|Caloboletus calopus 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.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 25, 2015.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|WikiProject Fungi||(Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)|
IS it edible ? Robin48gx 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- According to the article, it's not edible. Last sentence of the opening paragraph. BigBen212 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- www.google.com sez:
- http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5489e/y5489e06.htm "Edible in the Russian far east (Vasil’eva, 1978); said to be poisonous in Slovenia (www.matkurja.com) and by other field guides."
- http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8046/edible.html "Devil's Boletus (Boletus Satanas) causes unpleasant syptoms even when taken in small amounts. Similar poisoning is caused by the Bitter Bolete (Tylopilus Felleus), Peppery Bolete (Chalciporus Piperatus) and Boletus Calopus all of which have an unpleasant peppery or bitter taste."
- http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/Mycology/Animal_Interactions/Toxins/tableToxicFungi.html says "P", or "Poisonous (usually non-lethal, symptoms severe)"
- Has anyone expired from ingesting B. calopus? Is it humanly possible to get past the taste to actually eat enough to kill you? mdf 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Depends what you term edible. I guess the taste renders it inedible and/or mildly poisonous. Also there is the problem of regional variation and whether fungi far apart are in fact different species (as is suspected with this one). Sounds interesting to follow up on though.Cas Liber 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just looked up the refs, some interesting reading there. I note that the author Vasil'eva notes a few other species as edible that others regard as poisonous or inedible. Cas Liber 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Boletus calopus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Links to common name and something about scientific description may help clarify the technical way you're using the terms
- Why use stipe rather than stem, when you use cap instead of pileus? (You also use "stalk" further down- potentially confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject.)
- I'm not keen on interwiki links in the main article. You're also quoting the German name as a word, and so it should be italicised.
- I wonder whether the taxonomy section would be better off in chronological order?
- Morphology of ruforubraporus? (I'm less concerned about the form...)
- "and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour but this species has red pores". As the subject of the clause is the cap, how about something like "and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour, but sports red pores"?
- "B. chrysenteron" Is this an outdated binomial? It's currently a redirect
- "It grows on chalky ground from July to December, in Northern Europe, and North America's Pacific Northwest and Michigan, though the latter appears to be a different subspecies if not a separate species." Odd sentence- the latter what?
- Are any of the chemicals interesting or useful at all? Any potential applications?
Some other bits I picked up on but which I wouldn't push for GAC:
- Missing page number in the Phillips source (and an ISBN would be good for consistency). Same for Carluccio- no page range. No accessdate for the British Mycological Society source.
- The "Macrofungus resources and their utilization" source is a bit odd. What is it? A book? A journal article?
- Most sources are "Smith, J.", but you have some "Smith, John", some "John Smith" (I think- they're Chinese names) and some "Smith J". Consistency would be nice!
- The distribution focuses a lot on precisely where in the US, while just saying "Northern Europe".
- alot of European mushroom books are incredibly vague and often omit even general geographic information on distribution. I might have to visit a library for that and even then might not be able to pinpoint anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Images and sources look great. Article's on the shorter side, but seems to cover all the bases- the only thing it may be accused of lacking is any microscopic details beyond the spores, while your mention of B. panniformis does have some. If there aren't the sources, then there aren't the sources; I certainly wouldn't hold back GA status on those grounds. I suspect there is more to be said about the chemistry, too- a Google Scholar search is pulling up a lot of (to my eyes!) dull-looking papers on chemical extracts. I doubt any are super-important, but if you're looking for further expansion, there may well be more out there. A couple of other bits of potential interest:
- This paper may also have some more similar species.
- This paper, according to a Google Scholar quote (...reported the isolation and structural elucidation of two highly functionalized sesquiterpenoids from a Korean collection of Boletus calopus. On the basis of mainly NMR evidence, the authors...), mentions in passing that it has been found in Korea.
- Made a couple of small tweaks- it's looking very strong. I'm guessing that there's probably a little more expansion to be done before FAC (despite the already very long list of references!) based on the very large number of hits on Google Scholar. Regardless, I'm happy to promote. Great work! (Also, I think this is my 200th GA review- an apt topic!) J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- thanks - I think we were feeling a little bit at a plateau with this and your comments gave us an idea of what to do next, so good all round. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Caloboletus calopus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302235323/http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf to http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.