User talk:Sasata

State of Genera lists in family articles

Not including monogeneric families. I'm afraid things leave much to be desired, and I can hardly proceed without reasonably accurate lists of genera-by-family... Circéus (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you migth want to review what we had unearthed while working on Marasmiaceae, as it is relevant to some cases here. Circéus (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we want three crucial things here:

Any given genus is listed for one and one family only (or incertae sedis).
1. The genus article does not conflict with the family one.
We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
The number in family articles is the same as in List of Agaricales genera (noting where the numbers of genera in a family differ from the number in that entry for the Dict.).

Beyond that there are places where practical choices will have to be made, as you noted about Hormographiella. I suspect Entolomataceae might come down to what is simplest for us (e.g. if in some case most species don't have names under Entoloma, as happens with Endoptychum). Circéus (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Crepidotaceae and Chromocyphellaceae need to be added to various places, according to this ... the work keeps piling up ... Sasata (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we should stay with Kirk & al.'s Inocybaceae here, but maybe that's just my instinct. These devellopment are really nothing short of a Fungal equivalent of the APG revolution, but they lack a "central synthesis", with Kirk & al. slow to take up on these changes. Circéus (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I dunno. From the paper: "The present investigation serves to highlight a number of contentious issues relating to recent molecular studies of the Crepidotaceae in particular, and molecular systematics in general: As has been shown before, taxon sampling is of crucial importance, and the addition of various key taxa may have considerable influence on the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, most of the investigations differ widely in their choice of ingroup (and outgroup) taxa, leading to widely different hypotheses of higher-level relationships." So all this work may have to be revised in the future. This sort of stuff is why I find it easier to work on single species, despite my "mission" to fill out the higher-level taxa. Ok, that's enough for me today, I feel like doing something else :) Sasata (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What where Kirk & al. thinking anyway? You can't synonymize Crepidotaceae under Inocybaceae under any rule of the code! Circéus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having thought about it a bit more, how about we keep everything in Crepidotaceae (=? Inocybaceae sensu Kirk & al.) with commentary to the effect the family is known to be polyphyletic, but an final disposition has yet to be agreed on? It's already what we do about Cystodermateae and Endoptychum (at least in List of Agaricaceae genera), for example. Circéus (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I started an article at Amylocorticiales (will be adding more over the next few days). Any opinion on how we should handle the taxonomy of genera within? Give family as incertae sedis, and redirect Amylocorticiaceae to Amylocorticiales? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I read it, it seemed pretty obvious they were better circumscribing Amylocorticiaceae and moving it to a monotypic order. The only genera that could be said to become incertae sedis would be those (if any) that they excluded from Amylocorticiaceae without assigning them a putative family. Circéus (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently Cribbea might be in Physalacriaceae . This is convenient (if correct: I don,t have access to that journal) as it resets Cortinariaceae to the correct number of genera, but it threatens Physalacriaceae with Cribbeaceae. w00t! </sarcasm> Circéus (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What fun would it be if it wasn't a challenge? I don't have access to that journal, but I know who does. I'll ask if I can get it and update the page. Sasata (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got the paper from Cas (very nice paper, BTW), and yes, it's clearly in the Physalacriaceae, pretty close to Oudemansiella. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Bolbitiaceae, I'll start work and add a note on the Agaricales families list about the 17 v. 15 discrepancy. For Entolomataceae, the Wikipedia way is typically "when in doubt, be conservative", so going with six genera and noting the dict. disagreement is a reasonable approach. I'll be waiting on a usable combined list for Inocybaceae and Crepidotaceae at the latter before I start on it. This leaves me with a reasonable buffer to work on.Circéus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having now looked at Co-David & al., I say we go with three genera (Clitop., Entol., Rhodocybella), since they made all the necessary combination (they suspect Rhodocybella to fall in Clitopilus, but keep it separate for now). I've edited the family list accordingly, and will now do the same for the generic list. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which author is being followed for Hygrophoraceae? Not only is the number of genera in the lead not that of the Dict., but we list 11 in the taxobox, which, although the number given in dict., are definitely not those placed there in that work. Circéus (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some investigation here: We have Pseudoarmillariella under Tricholomataceae (including the list of genera), but it seems to belong fairly clearly in Hygrophoraceae. That genus is unplaced in the Dict., which recognizes Cuphophyllus, but that recognition seems unwarranted. If we add Camarophyllus and Gliophorus, but exclude Camarophyllopsis, we get 11 genera: the 10 from Dict. with three extra (Pseudoarm., Camarophyllus, Gl.) and two cut off (Cuph., Camarophyllopsis; the first seems doomed to synonymy, the second belongs somewhere else not yet clear) [1], [2]. I will be working with that. Circéus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Circeus, I'm still with you, just devoting my limited wiki-time to finishing a primate article offline. Will get back into Agaricales once this monkey is off my back (lol). Sasata (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's okay. As it is, it appears the one part where your input will be really needed are the Physalacriaceae, Inocybaceae/Crepidotaceae and Strophariaceae. I'm Probably going to have to expand a ridiculous amount of energy figuring out what's going on with Maccagnia too. Circéus (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family	Genera in lead	Genera in list	Notes
~~Amylocorticiaceae~~	10	8	What do we do of the Amylocorticiales paper? I say we use it. The authors are heavy hitters in fungal molecular phylogenetics, they used a 6-locus dataset & large sample size, so it looks good. I'll update pages soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Done
Bolbitiaceae	17	15	Found Cyphellopus and Galerella. Setchelliogaster may belong here too (says IF & MycoBank; Dict. says either Bolbitiaceae or Cortinariaceae)
Clavariaceae	7	7
Cortinariaceae	12	13^[1]	I confirmed that all 13 genera listed are given by the Dict as being in this family, so .... ? ~~Will make stubs for those redlinks.~~ Done.
Cyphellaceae	16	16
Entolomataceae	4	6^[2]	The Dict prefers to lump Rhodocybe, Rhodocybella, Rhodogaster, Richoniella, and several others not listed here into Entoloma. Many other sources keep them (or combinations thereof) separate. Who do we follow? The correct path to follow, I suspect, will only be revealed with much research ...
Fistulinaceae	3	3
Hydnangiaceae	2 (List) 4 (article)	4	# of genera depends on whether one treats the truffle-like Hydnangium and Podohydnangium as separate or lumped into Laccaria (like the Dict. does). Will investigate further.
Hygrophoraceae	9	11
Inocybaceae	13	10
Lyophyllaceae	8	9	All nine genera listed in the article belong in this family, says Dict. (Lyophyllopsis, however, is listed as "? Lyophyllaceae"
Mycenaceae	10	11	I guess the extra genus is the extinct Protomycena, to which the Dict. does not assign a family. Interestingly, they say the name is invalid. Might be because their way of counting anamorphs is at best murky: they seem not to count Ugola in Lyophyllaceae; do they include Decapitatus in their count for Mycenaceae? Impossible to tell. If they don't, they give ten, but list nine (which becomes 10 with Protomycena).
Niaceae	6	6
Phelloriniaceae	2	2
Physalacriaceae	11	16	*Guyanagaster is new and not accounted for in the Dict don't know about Hormomitaria-Dict says = Physalacria; Fungorum says it's valid; Mycobank says it's in the Marasmiaceae; no recent literature I say we keep it in. It seems to be traditionally treated close to Physalacria, and MB seems to have it in Marasmiaceae because no family monograph of either group has been published since the 80s. I say edge on separate genus in Phys. Dactylosporina: Dict says Marasmiaceae "or perhaps Physalacriaceae"; Fungorum & MycoBank says Marasmiaceae Himantia is anamorphic; not sure about the Dict's accounting for anamorph genera Dict. has Himantia unplaced to anything ("anamorphic Fungi").
Pleurotaceae	6	7 6	Fixed. Resupinatus was in there erroneously.
Pluteaceae	4	4
Psathyrellaceae	12	6 12	Now updated to include 12 genera. I included the anamorphic Hormographiella, don't know if that's "cheating" or not, but it has Coprinopsis teleomorphs, so it clearly belongs in this family.
Pterulaceae	12	12
Schizophyllaceae	2	2
Strophariaceae	18	13	In Matheny et al., 2006, they showed that Galerina, Phaeocollybia, Psilocybe (bluing ones), Anamika, Hebeloma, Alnicola, and Flammula cluster in a branch that is sister to the Stropharicaceae sensu strico. However, no formal familial change was made, and the Dict. classification does not follow this phylogeny (and they do state explicitly that they have taken into account the molecular results from that 2006 issue of Mycologia where several higher-level phylogenetics papers were published.) How to approach this on Wikipedia? About a year ago someone from the Matheny lab changed the families for these genera to Hymenogastraceae; I changed some of them back, because I wasn't convinced in some cases (i.e., the type species wasn't used in the analysis). Are we in limbo until the next phylogenetics paper comes out? I think following either is fine. Looks like an editorial, not formal scientific choice on the part of Kirk & al., and either choice is phylogenetically valid, plus the study actually says (probably accounting for Kirk & al.'s approach): "Indeed Bayesian analyses [...] significantly support [...] the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae."
Tapinellaceae	2	3	All three genera listed seem valid, and are given by the Dict itself as belonging in this family.
Typhulaceae	6	6

^
Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
- Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
^ With two unlinked

Reached maximum completion

So I've just finished adding all I could, except for Physalacriaceae, Strophariaceae (incl. Hemigasteraceae) and Crepidotaceae (incl. Inocybaceae), for which (as said above) I'm reliant on you to establish lists of genera we are reasonably happy with. If Crepidotaceae ends up above 20 genera or so, I'll make it a separate list. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of your Russulales idea, I'd make it a combined list for families and Genera, or at least consider it as a possibility. However, I notice the article clearly states Clavicorona ought to be in the Agaricales, but I can't find a family placement for it (except MycoBank, in the Tricholomataceae, but I don't trust it all that much). Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shake your manly hand

Wow. What a cool remark to make. I totally respect you as a writer and as a scientist by the way (I googled your publications when you sent me an email with your name). I like to rip tits a little, cause that is...how I am. I just am used to that sort of interaction in science and the military. Just makes things more fun.

I remember that remark you made to TTT saying you could be motivated by stickers. What I really like about it, was that you were honest about something where others deny it. BTW, I would hope we could make things POSITIVE, not just negative (iow, not "stop doing low hit count", but "start doing high hit count"). Of course it comes to the same thing if you think about time usage just being shifted. But I just like the mindset more of encouraging people, rather than demeaning them (I may want to tease the Somerset Cricket club guy though).

In terms of your point on display...I think a display at FA, like in a table at the top, showing the articles and their hit counts would be a nice graphic that might influence behavior. Sandy is so set in her ways though...and so concentrated on firefighting and working harder like Boxer...rather than thinking about strategy...she would probably not go for it. That said, there are easy ways to do things ad hoc without needing to go through consensus and all. Like a self made ladder board. Or even just ad hoc set of barnstar. "you promoted a 10,000 view per month article".

Again...thanks...I was expecting some discipline when I saw the orange...and instead it was a very kind comment.

Keep up the great work you do on/off Wiki!

71.246.147.40 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.

[2] Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.

[2] With two unlinked

[1]

[2]