taxobox: small font for authorities; link Quelet; I like to include year of publication (also for the binomial authority; years in parentheses is the correct ICBN format, I've been told) and put in order by year
They are in order of date, but I chose not to use years as I couldn't find the date of Quélet's description. J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
do none of your sources mention that it grows in tufts? I've seen them that way in several pics on the net.
Nope, Phillips doesn't mention how they grow, while Sterry just uses the term I quoted. J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Arne Aronsen's site is an excellent resource for European Mycenas, check out his page on this species here. There's more info that could be added, like its conservation status in Norway, more microscopic details, and its infrageneric classification
Oh, hello... I've expanded the article with it somewhat, but I would rather not depend on it for all the grisly details of the description, as it is a self-published source. J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Worked in some stuff. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article for Mycena oortiana Hora, Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 43(2): 452 (1960) is available here; that article also gives reference to a description by Pearson in an earlier volume of the same journal, available here (I was very happy when the BMS made available older copies of their journal at Cyberliber last year... used to have to go to the library to get those)
Can't access that site at the moment, will check again later. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I added a citation to the Hora 1960 source. Sasata (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Saccardo put a Latin description of the mushroom in his 1905 Sylloge Fungorum XVII, which is available here. I can't read Latin, but I get the feeling that the species was named after a "G. Arcangeli" (who I'm guessing is Giovanni Arcangeli) and maybe he made the original collection? Maybe Ucucha could confirm?
Yeah, have asked Ucucha for confirmation. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've noted that it's a possibility is was named after him, based on the fact he collected it. If you feel this constitutes original research, I'll remove it. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's self-evident that this is the case, although it's not possible with the sources we have to confirm this 100%. I'm ok with leaving this like it as it is unlikely to be contested. If someone does challenge it later, it will be easy to alter the wording to remove the inference that one is based on the other (i.e. just mention that Arcangeli made the first collection and let the reader make the inference on their own). Sasata (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look here, you could probably just about piece together a citation to the protologue; it gives the title, page range, author of article (Barsali—not Bresadola) and some Googling would probably reveal what Bull. Soc. Bot. Ital. is short for. Also, note the mention of Pisa where the original collection was made, this would fit with Giovanni Arcangeli, who was director of the Botanical Garden of Pisa.