Talk:Panellus stipticus

Hobbyist friendly

You can grow this in jars using PF Tek for fun or school projects, etc. I'm not quite how to incorporate this into the article, because it's pure OR. Something along the lines of "like many species of fungus, it can be cultivated using PF Tek" just doesn't quite do it. But almost... 204.69.139.16 (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I do know about the mail-order kits (and in fact have ordered one myself), but haven't yet found what would qualify as a reliable source to cite in the article. I will add this info when I do find one. Sasata (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Only place I've seen it documented was a website, and not really a 'reliable' one. I added a note to the PF Tek page. Any help appreciated- it's fun to have a shelf of these in your house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.139.16 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

European bioluminescence?

European Panellus stipticus is non bioluminescent? Anyone sober believe on this? One thing is a certain individual from a certain place, during a certain season showing non bioluminescent capacities ( even Omphalotus olearius is up for this issue or even P. stipticus in America), the other thing is too prove that all the specimens are exactly like that one ( non bioluminescent) during all life stages, everywhere in the continent. If I send pictures of bioluminescent P. stipticus in Europe ( I can even put the mushrooms near national monuments for proof. or if it´s someone that doubt it and it´s visiting my place can show up, say hello and see it with it´s own eyes)someone would be interested on seeing it? I´m just curious to see original article, from the 43 line and to see it´s reasoning. Actually I´m amazed how modern and educated people believe on that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.86.18 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal experiences or anecdotal evidence, we have to go by what reliable sources say about the subject. You're more than welcome to publish your findings (demonstrating that our current knowledge is outdated or inaccurate) in a refereed scientific journal, and then use that publication to update the article here. Sasata (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course that we have to go by reliable sources, hence that paper from the 40´s have it´s reasoning based on what? How many samples were used, from where and when? Eurasia is still a big place to get conclusions like that easily! We are talking about a huge ecoregion, with loads of different climates and with different dispersion reaching conditions ( I´m not saying that makes it any better ( because it isn´t), I´m just describing it...). For example, today I did collected a Jack Lantern ( O. olearius) that doesn´t glow ( I guess that´s because it´s already a bit too mature, on the other hand I have glowing leaf litter that is still luminous ( even 2 days after collecting). Even if we are more probably talking about 2 different species, they show completely different luminous results ( I also did collected glowing Lantern Mushrooms some weeks ago and from that bunch some didn´t glew, not even faintly, others were quite readily luminous). These terribly contrasting results from the same place and moment, represent the difficulty of studying luminous behavior on many species of mushrooms. It would be really interesting to have direct acess to that old article, to see the extension of it´s research... Not even in space, but also in time. I don´t expect people to change the wikipedia page ( my main interests are scientific articles or data) from my observations, I just expect to open a debate about this subject, because I think that´s clearly polemic to make such a conclusion ( « hey, P. stipticus didn´t and don´t ever glow on Europe, West America, entire Asia, New Zealand, etc... Only on East America!»), then I think that this subject needs more evidence ( hence my interest on acessing that article, because that´s what makes me still looking at wikipedia ( the scientific articles)). Don´t take me bad for that, it´s just the way I gather information. Because, I hope you to understand that bioluminescence don´t evolve like a miracle on a certain place and all the others get excluded. Nature don´t exclude luminescence according to region, but according to it´s reaching capacity. Genes that make luminescence visible, many times are activated because of random nuclear activity, just like a mutation! When it´s possible for it to get fertile eggs, they reproduce ( they aren´t activated just because they are in East America), hence bioluminescent phenotypes appear, wherever this happens. Do you know something about fungus spore dispersion capacity? Do you think that macaronesian Panellus stipticus are not bioluminescent? What about Azores!? Changing subject, into a lighter note, you may check my experimental page: http://pirilampos-lightalive.blogspot.com/ It´s in portuguese, but you can use translator or just check the pictures. I also did published a paper ( along with my colleagues) about a new specie for science of firefly found in my country ( plus a new record and some more species are about to be added):http://www.heteropterus.org/pdf/n8/Heteropterus_Rev_Entomol_8(2)_147-154R.pdf

My view on bioluminescence of P. stipticus is not yet definitive, but I guess that´s not so geographically restricted ( exactly like with other bioluminescent species, such as Omphalotus illudens, O. olearius, Armillarius mellea, etc (...) but rather more individualistic restricted ( each mushrooms may show different maturation points, bioluminescent display ( if any!) even in the same place, now imagine to multiple the complexity of this ( each individual) with such a large area that this specie occupies ( even if you don´t count East America!). Well, I DO certainly think that this subject needs more evidence! But sorry to take your time, your page by now, like it is, it´s fine, however I just think that the debate about this, should be opened. On the other hand, I think that it would be pertinent to have acess on that articlé ( 43 reference). Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.86.18 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the abstract, you could probably get the full paper through interlibrary loans if you wish; if you have no way to access it, I could copy it during my next trip to the library and send you the file. I agree, it's not very conclusive: the paper is almost 70 years old, and only used 5 European collections; they claim, however, that their results "corroborated the findings of other workers that the European form of this fungus is non-luminous", so I suspect a further search of the references in that paper will turn up more (old) sources that make a similar claim. On a related note, would you be interested in writing an article (or having an article written) about that interesting firefly Lampyris iberica? I'd be happy to help. Sasata (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I did read the Abstract, it´s a bit more clear now, but as you said, it seems that a small sample is used along with a very old referencing. I can accept though, that´s the official standing now, however, I think that´s pretty debatable ( hopefully along with some more researching). I already did published a scientific article about Lampyris iberica ( on Heteropterus magazine),the only existing one, unless you want another version of it. I also do research about bioluminescence overall, so if some additional notes are wanted, I can present it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.86.18 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Panellus stipticus is a common and widely distributed species of fungus that grows on decaying deciduous trees, especially beech, oak, and birch. In some areas, it is bioluminescent, and the fruit bodies of these strains will glow in the dark—an effect known as foxfire—when fresh or sometimes when revived in water after drying.Photo: Ylem

BBC Hoax

I'm very new to Wikipedia at the contributor/content creator/editing level. I've tried to include a section on recent events surrounding a fictional bioluminescent mushroom from Congo which is, in fact, P. stipticus grown and filmed in the UK by the BBC. Two anonymous IPs from the CA Bay Area have deleted that section with the tag "section blanking" each time. I've reported and cited the events only as they've transpired, no more, no less. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallampas (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• My guess is that this incident, while interesting, adds nothing to encyclopedic understanding of the article subject (see WP:UNDUE), and lacks reliable sources (see WP:RS; a facebook statement, even by an expert, is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards). Sasata (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Would it be better placed on a page dealing with Bioluminescent Fungi? Or a page pertaining more to the BBC or this program in particular? This seemed like the best placement for it at the time. As far as the source material, a colleague of the expert in question simply syndicated, as it were, what was written to him and several other mycologists on his own Facebook page. The actual source is the private correspondence itself, though I somehow expect that the site policy on "valid" sources is even less welcoming of that. Kallampas (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia until it is written about in reliable third-party sources (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Sasata (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm finding this section interesting WP:SPS, particularly this bit: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I would think that this applies here... Kallampas (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would be for, say, a website maintained by an expert about a subject of their expertise (example–Rod Tulloss's Amanitaceae website), not an offhand comment by an expert on a Facebook page (or worse, from a third party who read it in an email). At any rate, this incident would be more appropriate (when/if it's reported by appropriate sources) in the article on the BBC, not here. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the source is reliable (at best, it is marginally so), the affair certainly doesn't merit an entire section devoted to it. It seems a rather minor point, and more relevant to the BBC than to P. stipticus. Ucucha (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree about the appropriateness of the page with which the information is associated. I think it belongs on either a BBC or Bioluminescent Fungi page. I've asked the editor of Fungi Magazine if he'd be interested in picking up the story. We'll see what he says... Kallampas (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioluminescent_fungi Kallampas (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it from that page for similar reasons, but if Fungi magazine does publish something about this, we could include a line or two in the bioluminescent fungi article. Sasata (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Panellus stipticus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004224933/http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=355858 to http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=355858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)