Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 7

Soybean rust/Asian soybean rust merger
I have proposed a merger between two duplicate articles: soybean rust and Asian soybean rust. The former is tagged as a mid-importance article on WikiProject Fungi. Kolbasz (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
I've opened up an "Article for Deletion" here that's within the scope of this project. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Psilocybe australiana needs to be merged with Psilocybe subaeruginosa
Both pages represent what has been observed, researched and documented as being the same mushroom. The two names are widely considered to be synonymous with each other. A redirection from Psilocybe australiana would be needed as it is still being listed as a seperate species throughout the internet.

The defining reference for this is listed in the references for Psilocybe subaeruginosa.

Chang YS, Mills AK. (1992). "Reexamination of Psilocybe subaeruginosa and related species with comparative morphology, isozymes and mating compatibility studies". Mycological Research 96 (6): 429–441. doi:10.1016/S0953-7562(09)81087-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.46.153 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A Mycologia study published today reports
... there has been a major shakeup in the genus Morchella, resulting in the publication of 14 new North American species. I started stubs for all, and even have a pic for one thanks to BlueCanoe. Exciting times for fans of mushroom taxonomy ! Sasata (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll work on adding to the new articles and correcting the old ones as I have time. It's going to be a bit of a mess cleaning up the images on Wikimedia Commons.  Safe to assume that most North American photos of morels uploaded to Commons more than a day ago are identified with an incorrect scientific name.  Morels are a particular interest of mine. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of new papers on the molecular phylogenetics of Morchella I've just found: Taşkın et al., 2012, Multilocus phylogenetics analysis of true morels (Morchella) reveals high levels of endemics in Turkey relative to other regions of Europe, Mycologia. Du et al., 2012, Multigene molecular phylogenetics reveals true morels (Morchella) are especially species-rich in China, Fungal Genetics and Biology. I don't think either paper describes new names, but the phylogeny is great to have, too. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these are all great papers ... lots of updating/expanding to do (I'm dreading revisiting Morchella esculenta, it's going to need a complete overhaul). Sasata (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lycoperdon echinatum TFA on April 16th
I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tapinellaceae are Boletales, not Agaricales
Tapinellaceae belong to Boletales, not Agaricales (see e.g Larsson 2007). I am quite new to editing wikipedia though and am not aware of all the pages that need to be changed to reflect that (lists of families? categories? etc?), maybe someone smarter here is better suited to try? For now I have only edited the Tapinellaceae page itself. VilmarVeldre (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like I was propagating an error in Kirk et al. (2008), who list Tapinellaceae as part of the Agaricales. I've fixed all of the occurrences, thanks for the note. (For future reference, you can click "What links here" in the toolbox on the left hand side of the window and quickly determine all incoming links). Sasata (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick! Awesome! Duh, I even knew about the toolbox but it didn't occur to me to use it! VilmarVeldre (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Plural problem
hello,

I currently translated an article from the German article (which is a good article there), but I am not sure if Amylostereaceae is the plural form of Amylostereum, or is it something completely different? Also, how will you say to more than one Amylostereum? Amylostereum fungi? Or "Amylosterea"... I don't know. All help appreciated! Thanks.-- GoP T C N 17:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the first is a family, and the latter a genus. But my second question needs to be resolved before I resume.-- GoP T C N 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd use "Amylostereum fungi", but don't worry about mistakes, I'm sure the article will be copyedited soon after you post it in mainspace :). Great idea about translating good articles from other languages. I'd do that too, but my German/French/Russian skills learned in high school or university are so rusty now that it would be painful (for me and the reader). Sasata (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I came across to this article in the German Wikipedia. It is good that this project is active, so I will ask you members anytime :).-- GoP T C N 19:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Evolution on fungi?
hello,

this may sound stupid but I am not sure if it is correct to say "evolution" in fungi articles, and if not what is the correct term? Regards.-- GoP T C N 08:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this question. Fungi evolve, just like all living organisms, though with most being haploid the details are a little different to better-known eukaryotes.  If you're asking about the appropriate way to treat evolution in Wikipedia, see the FAQ at the top of Talk:Evolution.  Is Evolution of fungi any help?  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will take a look. Regards.-- GoP T C N 21:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Question on cats
hello,

do you think that categories such as "forest pests" or "white rot pathogens" are useful? Or do we tend to be more specific? I would like to discuss it here before I create them. Regards.-- GoP T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think "forest pests" is pretty vague (my idea of forest pests are campers/hikers who doesn't pick up their garbage after themselves). A set of categories relating to woody-decay type could be useful though (e.g., Category:White rot fungi, Category:Brown rot fungi, Category:Soft rot fungi). Sasata (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The initial category is Category:Fungal plant pathogens and diseases. There is no pathogen equivalent in the categories for category:Invasive species, which seems to be what you want to create. Circéus (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Microsporidia - size?
Does someone have a good reference for the size of microsporidia? The size in the microsporidia article (1-40 micrometres) seems unlikely to me. Nephron T|C 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This source says 1–12 μm, or typically 1–5 in humans. Sasata (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New plant, fungus, and algae micrographs uploaded
Yesterday I uploaded to Commons a bunch of micrographs that I made for a course I used to teach. They were taken back at the turn of the century, using what seemed at the time to be really high-resolution cameras. There are more to come, but not necessarily soon. I've only listed the fungi and lichens here; the full list is at WP:PLANTS.


 * File:Uncinula cleistothecia on lf.jpg - check usage
 * File:Umbilicaria thallus XS low.jpg - check usage
 * File:Umbilicaria thallus XS.jpg - check usage
 * File:Rhizopus zygospores2.jpg - check usage
 * File:Rhizopus zygospores.jpg - check usage
 * File:Rhizopus clonal sporangia.jpg - check usage
 * File:Physcia apothecium LS high.jpg - check usage
 * File:Physcia apothecium LS.jpg - check usage
 * File:Phycomyces zygospores2.jpg - check usage
 * File:Phycomyces zygospores.jpg - check usage
 * File:Coprinus basidia.jpg - check usage
 * File:Boletus pores section low.jpg - check usage
 * File:Boletus pores section high.jpg - check usage

Enjoy!--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Mycologist
I just discovered that this template existed. Can someone who speaks template code tell me if it would be a good idea to change all of our current uses of over to this one? Sasata (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Move correct?
hello,

was the move from Listerella paradoxa to Listerelliidae correct? Regards.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 12:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure if the Amoebozoa are covered under naming conventions for flora or fauna. In either case however, it appears as if the genus is the preferred name. Per WP:Naming conventions (fauna):

"If there is a choice of scientific names, generally use the lowest-ranked taxon which the article covers (i.e., species vs. genus), but for monotypic genera (where the genus has only one known species), use the genus name for the article title:
 * Xenoturbella (not Xenoturbellidae or Xenoturbellida); Nodocephalosaurus (not Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis)."

From WP:Naming conventions (flora):

"However, because genera are better known than the other ranks (and families are better known than orders): A family or order with a single genus is treated at the article for that genus."

However, I'm not sure the taxonomy presented in the article is up to date. Several sources (MycoBank, Index Fungorum, Catalogue of Life, Dictionary of the Fungi 2008) give the family as Listerellaceae (rather than Listerelliidae), and the order as Liceida. To further confuse the issue, the Dictionary says that Listerellaceae is synonymous with Liceaceae (which they indicate is the preferred name). According to them, Liceaceae has 1 genus and 66 species (mostly in the genus Licea). I usually default to the Dictionary for taxonomical matters, but occasionally they are wrong or outdated. Not sure how to resolve this without digging into the literature. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New area found with A Phalloides
A. Phalloides has been located in Redding Calif. The characteristics seem to match Amanita Arocheue. Light brown on top, and yellowish under the cap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.249.176 (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Beauveria or Tolypocladium?
The article Beauveria says "B. nivea is [now] Tolypocladium inflatum", while this source claims that T. inflatum is the old name. Could somebody help with finding a source for which is actually the present name? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MycoBank give Tolypocladium inflatum as the current name, while Index Fungorum suggests it is Elaphocordyceps subsessilis. The rules for naming anamorphic fungi have recently changed, and many names are in a "transitional" state ... so I'm not sure which authority to believe. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Elaphocordyceps subsessilis seems to be the sexually reproducing form per the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, could you determine whether Cordyceps subsessilis should be moved to Elaphocordyceps subsessilis ? The move would have to be done by an admin. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Fungi in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fungi for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Toxicity icons
At some point we appear to have started attempting to promulgate a novel system of toxicity icons for fungi. I think this is a bad idea, partly because it is essentially a novel synthesis but also because it's not our job to act as a how-to, and there is an obvious risk in using a simple icon to say that a fungus is safe or not, given the acknowledged ambiguity in differential identification of many fungi, and in some cases this will in any case depend on preparation or dose. So, it's a nice idea but ultimately I think not properly Wikipedian. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the icons are a bit childish, a taboo for a serious encyclopedia, and fail WP:ACCESS. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is, I think, the complete set: [[Image:Deadly toxicity icon.png|15px]] [[Image:Poisonous toxicity icon.png|15px]] [[Image:Inedible toxicity icon.png|15px]] [[Image:Edible toxicity icon.png|15px]] [[Image:Choice toxicity icon.png|15px]] [[Image:Unknown toxicity icon.png|15px]]. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Errr, ok. I do agree these ones didn't look the greatest, and we do have to source all places we use these. However most fungus guidebooks have edibility/toxicity icons, so I don't see how you get it as OR. I think the concern has validity on a genus page where there is not generally an explanation of any given icon for individual species, but I would object at their removal from individual species pages where there is accompanying text giving an explanation or rationale about their edibility/toxicity. This is not acting as a how-to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a page where there is space for (and presence of) a discussion of any relevant nuances, you are right, there is less of a problem. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stating edibility is hardly a problem for How-to. Edibility is a property of fungi, just like color. Stating properties does not make this a how-to. You wouldn't strip the tomato page of the fact that tomatos are edible. That said, we should definitely replace the current icons on the list pages with the mycomorphbox icons. de Bivort 21:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Plant Pathogen Article Heading
Hey all, my plant pathology class is expanding plant pathogen articles for a project. We were questioning whether to title the articles according to the disease (ex. Citrus Black Spot) or scientific name of the causal agent (ex. Guignardia citricarpa). We thought factors like economic importance and public knowledge of the disease could be important in selecting the article title. Thanks! GreenOnions22 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've put a proposal to merge the two articles into Guignardia citricarpa, the proposal can be discussed here or at Talk:Citrus Black Spot. NtheP (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thielaviopsis fraxinea / Chalara fraxinea
Is the title of Thielaviopsis fraxinea correct? It's a apparently a synonym for Chalara fraxinea which is in the news but I can't find any uses of Thielaviopsis fraxinea outside of Wikipedia. Even if it is technically correct for some taxonomical reason, shouldn't we call it Chalara fraxinea as researchers do ? SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find Thielaviopsis fraxinea either, and it's not recognized as a species by MycoBank or Index Fungorum. Chalara fraxinea was described in 2006 and is ok according to MycoBank, but according to IF, it is now called Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus Queloz, Grünig, Berndt, T. Kowalski, T.N. Sieber & Holdenr. 2011. This paper should have more details; I'll track it down up and update or move the page soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When was the genus Chalara, or most of it, renamed as Thielaviopsis, and why? Where did the name Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus (with a different specific name also) come into it? This fungus threatens a disaster and it needs a Wikipedia article about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From a quick look at the paper it appears as if they've used molecular techniques to determine that Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus is the teleomorph form of Chalara fraxinea. Chalara fraxinea was described in 2006, but Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus has been known since 1851, and therefore, according to recently changed rules for fungal nomenclature (whereby anamorph and teleomorph names are to be combined into a single name if their association is known definitively), H. pseudoalbidus has priority as it was published earlier. I'm still not sure where the name Thielaviopsis fraxinea originated. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you decide to call the article Thielaviopsis fraxinea? It seems to have appeared out of nowhere. This paper and others call it Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus but there are more hits for Chalara fraxinea in 2012 on google scholar suggesting that is still more commonly used by reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realised Chalara redirects to Thielaviopsis which is presumably the reason the current title was chosen. Since it makes us look like idiots using the incorrect name, I'm going to move it, but I'll have to remove the taxobox since I'm unsure of it's classification. SmartSE (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be that not all strains of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus ' s anamorph can attack ash trees and thus can be described as Chalara fraxinea. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ID for about 60 images
Hello all, I usually work on creating butterfly and moth articles, but am currently attending a photography course. I am trying my hand at macro-photography and in the process have come across a lot of mushrooms/fungi. I made pictures, but do not have the knowledge to ID them. All photo's were taken in the region of Twente (near the village of Delden mostly) in The Netherlands in September/October in either grassland or forested areas. If anyone is interested in providing an ID, I would be delighted! Some of them might be usefull for articles? If so, I would be happy to help, but would probably need some guidance. Uploading in progress, will post links soon... Ruigeroeland (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, they can be found at [], uploaded between 22:15, 23 October 2012 and 22:06, 23 October 2012. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I am sure a few of us will chip in. I will amend the pages over on commons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You did some already! Thanks. I see the ones you ID'ed are pretty common (based on the huge amount of pictures we already have for them). Hope there are some rarer ones too.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

fungi stubs
Hello! I was just wondering if there were any red-link articles that needed creation for this project in particular. I create stubs personally, so they are of good quality. I would be delighted to work for this project. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We currently have 1000s of stubs that would like some love. Any chance you'd like to shift focus and develop starts from our vast array of stubs? Sasata (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ID request
Hi guys and gals. We've recieved a request for an ID on a fungi species over at the reference desk. Could someone from here pop over and have a look for us? Cheers. [] douts (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Amanita Arocheue
What other places has this fungi been found ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.43.230 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New category
I was amazed to realize that Category:Fungi of the United States didn't already exist. I created it and added the one article that caused me to realize this gap. I know there are lots of articles that belong in this category (or even yet-to-be-created regional subcats), but I don't know what they are. Please populate this category. Lady of  Shalott  19:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)