Template:Did you know nominations/Dibaeis baeomyces

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Victuallers (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Dibaeis baeomyces

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

pink earth lichen

~~... that Dibaeis baeomyces, the pink earth lichen, looks like a pink-tipped version of the unrelated lichen called British soldiers?~~

ALT1:... that Dibaeis baeomyces (pink earth lichen) was once thought to be in the same genus as the similar-looking Baeomyces rufus (brown beret lichen), until DNA sequencing proved otherwise?
Reviewed:
Comment: I'm hoping to have an actual botanist contribute to the article. Will update authors listing if any do.

Created by GrammarFascist (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

I have wikilinked the other species in ALT1, since it's no longer a redlink. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article long enough and new enough. off line references taken AGF, with the hook and the alt both sourced and verified. Im not totally sure why monophyletic group is in scare quotes though?--Kev min § 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What you call scarequotes was me being perhaps overzealous in avoiding too-close paraphrasing, Kevmin. I couldn't figure out a way to state that information without it being a close paraphrase of one source or another, so I went with a direct quotation. Thank you for such a prompt review! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Kevmin, I've just found out from BlueMoonset (here) that it's not too late to convert this to a double DYK, with Baeomyces rufus as the other article — if, obviously, you don't mind reviewing a second article and what had been the alternate hook. This would be my first 2-in-1, so I'm not sure if the two articles can have separate reviewers. If not, and Kevmin isn't interested in taking on the other review, I'm fine with the original hook and this DYK being just for Dibaeis baeomyces. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: It's a fairly normal biology parlance to use that phrase and that its a three word combination makes it hard to be a copy-violation. I would say it doesn't need them. Lets ping @BlueMoonset: As for the double nomination, I have no problem with a second review at all!--Kev min § 22:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just updated the nomination's DYK nompage links template, and added a DYKmake template, both to reflect the addition of the new article. So this template is all set. I'm glad that Kevmin's available to review the second article, though it would have been possible to have two separate reviewers for the two articles if he hadn't been. As for the use of "a monophyletic group", I agree that the quotes are not necessary for a basic scientific term, but I'm not sure that the context is appropriate. The article seems to be saying that although Dibaesis baeomyces isn't related to the Baeomyces after all, it is related to these other two species being in a monophyletic group with them, but the source says that Baeomyces is in that same monophyletic group with D. baeomyces and Gyalecta ulmi and Pertusaria trachythallina. This doesn't affect the hook at all, but it will affect the article, assuming I haven't misread that "Lichen clade IV" sentence in the source. (Apologies in advance if I have!) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the conclusions of Stenroos & DePreist, I agree with what @BlueMoonset: notes, @GrammarFascist: it looks like you missread the Genus Baeomyces as the species D. baeomyces on page 1557 of the article.--Kev min § 02:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am more than willing to accept that I may have misread something in the densely-technical sources I used. I like science, but I am not a scientist by training. That said, in reviewing the source, I found three statements I had used to build the article. Two are unambiguous, I think — "Our data suggest that Baeomyces rufus and Dibaeis baeomyces (syn. Baeomyces roseus) are phylogenetically distant and more closely related to taxa from other orders and suborders than to each other." and "Siphula ceratites and Thamnolia vermicularis form a monophyletic assemblage together with Dibaeis baeomyces." — and seem to support what's in the article I created. Then there is "Pertusaria trachythallina of the Lecanorales forms a monophyletic group with Gyalecta ulmi of the Gyalectales, and Baeomyces rufus and Dibaeis baeomyces of the Leotiales." (emphasis added). The inclusion of B. rufus in that sentence contradicts the rest of the article, so I was taking it as a misprint. Shall I perhaps add a quote= parameter to the citation to clarify where the information is coming from?

As for the quotation marks, I will take them out. Thanks for reassuring me they were not needed, Kevmin and BlueMoonset. I also struck the original hook since it only applied to the first article. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

*

Initial review of Baeomyces rufus, article new enough, long enough, and well referenced. No obvious problems with it, and the hook is cited, and checks out. We still await clarification of the monophyly paragraph in Dibaeis baeomyces, due to probable missreading of the source as identified above. Also "phylogentically distant" doesn't need quotes either.--Kev min § 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I come to the same conclusion as you on the one sentence being out of place given the consistency of the article on the unrelated nature of the two species. I would clarify in the article that there is some confusion on the nature of the relation and see if there is any new papers that clarify. --Kev min § 22:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kevmin: It's a relief to read that you don't think I misread the article after all. I have added a footnote to the Dibaeis baeomyces article explaining the apparent contradiction in the Stenroos and DePriest paper. I also found and added a third study that also established Baeomyces and Dibaeis as distinct genera. I don't think a similar note is necessary in Baeomyces rufus as that article only asserts that D. baeomyces was found not to belong to genus Baeomyces and says nothing further about the relatedness of the two species. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to omit the monophyletic group material altogether, if you believe the source is incorrect, rather than include the parts you think are correct and omit those you don't (albeit with explanation). There is no obligation to include every fact in a source; eventually there will be further publication and a more clear statement of the facts. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That was an excellent suggestion, BlueMoonset, and I have followed it. Reference to monophyly has been removed, along with the corresponding footnote. What do you think, Kevmin? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

with those changes, and no major shift in the articles quality or policy neutrality, I think the hook is good to go.--Kev min § 14:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody know (BlueMoonset? Gatoclass? Victuallers?) why this DYK seems to be stalled on the nomination page? If it moves to prep, that will be my 4th and 5th DYK nominations, and I can start putting QPQ credits on my other nominations... —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect its nothing personal - IMO we are allowing caution to overrule our prime objective. I am sympathetic. Victuallers (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, with our current backlog of hooks (eight days worth), the wait time after approval before promotion can vary from hours to weeks. I've posted lists to the talk page of those articles that had been waiting at least two weeks (some more than three!). It's the luck of the draw, and a bit of what the prep set builder is weighing when putting together a set—sometimes an image hook hangs around longer because it might work as a future lead, even though the preparer has already found a lead hook for the current set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't taking it personally, Victuallers, just wanting to be efficient in placing my QPQs where they belong while avoiding skating any of my nominations by without a QPQ that should have one. But thanks for the sympathy, and for responding. (Incidentally I chose you three more or less at random from people who work on the prep page.) I think I'll just consider these my #4 and 5 regardless of when they go to prep, and put my QPQ credits towards my other pending nominations, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. BlueMoonset, thank you for responding, and explaining, as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)