Talk:Slime mold

Definition

Why use the word "organism"? What choices does the use of this word avoid? If a slime mould (singular) is "organisms (plural) that use spores to reproduce" then what organisms do not use spores to reproduce? Do the genera of slime-moulds vary? How? Are all organisms that use spores for reproduction slime moulds? No they're not: some fungi, and some plants use spores. Hit us with the biological definition first and then we can argue about the taxonomy. Consideration of the taxonomy of slime mould species and genera led to the removal of fungi from the plant kingdom, and the creation of a fungus kingdom; moreover, slime moulds were regarded by some people as simple animals. Where are we with this change? Algae, lichens, fungi, moulds, slime-moulds . . . ? More disambiguation necessary. (I want a hyphen in "slime-mould".) How does a mould differ from a slime-mould? Wouldn't one article do the job, rather than a few? Halteres (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Jargon

The Taxonomy bit is properly cross-referenced and the words are popular enough, but the Life Cycle section annoys me because I went to a popular encyclopedia (this one) and didn't understand the jargon; in particular all this plasm stuff just came from nowhere and now I'm stuck. Plasmodia? It's such a unique meaning of that term that even looking it up doesn't really help. I'm reading Bill Bryson's pop science book and he describes Slime Mold as becoming a slug, so I had to look that up. I now get that it clearly (and sensibly enough) doesn't actually become a slug but I don't know what it does become. And I completely don't get that about a bag of nuclei with no membrane - something's missing from the explanation, for me the layman anyway. Thanks for reading my comment, it's still a decent article and good luck with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.139.85 (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also does not say that slime mold is gross. --68.41.20.17 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First sentance!

This needs sorting out - it says they are fungus like and amoeba like - doesn't really tell us much about what they actually are! Smartse (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)but other sources tell us that they belong to a kingdom called potoctista

Swarming

Just added a link to the swarming motility page as it was under-linked.

Aksel89 3:39 PM AEST, 31 Oct 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Not really sure it is applicable. AIUI slime molds are single individuals rather than swarms of separate unicellular organisms. The swarming article only talks about bacteria. Roger (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

request

Please add more to the book references section. It may prove usefull to those that wish to further research any information in the article. Mechagnome 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Species

This page should say how many species of slime mold there are. --Savant13 20:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My (admittedly out of date) textbook says over 500, at the very least. -- 82.181.13.83 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

I seem to remember something about slime molds fitting into both the plant and animal categories--or sometimes one and sometimes the other? Anyone familiar with this and know how to explain it? (Or has time done another number on my database?)  ;-) --KQ I have found that they belong to the protoctista kingdom which is single celled organisms like amoeba and other things --Unknown

Under the old two-kingdom system, slime molds were considered both a class of fungi (Myxomycota), which went among the plants, and an order of amoebae (Myxozoa), which went among the animals. There's a brief note about the overlap between the two kingdoms on Protista but I haven't gone into any details of historical taxonomy because the modern stuff is already plenty to keep up with. As always, help is encouraged. :) --JG

This is fuzzy memory as well, but I Seem To Recall that some Slime Molds are able to somehow chemically herd or or otherwise effect the normal life-cycle of some bacteria (or whatever) type micro-thingies that they eat. I'll have to see if I can find where I read that... Anyway, nice to see that the less prominent lifeforms are not forgotten (ah! that gives me an idea for a minor edit.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 10:31 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To KQ, The reason that slime moulds have historically fitted into both classifications is because they produce their own cellulose (meaning that it is a plant) but contrastingly it can sometimes have the appearance of and move like an animal. --FW

Here is a link to an article on slime molds which seems quite coherent, although I know nothing about the credentials of the author, and have no credentials in this area myself. This explanantion makes much more sense to me than the current article, although I would have no way to judge its accuracy. If the author meets the wiki criteria, perhaps he/she could help revamp this section. Link: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/slime1.htmMargaret.miz (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender?

I seem to remember a high school bio teacher once telling me that slime molds have close to a dozen genders? is that right?

A: even worse, according to [[1]]: "in fact it’s a slime mold (genus Physarum), an otherworldly creature with 29 variants of sex-controlling genes, dispersed among eight different types of sex cells. To ensure genetic diversity, each slime mold sex cell can only fuse with a sex cell that has completely different variants of genes than its own. If you calculate all the possible combinations of genes and sex cells, you will find that Physarum have more than 500 different sexes." (ZooGoer 33(2) 2004. Copyright 2004 Friends of the National Zoo. All rights reserved.)

Dammit! I was gonna get a slime mold, dye it green to make it look cool, and keep it as a pet. But now I have to find out what to call it! What do I call it? He? She? Le? de? ge? maybe I should find the name of the gender and make something up.

No need to dye it. They come in a wide variety of colours anyway. You would also have to find a dye that is non toxic, which may be quite a mission as something that is labeled "non-toxic" with reference to humans could be instant death to your pet. On the topic of keeping one as a pet - do they stink and how light tolerant are they? Roger (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Genome/Changes in Kingdom [growth]

I read in Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that slime molds change into sluglike beings and then plantlike things when their environment isn't suitable, but someone deleted my edit and called it rubbish!!! I was then accused of vandalism.:(

    (other user[I dont know how to do the indent thing]) I too, would like to know weather or not
this is true; it could be extremely valuable for bio-technologies of the future. 

75.86.252.181 (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an annoying quirk of science writing. For example some author's say whales evolved from something dog-like when it was most closely related to hippos. What they usually mean is that it filled an ecological role similar to a dog, it was a predator that had some adaptations to that role. I think the same is the case here, sometimes they act like slugs but they NEVER turn into slugs, if you look at videos, it kind of looks and moves like a slug. But a slug is a multicellular organism with complex organs that uses muscles to move, a slime mold just moves using each one of it's cells and they don't specialize very much (eg. they don't have muscles, a brain or a digestive tract). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.66.175 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unequal interwiki's

Just a note, because it should be changed later when more articles have been written. The interwiki's on this article are not not exactly congruent. The German (de:Schleimpilze) and Danish (da:Slimdyr) are about a lower taxon (Myxomycota) as compared to the the rest (Mycetozoa). Probably the order Myxogastria is equal to Myxomycota.

Secondly, there is much confusion about the names of the orders. I found this site: http://www.thallobionta.szm.sk/fungilich/myxo.htm quite clear, but it is in Slovak (so probably not readable for many native english speakers). At least the knowledge taxonomy of the Slime mould is not as clear as the article suggests. I found that most authors agree on putting it in the Protista kingdom, but the German wikipedia expresses much more doubt.

Taka 2 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

The classification of slime moulds does vary a bit. However, most of the differences you're looking at involve older systems, which don't accurately reflect the modern understanding of the group. For instance, the German wikipedia is about essentially the same organisms as this page. It mentions three phyla:

• Myxomycota, plasmodial slime moulds. In this case this is our Myxogastria, but note Myxomycota can also be used as a synonym for Mycetozoa.
• Acrasiomycota, cellular slime moulds. It's now recognized that these include two separate groups, the dictyostelids and acrasids.
• Plasmodiophoromycota, plasmodiophorids. These aren't considered slime moulds in newer systems, but are mentioned on this page.

I don't think there's that much doubt about the classification. With the move to phylogenetic kingdoms, they are definitely not classified as fungi, and Amoebozoa has broad though not universal support. The main variations are ranks (e.g. Mycetozoa may be a subkingdom) and botanical vs. zoological names (e.g. Echinosteliida may be given as Echinosteliales), but I think the major subgroups given are now essentially stable. Josh

Thanks for the clarifications.

• Does this (english) article reflect the latest views and names?
• Is there a reference (best to be found on internet) that you consider to be a reflecting the latest views.
• what is with the Hydromyxomycetes (mentioned here)?

Taka 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

I think the English article does, with the above caveats. If you're looking for particular genera, a good reference would be Systema Naturae 2000, which follows Cavalier-Smith. I didn't follow his ranks because his subphylum Conosa is not well-supported. The breakdown here is a concensus supported by cladistic analyses, but the ranks still seem to be variable, and I think this version comes from The Illustrated Handbook of Protozoa (1985).

I've never seen the Hydromyxomycetes in a slime mould classification before, old or new. I found a page that links them to the vampyrellids, which are not usually considered slime moulds. Several others mention Labyrinthula, though, and I imagine the name is mostly used to refer to the Labyrinthulomycetes. Proteomyxids were also mentioned, but this seems to be based on an older version of that name, too. Josh

taste?

how do they taste?

My, that's a yummy slime mold!

A tad slimy and slightly mouldy.

Please don't taste one. Many fungi are deadly poison. The bright colors might be a warning.Steve Dufour 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at least a couple of species have been reported as edible. However, Myxomycota (under any name) is a pretty broad category, and there's certainly a chance that isn't universally the case. Serpent's Choice 11:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan on eating any. :-) Steve Dufour 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2 cm/Minute ?

Which Slime mould is capable of this impressive speed ? I'd like to know as it seems very fast for a slime mold ! Citation please !

Me too! I want to dye one green and keep it as a pet, and I want it to be a fast one.

I can't say which one for sure but the plasmodium of many Myxomycetes do move quickly due to their shuttle streaming. Physarum polycephalum is used in labs commonly, moves fairly quickly across agar (or wet filter paper... it likes wet oatmeal because bacteria will grow on it), and is bright yellow. 2cm a minute still seems too fast, perhaps they meant an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.98.35 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Picture

The image at the bottom right of the page is not a slime mold, but is Tremella mesenterica, a fungus. I don’t know how to change or delete the image. Could someone please change it.

Taken care of, although someone more Wikicapable might want to do somethign about the image/text alignment issues. Serpent's Choice 11:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Anyone know if it would be typical for a Slime mould under dry conditions, to release a spore cloud if sprayed with water?--Isotope23 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. --Scix 04:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

some 20 years ago I saw an black and white video clip of a slime mould congregating into an organism and walking off - it was amazing - should there be a video clip in Wikipedia????

lovely idea. Do we just search one up on YouTube? --Scix 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This was probably a dictyostelid aggregating into a slug. These videos can be found in different places and are impressive. Myxos do similar things but aggregate into a plasodium that is more of a net shape sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.98.35 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mould vs Mold

I am curious whether there is a policy behind "mould" being listed as the normative spelling and "mold" as the American variant? Do we generally go for BritSpell in article names, or the most common spelling in print, or is it just sort of the prerogative of whomever starts the article? I honestly have no preferrence on the matter, it just struck me that I didn't KNOW how to choose one over the other, as an editor, I mean. --Scix 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National_varieties_of_English.

The basic principle is:

• If the topic is uniquely relevant to a particular English-speaking country (e.g. New York, Sydney Opera House, Queen Elizabeth II), we use the variety of English used in that country.
• Otherwise, we stick with whatever variety of English the article happens to be written in.

This does lead to the slightly odd situation where you should use British spellings when editing this article, but American spellings when editing mold. But any other approach would alienate a large number of editors who felt that their variety of English was being marginalised, so this is how we do it. ^^

— Haeleth Talk 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Very clear, thanks. --Scix 05:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps messing with the mold v mould spelling can you cut it out, I'm going to revert to the English use which also clearly states the American spelling, even if you are going to change the articles language like that at least be thorough and put in the alternate spelling. My argument for doing this is that Slime mold redirects to Slime mould and the older versions of this article uses mould, so I assume the main editors want it this way! Having a title mismatch the article text is less than encyclopaedic to say the least. If there is to be further discussion on this do it here first. MattOates (Ulti) 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed

Does anyone have any idea of how fast a slime mould can travel in its Blob-like state? Also, can it dissolved anyone (ha ha) Scorpionman 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LIKE 30MPH, FASTER THAN A MAN CAN RUN!!!

According to the text used in our A.P. Biology class (Biology, 6th Edition) the classification is wrong. We have that it should be Domain:Eukarya, Kingdom:Mycetozoa. Does anyone know anything about this difference? Is our book out of date or is there just a difference in opinion? 66.82.9.54 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)KLJ 19 December, 2006

The classification varies a fair bit. However, treating the Mycetozoa as a kingdom probably reflects not knowing their relationships, and in that respect the book is slightly out-of-date. Josh

anyone with updated classification information care to share with the rest of us? EuroBrydGang

hmm this has some major flaws

there are two major groups: plasmodial slime molds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodial_Slime_Mold

not alot of info there.

and cellular slime molds: split by wiki into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrasiomycota and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyosteliomycota

i see, this is a redirect for mycetazoa

woops and then we have another dictyostelid page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyostelid

how much more can i find?

anyway: the intro to THIS general wiki describes ONLY the cellular slime molds. then in types it describes both plasmodial and cellular, but it does not give the correct link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodial_Slime_Mold

It looks like quite a mess. would someone like to help me find all the scattered wikis and we can clean it up? i don't quite know yet all the procedures for deleting and redirecting.Wikiskimmer 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you have in mind for the slime mould page? I think it would be a mistake to make one article from all the current ones. I recently created acrasin and was thinking about adding to this from some of the other articles and tidying up, so I'd be happy to take from your lead. MattOates (Ulti) 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found a nest of over half a dozen pages and even more terms without wikis that are all confused. i am making a map of them all and will present a proposal.

how do i find all the people who might want to be involved and where do i post it?Wikiskimmer 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, i've gone and done a major edit. i've made the slime mould page about myxogastria, protostelia, and dictyosteliida. I put only a small discussion of dictyosteliida because i refer to the excellent aricle Dictyosteliida. In the intro and in the description of different types i described the three other groups that are sometimes called slime moulds. i added some links to 3 species accounts. i suspect there are more in the wiki system. we can hunt.

I unlinked things to the Dictyosteliomycota because that page sucks compared to the Dictyosteliida page. at some point we gotta decide whether to put the acrasid info in here: percolozoa or here: Acrasiomycota. Neither page has alot of info on acrasids. hard to find! i also unlinked some things from the myxomycota page and linked them to the slime mould page, because the myxo page sucks.Wikiskimmer 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic Naming

The academic community prefers the term "slime mold", even in the UK. Naming this article "slime mould" is faintly silly. Here are some statistics, backing this up:

• google for '"slime mold" site:ac.uk' => 2,960 hits
• google for '"slime mould" site:ac.uk' => 482 hits

The controversy over the article name is unfortunate in such a clear cut case. It's more fun to fight over articles like Spectacles or whatever it is named now. Daniel Quinlan 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We should start to move over to "Slime mold" then if no one has any objections. Which makes sense on wikipedia anyway since mould -> mold. The problem comes from the constant inconsistency in the article more than what language variant is being used. It looks more than faintly silly when mold and mould is used within the same sentence. MattOates (Ulti) 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeming as slime mo(u)lds are NOT fungi which is what mould would refer to mold seems more sensible to me. Smartse (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Split

The reason that I want to split the article is because a slime mold is a more general term and the phylum Mycetozoa a revised more specific term. Alternatively, we could have a history section. --Kupirijo (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

30 square meters?

The article indicates that slime molds can reach areas of up to 30 square meters. I could find no source for this other than pages quoting the Wikipedia article. The current referenced source, which seems to be some kind of weekly nature-related column, mentions this number in passing and does not seem like a good source either.

I did, however, find a paper of some kind at http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/1038 which said in its introduction that slime molds can reach sizes of "several dozen centimetres in diameter [...] and up to several square meters" and that "The mass of some Myxomycetes can reach 30 g." Now, if a slime mold of area 30 square meters were circular, its diameter would be over 600 centimeters, which is a lot more than "several dozen". Also, if a slime mold of mass 30 g had an area of 30 square meters, assuming its density to be at least that of water at 1 g/cm^3, then its average thickness would be 1 micron, or 1/100 the thickness of a human hair. I think the author of the currently referenced source may have found this very paper when they were researching their column and confused area with the mass, hence coming up with "up to 30 square meters".

I'm not sure how exactly to edit this. For example, does the claim that slime molds are "the largest undivided cells known" stem from the 30-sq-m claim, or does it have its own source? Should 30 square meters be changed to "several square meters" and the proceeding part of the sentence be deleted? Could someone else evaluate this and decide how to change it (if indeed it should be changed)? 76.199.199.169 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some very nice sleuthwork. I would think if there really were 30 square meter slime molds it would be easy to find a good source, as it's something extraordinary that many writers would want to report on. So I think your skepticism is well warranted. I'd suggest replacing this dubious claim with figures that can be cited to the source you gave above. You can use <ref>{{cite pmid|1202607}}</ref> to cite the journal (a bot will complete the citation later). I'd also suggest deleting the "largest undivided cell" bit entirely, since it's a matter of semantics exactly what constitutes a single cell – an ostrich egg? An aseptate mycelial colony? It's too vague – better to have nothing than to have something dubious or misleading. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking better than it was in 2007, still needs some clarity

So the explanation that the term 'slime mold' refers to half a dozen different groups of critters is looking good. The article seems to point to the appropriate wikis on these groups although i haven't checked thuroughly, as in 2007 there was a scattered poorly linked mess involving all these different names.

Nevertheless, now that this article points to the various taxonomic groups with some description of them, it seems that we should pull out the sections on life cycle and plasmodia since there are half a dozen different life cycles! Let the reader find that info in the wiki for each group. User:wikiskimmerwikiskimmer (talk) 9 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Overlinking is a problem. Its not necessary to link every single mention of a group or family - in fact each one should only be linked once at the first mention. See WP:LINKS Roger (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Roulingzhi

Does anyone know anything about this Roulingzhi and should it be kept? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat ganoderma. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC))

Pictures, marked as Fuligo and Physarum

These myxomycetes don't look like Fuligo and Physarum at all. Maybe, it would be better to replace them with something less dubious. Stas000D (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I was actually looking here because of a similar message left on gv.wiki... Stas000D, can you expand on this comment? I don't have the technical knowledge to make a call, though the Fuligo one looks to me much like other Fuligo pictures I've found. Can you explain what makes you doubt their identity, and what would be a "less dubious" alternative? I'd also recommend that if you feel there's a mistaken identification, you should raise it on the Commons page. -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I already requested for renaming of these pictures on Commons, and they already renamed them. And then I wrote a message to all Wikipedias where these images are used. Previously the left picture had name "Dog vomit slime mold.jpg" and right one - "Physarum92-300.jpg". Now they have names "Yellow slime mold.jpg" and "Fuligo92-300.jpg" respectively.
What about the left picture - the best images for comparison of immature aethalia of Fuligo (="dog vomit slime mold") are these: Fuligo_septica_bl1.JPG and (close-up) Fuligo septica on dead wood.jpg, Fuligo septica bl2.JPG. Actually yellow Fuligo never has such white mass in the bottom, from which small yellow outgrowths protrude. And these outgrowths of Fuligo are much less spherical and less uniform. So, I'm really sure that specimen on the left picture is not from genus Fuligo and even not from order Physarales. One anonimous commenter suggested that it is Stemonitis (see discussion of the file). I'm not sure about this, but immature Stemonitis really is one of more realistic versions.
What about specimen on the right picture, it's too thick and "heap-like" to be Physarum. Plasmodia of this genus do not form such heaps before sporulation. Fuligo is the most realistic identification.
Actually I'm interested in myxomycetes very much and have some experience with them (including growing them in culture). Recently I undertook sorting of pictures of myxomycetes on Commons, and there was an awful mess. The funniest was a picture of rotten piece of paper, marked as myxomycete:) Categories Fuligo and Fuligo septica have many less dubious pictures. Stas000D (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! I'll get working on that. -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

@Stas000D: If you checked better you'd find the the 2nd was defined as P. Polycephalum by National Human Genome Research Institute. I saw you removed from Italian Wikipedia article, that was a "not good" action because you don't ask fist for this important removal. Be careful hereafter --Frank50 s (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

finally, article states there are many different creatures called slime molds, so:

Now that the article clearly describes the radicaly different creatures that are called slime molds and has good links to good articles on each taxonomic group, the section after the taxonomy box should be eliminated as it only describes the myxogastria with one erroneous addition of ref to dyctostelid. plus the last paragraph in the intro is very ambiguous as to what group it's describing. the intro can say something like: the two main groups for what peope think of as slime molds are the plasmodial slime molds (myxogastria) commonly seen in the woods and lawns, and the cellular slime molds (dyctostelids) which are microscopic and of which there is much research.

if i don't see a response next time i visit, i will attempt the changes myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiskimmer (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Slime Molds are Protists

The article states that "Slime molds were formerly classified as fungi or protists, but are no longer considered part of these kingdoms" These days a protist is usually defined as any eukaryote that isn't a plant, animal or fungi (since Kingdom Protista isn't a monophyletic group). Slime molds are eukaryotic so they must fall into one of these. You might argue that the kingdom protista doesn't exist (and I'd agree with you) but the article is stating that slime molds are not protists not that the term is ambiguous.

By saying they're not protists it sounds like the article is suggesting they're prokaryotes, because that's the only group left for them (they are definitely not).

Yep, and the cited source didn't say they're not protists, so I've removed "or protists". The biggest problem with this article is the confusion and ambiguity caused by "slime mold" referring to different, unrelated organisms. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Colour used in the table

The bright green used as the fill for the second last row of the table is not a good choice, it makes the text hard to read. Please see the guidance at WP:Accessibility#Color, keep in mind that all readers do not have perfect vision. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I presume that was to match the color scheme in the NavBox at the bottom of the page. I tried limiting all the colors to a narrow bar on the left of the table, but that was beyond my wiki-skills. So for now I've just removed the offending green completely. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It thought it was an attempt to copy the colour of 'Fulgio! There are a few links to tools for creating harmonious and accessible colour schemes at WP:COLOR. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

spam

Under references, there is a link that says "gallery of excellent photos" Dont click on it - its not slime mold photos someone should probably remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.23.70 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this really notable and encyclopedic?

"Atsushi Tero of Hokkaido University grew the slime mold Physarum polycephalum in a flat wet dish. ... " --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)