Jump to content

User talk:Sasata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5e ext2013 (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 24 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Reminders to myself

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:

  1. 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.
  2. We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
  3. 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]
  • 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]
  • 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
  1. ^ Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
    • Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
  2. ^ 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]

Pinniped

I plan on working on pinniped for FAC this summer. Would that interest you? I would need help with prose and lit review (I have three secondary sources). LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that topic deserves a quality article. I probably won't start working on it until mid or late June, though. BTW, Amazon tells me that the Koala book won't arrive until May 31, but if everything goes smoothly, we should be able to put it up for FAC about a week after it gets here. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we could up with a gameplan soon? LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the simplest course of action would be to get a stack of secondary sources and start expanding. Once it has grown (I'm thinking the final article will be about 7500 words when done), we can start looking through the literature databases and add recent articles where appropriate. I checked my University library catalog, and have access to these books that look like they'll be useful:
  • Bruemmer, Fred (1998). Seals in the Wild ISBN 9781571456229
  • Berta, Annalisa (2012). Return to the sea : the life and evolutionary times of marine mammals ISBN 9780520270572
  • Monks, Gregory (2002). The exploitation and cultural importance of sea mammals ISBN 1842171267
  • Riedman, Marianne (1990). The pinnipeds : seals, sea lions, and walruses ISBN 0520064976
  • King, Judith E (1983). Seals of the world ISBN 0198585136
... and various other minor sources that could have useful tidbits. Will start working on the article in earnest in July, with the plan of GAN sometime in mid-August, and FAC nomination shortly after it gets promoted (would like to have the article close to FAC-quality for its GAN). We'll keep the referencing formatting the same as what we're doing for Koala, if that's okay by you. Does that sound like a reasonable plan? I'll finish up the koala additions in the next few days. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the rollback. Your talk page is on my watchlist, I must have clicked by accident. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. I own Reidman's book as well as Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals and The encyclopedia of mammals which have a wealth of information on the animals. My biggest problem is getting enough peer reviewed articles as sources.
As for the structure of the article I propose this:
  • Taxonomy (discussing the different families plus an "Evolutionary history" subsection)
  • Anatomy and physiology
  • Distribution and habitat
  • Behavior and Lifecyle (reproduction, diet, communication ect)
  • Human relations (conservation, culture ect)
We'll also have to decide on what type of English it should be written in. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you like to go about the article. Should we both work on one section at a time or pick different sections to do? LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong preferences. Just start adding stuff and I'll join soon. Let's also try to get everything that's already in there sourced. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll start this coming week. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll build a section through my sandbox and when finished add it to the article. Then you can look it over and copyedit, expand, ect. Sound good? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that'll work. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think we should keep the current "Pulmonary surfactant" section? It seems pretty technical and I don't know if the editor did any copying of the sources are close paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it in for now; I have access to the sources, and will work it over and make it more reader-friendly (I did my graduate research on a similar topic). Sasata (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would the circulatory system and thermoregulation fit in the some category? It doesn't mention those. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably have a section titled "Physiology" (or similar) where we could fit this, as well as the current sections "Thermoregulation" and "Pulmonary surfactant". Sasata (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I intended to name the whole section, "Anatomy and physiology". I'll deal with circulation and thermoregulation when you're done with the surfactant sections (unless you what to tackle them). For now, I'm moving on. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think discussion of diving should be part of physiology or behavior? LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... mostly under behavior, but probably a few sentences (similar to what's there currently) will be needed in physiology. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you gonna expand the conservation section? I think so topics we can cover under Conservation should include seal hunting in Canada, the decline of the Steller sea lion, conflicts with California sea lions and the extinction of the Caribbean monk seal and Japanese sea lion. I plan an having it be a subsection of a "Human relations" section. Also, I won't be able to purchase The exploitation and cultural importance of sea mammals. Money is tight. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll expand the conservation section; I haven't had time recently to get to the library for those books I listed above. Sasata (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when you have free time again, we can dive (pun) into the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When will you have the time again? LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soon! Sasata (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to create a collage for the lead image? LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can do that. Sasata (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I would suggest using these images: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. They don't have to be right next to each other but have lines between them, like this. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also create a range map? LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit trickier for me but I think I could do it. Did you have a source in mind? Sasata (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section on pinnipeds in MacDonald's The Encyclopedia of Mammals has a range map on the first page. I've also been looking at pinniped range maps on the IUCN and focusing on the most extensive range. LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can worry about the range map and collage later. For now, I'll need you to fix up the surfactant section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Schaffer belongs to the bibliography since he's only being used once. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already used twice. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added all I can for now. I'll let you work your magic. LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When do you plan on getting this to GAN? LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friday evening! Sasata (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, the main things we need now are a sub-section on diving physiology (discussing the respiratory and circulatory systems) which should replace "Pulmonary surfactant" and one on thermoregulation. Do you think play behavior should also be mentioned? LittleJerry (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand the lead? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'll be spending the day at the library tomorrow and so should be able to finish up the loose ends above. If everything goes ok we should be able to put it up for GAN shortly after. Sasata (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also check on the "Sleep" section (CE and spotcheck sources) and tidy up the 5th paragraph of the "Conservation and management issues" (so its not so California sea lion-centric, do your sources discuss general conflicts between seals and fisherman/docks?) Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I'll be going through the entire article again tonight for another c/e (and to build the lead), but will pay particular attention to these sections. Sasata (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and don't forget to spotcheck cites 58–61. Good luck! LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I'll nominate it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there's anything wrong with the timelines in the evolution section? LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer this. It may be a problem for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the issue is? That the presentation is not completely chronological? Sasata (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Puijila is stated to live in the early Miocene while Enaliarctos is stated to live in Oligocene/early Miocene. Also the split between phocids and otariids seems to have occurred earlier. Does that ruin the chronology? LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could take a look at the article. I was referred to the "Methods Summary" section. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, shouldn't be a problem since transitional is not the some an ancestral. LittleJerry (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when Casliber is finished, do you think the article is ready for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I think it is looking pretty polished - I read through it a few times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I was at the library last time I was comparing the article with the coverage given in texts, and I think we've done a pretty good job at not "neglecting major facts or details and placing them in context", and I think the prose is pretty decent (although there will always be additional tweaks to make). I think we'll be able to handle anything that comes our way at FAC ... so, yes! Sasata (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done! LittleJerry (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please fix the remaining duplinks? LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take care of the remaining task? LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you finish the last three four? LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will take a couple of hours to deal with RL first. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new book mention that other government followed the Canadian in regulating seal hunts? This is just an case C62 asks "what about other governments?" LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another success! Thanks again for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that worked out well! Hit me up if you want to do a similar mammal collaboration next year. Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boletales systematics

I need some help making some phylogenetic trees for the Boletales, and Boletineae. I know what I am doing, and I know the group but I can't code wikipedia worth a damn. What needs to be done is the combination of the trees that appear in Binder and Hibbett 2006 and the Amylocorticiales paper. There is a bit of an issue there though with the taxonomy not being up to date with the trees. The 2006 paper puts more into the suborder coniophorineae than the 2010 Amylocorticiales. So here is a description of it: Most derived Boletaceae and sister Paxillaceae (most derived as in furthest from root). Sister to both of those, Hydnomerulius. That is the Boletineae. Sister to the Boletineae, Scerodermatineae. Sister to all of that, the Suillineae. Now that is a clade, and sister to that is a clade that contains the Coniophorineae (but not the original description). This coniophorineae would be coniophora as sister to a clade of Hygrophoropsis & Leucogyrophana. Sister to all of that, a clade of Serpula and austropaxillus. This is the Serpulaceae and why the original description of coniophorineae cannot stand (it included serpula). Sister to all of that is the Tapinellineae, with Bondarceomyces branching off first and then a clade of Tapinella and Pseudomerulius.

That is the Boletales. The sister of the Boletales is the Atheliales. I don't know as much about that group, but it does look like the Fibulorhizoctinia branching first and sister to Athelia and Piloderma.

I just cannot make a damn tree on here to show you, so I will have to do my best with using numbers to indicate nodes away from root, which I will list as node 0. The = signs indicate the node the name connected to the = sign should be applied to. 

                                 /--------Boletaceae
                                7
                               / \
                   Boletineae=6   \-------Paxillaceae
                             / \
                            /   \
                           5     \
                          / \     \--Hydnomerulius pinastri
                         /   \
                        4     \---Sclerodermatineae
                       / \ 
                      /   \---Suillineae
                     /
                    3
                   / \
                  /   \
                 /     \     /----Hygrophoropsis
                /       \   5
               /         \ / \----Leucogyrophana
              /           4=Coniophorineae
             2             \---Coniophora
            / \
           |   \ /---Austropaxillus
           |    3=Serpulaceae
           |     \---Serpula  /-----Pseudomerulius
 Boletales=1                 3
           |\               / \-----Tapinella
           | \-------------2=Tapinellineae
           |                \-------Bondarceomyces
          /                                  
    ------0                    /----Athelia                
           \                  2
            |                / \----Piloderma
             \----Atheliales=1
                              \--fibulorhizoctinia

I don't want to put my email on here, but I think Satasa can figure out where to find it. As I said, I just released a bunch of sequences on genbank and just had a paper accepted as lead author. Anyway, feel free to email me, which is a much better way of contacting me than through here. I am trying to update the pages on as many of the Boletineae and general Boletales as possible, but there are also just a lot of damn pages to make. Obfuscateme (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a simplified cladogram based on Hibbett et al. 2006 to get us started. I'd be happy to convert your cladogram from Nuhn et al (2013) into Wiki format too; the red links will allow us to easily see what new articles have to be made. Give me a day. Sasata (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogeny of the Boletales based on Binder and Hibbett 2006
It's Nuhn et al, 2013. Anyway, the 2006 is pretty out of date on the relationships. Course, we we still have a long way to go. I'll see what I can do updating the Boletineae and Boletales member pages. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw you changed Durianella back to being a member of the Boletaceae. I don't disagree with you, but your source figure (Supplemental Figure 1) is not readable by me. I tried downloading the manuscript PDF (not in there), viewing the figure in workspace (font size too small to read the species), downloading the full-size image (ditto), and downloading as a PPt slide (even worse). Is there any chance you might be able to email this to me in a form where I could read the species? I may end up making a cladogram for this too, as it would be good to have articles for all of these boletineae. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as everything is settled with the journal I'll email you a copy. I hope that the final version doesn't have these image issues.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Sasata (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boletineae
Boletaceae
   A   
   B   

Pseudoboletus parasiticus*

Hydnomerulius pinastri* (resupinate)

Boletinellus merulioides*

Phylogenetic relationships of the Boletineae (three-gene extended analysis inferred from nuc-lsu, tef1, and RPB1). "Nodes indicated by A and B indicate the most inclusive and second most inclusive clades that lack a formal taxonomic rank, respectively." From Nuhn et al. 2013.

"*" = type species of genus
(sec) = secotioid fruit body
(gas) = gasteroid fruit body

Looks good, I have fixed H. pinastri from gasteroid to resupinte. I should point out we returned X. stramineum to Boletus and moved Gastroboletus subalpinus and Notholepiota areolata to Boletus, now B. subalpinus and B. semigastroideus. I left them as is in the figure so they are easier for the reader to find their placement.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll move those new Boletus species to their updated names soon. Casliber and I are slowing chipping away the redlinks... why isn't Xerocomus perplexus in IF/MycoBank?? Perplexing ... Sasata (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is Xerocomellus zelleri the current (undisputed?) name for the species formerly known as Boletus zelleri? MycoBank has Xerocomus, IF has Xerocomellus, and from this cladogram it doesn't seem like the two are clearly separated ... I've been thinking about working on this article for an FA push and it would be good to know the correct name! Do you have access to Öst. Z. Pilzk. 20: 39 (2011)? Sasata (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it depends on your view on "undistputed." No one is forced to use the most up-to-date names. But you are misinterpreting the clades. X. zellerii is not closely related to Xerocomus subtomentosus at all, so at least using current knowledge, it should not be considered a Boletus or a Xerocomus. It doesn't matter that the clade that contains Xerocomellus also contains some Xerocomus species, because it doesn't contain the type of Xerocomus, X. subtomentosus. I might have that paper, I have yet to go through all of the hard copies I have been giving.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tylopilus intermedius

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus rhoadsiae

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus peralbidus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pulveroboletus ravenelii

The article Pulveroboletus ravenelii you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pulveroboletus ravenelii for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bothia

The article Bothia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bothia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita peer review

I just listed Cucurbita at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita#Chemical_constituents? I'd greatly appreciate it. I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to put up some comments in the next couple of days. Sasata (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some additions the last couple of days. HalfGig (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HalfGig, I haven't forgotten about this, but am on vacation until the middle of next week and am rationing my Wiki time until then. Sasata (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Boletus subluridellus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletus subluridellus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Clitocybe albirhiza

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Floccularia albolanaripes

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geopora cooperi

Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hygrophorus goetzii

Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hygrophorus marzuolus

Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hygrophorus purpurascens

Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lentinellus montanus

Gatoclass (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ramaria magnipes

Gatoclass (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tricholoma vernaticum

Gatoclass (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Snowbank fungus

Gatoclass (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mycenastrum

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Boletus subluridellus

The article Boletus subluridellus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boletus subluridellus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Brownlee

Hi Sasata,

I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Clark Thomas Rogerson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pacific Theater
Nivatogastrium nubigenum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sierra Nevadas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

Hi. Please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit sections of interest.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nivatogastrium nubigenum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nivatogastrium nubigenum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Malaria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Malaria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Onygena equina

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Ghost of Sparta FAC

Hi, if you have some time, would you care to do a source review for the aforementioned article? I've also messaged another editor, so if they get to it before you, then no worries. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor I contacted has taken care of this. --JDC808 ♫ 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nivatogastrium nubigenum

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nivatogastrium nubigenum

The article Nivatogastrium nubigenum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nivatogastrium nubigenum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fungal articles

Hi Sasata. Great article on Onygena equina. Unfortunately I had assigned this as a topic to one of my students! I wonder if you could take a look at the list of articles I've assigned in this session and let me know if there are any others that conflict with your plans. Also, I'd be very interested if you would like to add yourself as an editor to any of the topics I've assigned that interest you. Medmyco (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in my last reply to you, I already had a half-written draft for O. equina that I didn't want to go to waste. I checked out the topic list, and there are no others on there that I was planning to write about, so you don't have to worry! I'm not quite sure what you mean by adding myself as an editor (I mostly write about fungi with macroscopic fruiting bodies, particularly the Agaricomycetes), but I'd be quite happy to review any fungus articles that might appear at wp:Peer review or WP:GAN; alternatively, feel free to have your students ask me for an informal review if you think that would help them improve their work. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I had missed your previous reply. Thanks for the suggestions. Medmyco (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Seal of approval
Congratulations on making Pinnipedia a certified Featured Article! Your impressive work has paid off, and I'm glad to see the article on such an important group of mammals make it all the way to the top. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Quadell, your in-depth reviews for this and cabbage were much appreciated. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pinniped and Cabbage to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,335 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hydrus/GA1

ping....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, I'm at the airport in San Francisco now, I'll do a lit check and spotcheck of sources tonight when I get home, then it should be good to go. Sasata (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for taking up the amphetamine review, it sorely needed a reviewer. LT910001 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Malaria

The article Malaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Malaria for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Malaria (estimated annual readership: 1,927,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Malaria to Good Article status.

This is what, your third one of these? Keep up the great work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Khazar, hopefully there'll be more like this! Sasata (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so too! Medical topics are far enough out of my purview that I can't really help with reviews, but if there's ever another way I can pitch in on one of this scale, just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I wanted to show you my appreciation for reviewing the article I put up for GA, so I'm giving you this kitten. :)

PS: Hope you're not allergic to cats.

Seppi333 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daedaleopsis confragosa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sessility and Sapwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russula densifolia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russula densifolia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mycenastrum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum

The article Mycenastrum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mycenastrum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mycenastrum

The article Mycenastrum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mycenastrum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russula densifolia

The article Russula densifolia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russula densifolia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Daedaleopsis confragosa

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ligusticum scoticum

Hi Sasata,

Thanks for reviewing my DYK entry for Ligusticum scoticum, and for adding "(pictured)" – something I frequently forget. One (very) minor point – do you realise that {{convert}} already changes a hyphen given as a parameter into an en-dash on output? Changing the hyphens within the template to dashes therefore has no effect on the visible text. I just thought it might save you some time in future. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis; no, I did not know that! This will help me from wasting valuable microseconds in the future :) Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Armillaria mellea

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chyrid

I hope that the revisions to the section are to your satisfaction. I expressed that the article from 1939 was just to illustrate the excitement, that it was one example and used another source that say other doctors have been using these frogs since 1933. That article is entirely dedicated to this frog as the sole cause of the spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5e ext2013 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still original research. The Slate article does not mention the 1939 article, and I cannot find where in that article it supports the statement "the excitement amongst the scientific community created by this new discovery." I also cannot find the original Nature article upon which this Slate article is based. Do you have a reference? Sasata (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your job to give me a hard time?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sasata&oldid=578580539"