first one seems popular and correct.--Jjok (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mycomorphbox at TFD
Here is the Link if you would like to participate in the discussion.de Bivort 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Identification
Hey folks, I don't know if y'all have a system for identifying photos, but I took this picture, and I THINK that it's a Helvella lacunosa, but can't be sure. I found it on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington, amongst a bunch of Western Red Cedars, Douglas firs, and Sword ferns in early December. Any help indentifying would be great. Murderbike (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)