Talk:Armillaria luteobubalina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Armillaria luteobubalina is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 29, 2012.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 2, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
July 29, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Australia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Armillaria luteobubalina is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Fungi (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armillaria luteobubalina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Lead could be a bit longer
    • Perhaps some taxonomy and phylogenetics can be added.
  • Now fattened. Sasata (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you really need those three very short subsections under "Description"? Perhaps eliminate the subheaders.
    • Better now, but I still don't think you need two subsections for a three-paragraph section.
  • Working on it. I plan to soon expand both "microscopic characteristics" and "similar species" so they won't be so short. It'll have to wait for a library visit this weekend though. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps better place phylogeny with history, as you did with A. gallica.
    • Why not make it one section?
  • Shouldn't the lead mention the South American occurrence?
  • Coetzee et al. (2003) say its distribution may be Gondwanan in origin. Why not mention that?

More to follow. Ucucha 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review pickup! I will work on these later tonight or tomorrow. This one will probably be headed to FAC sometime, so don't hold back :) Sasata (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I had thought so. I'll add some more comments over the next few days; no problem if you don't get to it right now. Ucucha 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "suggested primary attack"—what is primary attack?
  • Clarified. Sasata (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Most Australian records referred to A. mellea, based on the presence of black rhizomorphs."—missing a word, and most Aus records of what?
  • gloss pleiomorphic, umbo
  • What does the bubalina part of the name mean?
  • "sinuate"—either link to wiktionary or explain, I think. It means it has the form of a sinusoid curve, I guess?
  • Yes; wikt'd. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't you mention the two other Armillaria from Australia under "Similar species"?
  • Perhaps mention explicitly that the Karri and Jarrah forests are in WA.
  • "Those of the Karri forests (comprised largely of the species E. diversicolor) of the southwest have paler and yellower caps than those in the Jarrah forests (which contain predominantly Eucalyptus marginata) further north." - isn't this already explicit (bolded for emphasis)? Sasata (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry for the oversight.
  • Why is Armillaria not italicized in "Armillaria root rot"?
  • Most sources actually don't italicize it for whatever reason, but some of the more important ones (like this) do, so I followed suit. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "One study showed that above ground examinations detected only 50% of the trees actually infected, leading to underestimation of true infection by 20–40%."—how does that work? Is the 20–40% an absolute percentage (the percentage of infection among all trees is 20–40% higher than expected based on above-ground examination)?
  • Yes, its an absolute percentage. I'm having difficulty rewording the sentence because it makes sense to me as it's written... please feel free to tweak as you see fit. Sasata (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Does the paragraph about the aeration system perhaps better fit under "Description"?
  • I'm thinking that the aeration system is an essential aspect of its pathogenicity, so it's better placed where it is. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The other argument is that this is part of its anatomy. Ultimately, virtually every part of an organism's anatomy has some function, but if you describe form and function (anatomy and pathogenecity, respectively, here) separately, it makes sense to put all aspects of form under form. But I can also see your argument and have no real problem with keeping it the way it is. Ucucha 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Images and sources all look good.
  • I'll probably add another image, but the the pickings are slim for this particular mushroom. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The rhizomorph image is apparently not A. luteobubalina, since it was taken in Germany. Shouldn't you say that explicitly? Ucucha 11:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few hits in Web of Knowledge—have you checked them? These are some of the recent potentially interesting ones.

  • I have checked abstracts for most of these. Unfortunately, my library does not subscribe to most of the Australian forestry-type journals, so I will have to order them prior to any FAC attempt. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Title: Forest health surveillance in Western Australia: a summary of major activities from 1997 to 2006
Author(s): Robinson, R
Source: AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY Volume: 71 Issue: 3 Pages: 202-211 Published: 2008
This is available as print holding only - I will take a look on friday d'oh! it was online - got it now..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Title: Forest health condition in New South Wales, Australia, 1996-2005. II. Fungal damage recorded in eucalypt plantations during forest health surveys and their management
Author(s): Carnegie, AJ
Source: AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Pages: 225-239 Published: 2007
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Title: Eucalypt decline in Australia, and a general concept of tree decline and dieback
Author(s): Jurskis, V
Source: FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Volume: 215 Issue: 1-3 Pages: 1-20 Published: AUG 25 2005
  • This one doesn't add anything more to what's already in the article. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Title: Rhizomorph growth habit, saprophytic ability and virulence of 15 Armillaria species
Author(s): Morrison, DJ
Source: FOREST PATHOLOGY Volume: 34 Issue: 1 Pages: 15-26 Published: FEB 2004
  • Bifurcating rhizomorphs = greater virulence. Now included. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Title: Short-term impact of thinning and fertilizer application on Armillaria root disease in regrowth karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor F. Muell.) in Western Australia
Author(s): Robinson, RM
Source: FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Volume: 176 Issue: 1-3 Pages: 417-426 Published: MAR 17 2003
Title: Sequence variation in the rDNA ITS of Australian Armillaria species and intra-specific variation in A-luteobubalina
Author(s): Dunne, CP; Glen, M; Tommerup, IC, et al.
Source: AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY Volume: 31 Issue: 3 Pages: 241-251 Published: 2002
  • Four distinct polymorphic groups within luteobubalina.
  • Added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Title: Molecular detection and differentiation of Australian Armillaria species
Author(s): Smith-White, JL; Summerell, BA; Gunn, LV, et al.
Source: AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY Volume: 31 Issue: 1 Pages: 75-79 Published: 2002
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Title: Fumigation of regrowth karri stumps with metham-sodium to control Armillaria luteobubalina.
Author(s): Robinson, R. M.; Smith, R. H.
Source: Australian Forestry Volume: 64 Issue: 4 Pages: 209-215 Published: 2001\
Title: Variations in structure of aerial and submerged rhizomorphs of Armillaria luteobubalina indicate that they may be organs of absorption
Author(s): Pareek, M; Cole, L; Ashford, AE
Source: MYCOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume: 105 Pages: 1377-1387 Part: 11 Published: NOV 2001
  • Yeah, this one is good. I'll think more about what you said about the placement of the rhizomorph info before FAC; it looks like I could expand this info further and make it a subsection, or maybe even a section. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 11:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the further fixes. There are a few unresolved issues above that I think should be fixed for this to become an FA, but that don't have a bearing on the GA criteria, so I'm passing GA. I don't have access to Australasian Forestry or Plant Pathology either: perhaps Casliber can help? Ucucha 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Ucucha, I'll make sure those issues get dealt with before FAC. Yes, Casliber (or Hesperian) will probably be able to help. Sasata (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I should be able to get Aust. Plant Pathology in the next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! I will check the literature again to see if there's anything missing from the list here. I'll work on a distribution map as well. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Right! Finally sorted access out. So have begun reviewing what I can get and adding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Friday turned pear-shaped and I couldn't get to the library to check the one last tiny ref. I was intending to add about A. mellea being considered a cosmopolitan species until revision (as a beginning statement to clarify why we discuss splitting all the species in Europe and Nth America), and suspect Watling 1982 is the best source for that, but I don't have access to the full article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I do—what's the full citation? Ucucha 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Watling, R., G.A. Kile and N.M. Gregory. 1982. The genus Armillaria - Nomenclature, Typification, the identity of Armillaria mellea and species differentiation. Trans. British Mycol. Soc. 78:271-285. - I'd love a copy :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, can't access it either. Ucucha 11:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have that at my library, but am not sure when I can get there. Will add to the growing "to get" list. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The one I go to says it has it but does not list years, so will check next week (Tuesday possibly). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I tweaked the wording a bit. Assuming that paper is going to say with we think it says, I think we can append a statement like "; this realization was paralleled with Australasian "A. mellea". " onto the end of the first paragraph to tie everything together. I'll look around in the meantime and see if there's another source to corroborate that. Sasata (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do feel it would benefit from a one line at the beginning of taxo discussion on mellea as being thought of as a single cosmopolitan species, which it sort-of does now -we just need a ref which states that (which I think Watling will)..Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I do have a good source for that. Now reffed, feel free to reshuffle. Sasata (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic - I just started browsing, could see hints but lacked the right page.... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the Watling article - 16 pages on the confusion around the genus and the species...dry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing bibliography alphabetically[edit]

Alphabetically is much better. --Macondo (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)