Talk:Hygrocybe

Don't believe everything you read on Index Fungorum!

Index Fungorum is not always an up-to-date or accurate source, as its editor will be the first to admit. Hygrocybe is not in the Tricholomataceae, and any statement to that effect in Index Fungorum is inaccurate. I'll provide some references in upcoming edits. Peter G Werner 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad there's at least one of us expert in these things. I bought A.M. Young's book on Australian Hygrophoraceae which has an interesting take on this. cheers Cas Liber 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I haven't seen that one yet, but its a very recent publication, and the work done by the CSIRO folks is typically top-notch. If anything I've written contradicts Young's book, I'd defer to his expertise. Peter G Werner 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll type it up sometime - he's got a great way of understanding clades and issues with Linnaean taxonomy and isn't afraid to describe a few different interpretations. It's a great book - amazing to see that native Australian hygrocybes are every bit as colourful as the northern ones. Will ask for a few pix. Also check out the image gallery on [[1]] cheers Cas Liber 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cheers Cas Liber 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fact that Hygrocybe is not in the Tricholomataceae, only a point of view (depending on the system of classification). If the family Hygrophoraceae is not recognized, the Hygrocybe mushrooms probably go into Tricholomataceae, and this was the line taken in Ainsworth & Bisby's dictionary of the fungi (2001), which is a highly used and respected reference. I think this is why Index Fungorum refers to Tricholomataceae.

I do not have access to the book, but it is possible to see the classification system through several web sites which reference it, including Taxonomicon and this page of Michael Kuo. Taxonomicon is very good because it allows the following three systems of classification to be compared:

Kirk et al. (2001) Ainsworth & Bisby's Dictionary of the Fungi, 9th Edition (Classification)
Shaffer (1982) Hymenomycetes (Classification)
Systema Naturae 2000 (Classification)

I think Wikipedia needs to support all three classification schemes! Perhaps Ainsworth & Bisby is the one which will win out, and in future years you will have to stop referring to family Hygrophoraceae, if you don't want to seem old-fashioned.

Michael Kuo's page is also very good because at the top of it he explains our main problem - that the names are changing rapidly and those used in the latest research are not very helpful to ordinary mushroom enthusiasts (also not to ordinary Wikipedia users, I think).

This is an extremely difficult issue for Wikipedia in my view, and the answer is not to delete all text referring to other than your preferred classification system :-), but rather to cover all recent classifications. I suppose that each entry for a taxon should include a discussion of how that taxon is used (or is not recognized) in different systems. So the entry for Tricholomataceae should mention that the Hygrophoraceae genera can be included in it, and similarly the Hygrophoraceae entry should mention that the family is not always recognized and may be assigned to Tricholomataceae.

Strobilomyces 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of competing classification schemes – the information you're basing your changes on is highly dated and does not reflect the current scientific consensus. For starters, the Tricholomataceae has for many decades now been regarded as a polyphyletic "wastebasket taxon" (see Michael Kuo's comments on the Tricholomataceae here); the name really only properly applies to Tricholoma and its immediate relatives. The Hygrophoraceae now is more or less a synonym for the Hygrophoroid/Omphalinoid Group. This clade will probably be the basis for a newly expanded definition of the Hygrophoraceae. I guarantee you, however, that whatever classification scheme "wins out", its not going to be dumping all white-spored genera in Tricholomataceae, which is universally regarded as having no basis in the evolutionary biology of agarics. As for "names changing rapidly", classification of the waxy caps in the Hygrophoraceae is actually quite old, is the classification used in all mushroom field guides, and is supported by current molecular phylogeny. And you want to change this, based on what? Peter G Werner 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mycologist Tony Young has written a monograph on Australian Hygrophoraceae where he goes into detail on this point; there were 3 authors in the mid 80s who gave 3 alternate classifications:

Largent (1985), who has all genera as sections of single genus Hygrophorus in Hygrophoraceae
Singer (1986), who has 2 tribes, Hygrophoreae and Hygrocybeae with 7 genera (I can list these) in Hygrophoraceae
Arnolds (1986),who has 2 tribes, Hygrophoreae and Hygrocybeae with 3 genera (I can list these) in Tricholomataceae

Young notes that the classification of taxa is essentially the same in all 3 groups but that the levels are different.

Earlier on p1 of the introduction Young writes that Bas (1990) has synonymised the family with Tricholomataceae but that this is invalid as the latter has not been nomenclaturally conserved against Hygrophoraceae yet. Niether Horak (1990) nor Hansen & Knudsen (1992) follow Bas, thoguh Arnolds (1997) indicated Hygrophorus and Hygrocybe are probably not closely related.

Young notes that the Moncalvo (2002) analysis shows Hygrophoraceae to be polyphyletci, Tricholomataceae is even more so and will probably be split, so that adding the former to the latter will compound the problem. He adds that there is evidence of a valid cluster of taxa within the traditional genera Hygrophorus, Hygrocybe, Humidicutis and Cuphophyllus - he conlcudes the possibility of Hygrophoraceae as being discarded is remote, though it may be rearranged a bit and lose a few members (Camarophyllopsis was not looked at in the Moncalvo study)

Anyway, there we go. Time to have another look at Moncalvo.

I was going to add something like what I have just wirtten on the page. cheers Cas Liber 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, that means that according to Arnolds (1986) classification, the entire Hygrophoraceae was sunk into Tricholomataceae. That's something that should be noted on the page Hygrophoraceae, along with an explanation. Strobilomyces earlier edits strongly implied that Hygrophorus was in the Hygrophoraceae while Hygrocybe was in the Tricholmataceae, implying the two are not closely related – that is definitely not the case. As for Moncalvo (2002), he did recognize a core Hygrophoraceae group to which he added Chromosera and Chrysomphalina. If he found it to be "polyphyletic" at all, that would probably be regarding a few species that might have been segregated out, not the whole group being largely polyphyletic. I think subsequent research may have shown most other omphalinoid species to belong to this group as well. In any event, current research is clearly on two points 1) Tricholomataceae as traditionally defined is phylogenetically meaningless – the name should be restricted to Tricholoma and its close relatives, and 2) confirmation of the Hygrophoraceae as a real group, albeit, in a modified form. Peter G Werner 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply anything strongly when I added Tricholomataceae as a possibility for Hygrocybe. I just had not thought about the entry for Hygrophorus, which indeed should be the same (whatever the answer). And I admit that perhaps it was wrong to add this family in the taxobox, which is giving this categorization too much prominence, though I think Wikipedia should preferably mention the issue.

I do strongly think that in order to create the Wikipedia entry we should not have to answer all the above questions on the justification for the definition of Hygrophoraceae. This would be very close to WP:NOR! The names used in Wikipedia should not depend (directly) on arguments as to whether the groups in question are polyphyletic etc., nor on the latest research papers; rather they should depend on the actual usage in recent years. Older names and older classification systems should be referred to.

This issue of Hygrophoraceae/Tricholomataceae is a relatively straightforward case! There are many, many more issues which are similar or more difficult. Mycological taxonomy is not tending towards a stable state in the foreseeable future. The changes are coming thicker and faster! If we follow your advice to base naming and classification only on the latest research papers, Wikipedia will constantly be changing, there will be edit wars, and it will be impossible to find entries using older names, the ones familiar to many users.

Anyway I think that wherever the alternatives exist, the entries for the relevant taxa should explain them, as I see you've started to do for the Hygrophoraceae. I don't know what will happen in the taxoboxes, since they are very dependent on the classification system and editors seem strongly to dislike seeing alternatives in taxoboxes (although the template perfectly allows alternatives to be shown). I suppose there will be edit wars in those cases. Strobilomyces 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand your line of argument vis a vis the Hygrophoraceae. Let me emphasize two things 1) The "old fashion" morphological taxonomy which you seem to put such stock in always describes these genera in the Hygrophoraceae, and 2) current phylogenetic taxonomy supports the existence of the Hygrophoraceae, albeit in a slightly modified form. This seems like a very straightforward case to me! One author (Arnolds) puts the Hygrophoraceae in the Tricholomataceae, a few people have accepted this as a stopgap solution given the vagaries of fungal taxonomy. It deserves some mention in the article on Hygrophoraceae, sure, but it doesn't represent the consensus of scientific opinion concerning this group and I don't think it should be presented as such. I don't think it belongs in the taxoboxes either, since these genera are neither traditionally defined as being part of the Tricholomataceae nor does the current science support it. The changes you have proposed are the ones that don't reflect either traditional or current useage.

Furthermore, I do think that articles on living organisms should reflect the current state of the science. And in spite of what you say about lack of agreement, there actually is an emerging consensus on classification schemes for the agarics, and many of these newly defined groups have held up even after repeated phylogenetic analysis. For example, its very well established that the Paxillaceae and Gomphidiaceae are in the Boletales in spite of the fact that they have an agaric morphology. (Their micromorphology supports this too.) That's not something that's likely to change when somebody sequences a further part of their genome.

And finally, no I don't think you need to be up on the latest scientific papers to create a Wikipedia article, but if someone reedits the article based on current knowledge of the science of this organism, that edit should be regarded as an improvement to the article. Basing the article on the consensus of current literature is not original research! Furthermore, primary and secondary sources like monographs and journal articles should be carry more weight than tertiary sources like Index Fungorum and field guides. Now it is true that citations and references should be given in the article – I am guilty of not including these (in many of the articles I re-edit, I'm simply "quoting from memory") and I'll try and fix that. However, I'll point out that this is the norm on Wikipedia, unfortunately. Peter G Werner 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the general principles that you have given in your above answer. My line of argument was that all currently widespread names should be covered in Wikipedia, not just the latest ones or those of any particular system. I was more concerned about the Hygrocybe/Camarophyllus/Cuphophyllus distinction (where you deleted my brief section) than by the Tricholomataceae/Hygrophoraceae relation. Anyway, after your newer edits these issues are now covered much better in the Hygrophoraceae articles.

It is no problem at all if the latest research is described in articles. The problem comes if it is necessary to consult the latest research, and make informed decisions, before deciding what names to use in the article and in the taxobox. Your earlier discussion above suggests that this is indeed necessary. Strobilomyces 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camarophyllus

In a related note, I've added a discussion of nomenclature to the Camarophyllus article, since there was some controversy over this name. At Talk:Camarophyllus, I discuss the priority of Camarophyllus over Cuphophyllus. Peter G Werner 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great paragraph to have. Strobilomyces 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hygrophoraceae redefined

Hi - I plan on revisiting the Hygrophoraceae and several other families over the next year. Entirely new molecular pictures are emerging on these groups. Heliocybe (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed picture

I just removed a beautiful picture but one that does not look entirely like a Hygrocybe. Please identify it.Heliocybe (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hygrocybe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]