User talk:Sasata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Contents

Reminders to myself[edit]

State of Genera lists in family articles[edit]

Not including monogeneric families. I'm afraid things leave much to be desired, and I can hardly proceed without reasonably accurate lists of genera-by-family... Circéus (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, you migth want to review what we had unearthed while working on Marasmiaceae, as it is relevant to some cases here. Circéus (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we want three crucial things here:

  1. Any given genus is listed for one and one family only (or incertae sedis).
    1. The genus article does not conflict with the family one.
  2. We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
  3. The number in family articles is the same as in List of Agaricales genera (noting where the numbers of genera in a family differ from the number in that entry for the Dict.).

Beyond that there are places where practical choices will have to be made, as you noted about Hormographiella. I suspect Entolomataceae might come down to what is simplest for us (e.g. if in some case most species don't have names under Entoloma, as happens with Endoptychum). Circéus (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, Crepidotaceae and Chromocyphellaceae need to be added to various places, according to this ... the work keeps piling up ... Sasata (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should stay with Kirk & al.'s Inocybaceae here, but maybe that's just my instinct. These devellopment are really nothing short of a Fungal equivalent of the APG revolution, but they lack a "central synthesis", with Kirk & al. slow to take up on these changes. Circéus (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I dunno. From the paper: "The present investigation serves to highlight a number of contentious issues relating to recent molecular studies of the Crepidotaceae in particular, and molecular systematics in general: As has been shown before, taxon sampling is of crucial importance, and the addition of various key taxa may have considerable influence on the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, most of the investigations differ widely in their choice of ingroup (and outgroup) taxa, leading to widely different hypotheses of higher-level relationships." So all this work may have to be revised in the future. This sort of stuff is why I find it easier to work on single species, despite my "mission" to fill out the higher-level taxa. Ok, that's enough for me today, I feel like doing something else :) Sasata (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • What where Kirk & al. thinking anyway? You can't synonymize Crepidotaceae under Inocybaceae under any rule of the code! Circéus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Having thought about it a bit more, how about we keep everything in Crepidotaceae (=? Inocybaceae sensu Kirk & al.) with commentary to the effect the family is known to be polyphyletic, but an final disposition has yet to be agreed on? It's already what we do about Cystodermateae and Endoptychum (at least in List of Agaricaceae genera), for example. Circéus (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I started an article at Amylocorticiales (will be adding more over the next few days). Any opinion on how we should handle the taxonomy of genera within? Give family as incertae sedis, and redirect Amylocorticiaceae to Amylocorticiales? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • When I read it, it seemed pretty obvious they were better circumscribing Amylocorticiaceae and moving it to a monotypic order. The only genera that could be said to become incertae sedis would be those (if any) that they excluded from Amylocorticiaceae without assigning them a putative family. Circéus (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So apparently Cribbea might be in Physalacriaceae. This is convenient (if correct: I don,t have access to that journal) as it resets Cortinariaceae to the correct number of genera, but it threatens Physalacriaceae with Cribbeaceae. w00t! </sarcasm> Circéus (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What fun would it be if it wasn't a challenge? I don't have access to that journal, but I know who does. I'll ask if I can get it and update the page. Sasata (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I got the paper from Cas (very nice paper, BTW), and yes, it's clearly in the Physalacriaceae, pretty close to Oudemansiella. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For Bolbitiaceae, I'll start work and add a note on the Agaricales families list about the 17 v. 15 discrepancy. For Entolomataceae, the Wikipedia way is typically "when in doubt, be conservative", so going with six genera and noting the dict. disagreement is a reasonable approach. I'll be waiting on a usable combined list for Inocybaceae and Crepidotaceae at the latter before I start on it. This leaves me with a reasonable buffer to work on.Circéus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, having now looked at Co-David & al., I say we go with three genera (Clitop., Entol., Rhodocybella), since they made all the necessary combination (they suspect Rhodocybella to fall in Clitopilus, but keep it separate for now). I've edited the family list accordingly, and will now do the same for the generic list. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Which author is being followed for Hygrophoraceae? Not only is the number of genera in the lead not that of the Dict., but we list 11 in the taxobox, which, although the number given in dict., are definitely not those placed there in that work. Circéus (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Some investigation here: We have Pseudoarmillariella under Tricholomataceae (including the list of genera), but it seems to belong fairly clearly in Hygrophoraceae. That genus is unplaced in the Dict., which recognizes Cuphophyllus, but that recognition seems unwarranted. If we add Camarophyllus and Gliophorus, but exclude Camarophyllopsis, we get 11 genera: the 10 from Dict. with three extra (Pseudoarm., Camarophyllus, Gl.) and two cut off (Cuph., Camarophyllopsis; the first seems doomed to synonymy, the second belongs somewhere else not yet clear) [1], [2]. I will be working with that. Circéus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Circeus, I'm still with you, just devoting my limited wiki-time to finishing a primate article offline. Will get back into Agaricales once this monkey is off my back (lol). Sasata (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • It's okay. As it is, it appears the one part where your input will be really needed are the Physalacriaceae, Inocybaceae/Crepidotaceae and Strophariaceae. I'm Probably going to have to expand a ridiculous amount of energy figuring out what's going on with Maccagnia too. Circéus (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Family Genera
in lead
Genera
in list
Notes
Amylocorticiaceae 10 8 What do we do of the Amylocorticiales paper?
  • I say we use it. The authors are heavy hitters in fungal molecular phylogenetics, they used a 6-locus dataset & large sample size, so it looks good. I'll update pages soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done
Bolbitiaceae 17 15 Found Cyphellopus and Galerella. Setchelliogaster may belong here too (says IF & MycoBank; Dict. says either Bolbitiaceae or Cortinariaceae)
Clavariaceae 7 7
Cortinariaceae 12 13[1] I confirmed that all 13 genera listed are given by the Dict as being in this family, so .... ? Will make stubs for those redlinks. Done.
Cyphellaceae 16 16
Entolomataceae 4 6[2] The Dict prefers to lump Rhodocybe, Rhodocybella, Rhodogaster, Richoniella, and several others not listed here into Entoloma. Many other sources keep them (or combinations thereof) separate. Who do we follow? The correct path to follow, I suspect, will only be revealed with much research ...
Fistulinaceae 3 3
Hydnangiaceae 2 (List)
4 (article)
4 # of genera depends on whether one treats the truffle-like Hydnangium and Podohydnangium as separate or lumped into Laccaria (like the Dict. does). Will investigate further.
Hygrophoraceae 9 11
Inocybaceae 13 10
Lyophyllaceae 8 9 All nine genera listed in the article belong in this family, says Dict. (Lyophyllopsis, however, is listed as "? Lyophyllaceae"
Mycenaceae 10 11 I guess the extra genus is the extinct Protomycena, to which the Dict. does not assign a family. Interestingly, they say the name is invalid.
Might be because their way of counting anamorphs is at best murky: they seem not to count Ugola in Lyophyllaceae; do they include Decapitatus in their count for Mycenaceae? Impossible to tell. If they don't, they give ten, but list nine (which becomes 10 with Protomycena).
Niaceae 6 6
Phelloriniaceae 2 2
Physalacriaceae 11 16 *Guyanagaster is new and not accounted for in the Dict
  • don't know about Hormomitaria-Dict says = Physalacria; Fungorum says it's valid; Mycobank says it's in the Marasmiaceae; no recent literature
    • I say we keep it in. It seems to be traditionally treated close to Physalacria, and MB seems to have it in Marasmiaceae because no family monograph of either group has been published since the 80s. I say edge on separate genus in Phys.
  • Dactylosporina: Dict says Marasmiaceae "or perhaps Physalacriaceae"; Fungorum & MycoBank says Marasmiaceae
  • Himantia is anamorphic; not sure about the Dict's accounting for anamorph genera
    • Dict. has Himantia unplaced to anything ("anamorphic Fungi").
Pleurotaceae 6 7 6 Fixed. Resupinatus was in there erroneously.
Pluteaceae 4 4
Psathyrellaceae 12 6 12 Now updated to include 12 genera. I included the anamorphic Hormographiella, don't know if that's "cheating" or not, but it has Coprinopsis teleomorphs, so it clearly belongs in this family.
Pterulaceae 12 12
Schizophyllaceae 2 2
Strophariaceae 18 13 In Matheny et al., 2006, they showed that Galerina, Phaeocollybia, Psilocybe (bluing ones), Anamika, Hebeloma, Alnicola, and Flammula cluster in a branch that is sister to the Stropharicaceae sensu strico. However, no formal familial change was made, and the Dict. classification does not follow this phylogeny (and they do state explicitly that they have taken into account the molecular results from that 2006 issue of Mycologia where several higher-level phylogenetics papers were published.) How to approach this on Wikipedia? About a year ago someone from the Matheny lab changed the families for these genera to Hymenogastraceae; I changed some of them back, because I wasn't convinced in some cases (i.e., the type species wasn't used in the analysis). Are we in limbo until the next phylogenetics paper comes out?
I think following either is fine. Looks like an editorial, not formal scientific choice on the part of Kirk & al., and either choice is phylogenetically valid, plus the study actually says (probably accounting for Kirk & al.'s approach): "Indeed Bayesian analyses [...] significantly support [...] the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae."
Tapinellaceae 2 3 All three genera listed seem valid, and are given by the Dict itself as belonging in this family.
Typhulaceae 6 6
  1. ^ Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
    • Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
  2. ^ With two unlinked

Reached maximum completion[edit]

So I've just finished adding all I could, except for Physalacriaceae, Strophariaceae (incl. Hemigasteraceae) and Crepidotaceae (incl. Inocybaceae), for which (as said above) I'm reliant on you to establish lists of genera we are reasonably happy with. If Crepidotaceae ends up above 20 genera or so, I'll make it a separate list. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your Russulales idea, I'd make it a combined list for families and Genera, or at least consider it as a possibility. However, I notice the article clearly states Clavicorona ought to be in the Agaricales, but I can't find a family placement for it (except MycoBank, in the Tricholomataceae, but I don't trust it all that much). Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis[edit]

You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding Taylor & Francis - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneSasata (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2015[edit]

Hi Sasata. A summary of a Featured Article you conominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? (Feel free to ping Casliber if you like, I gave him one earlier and I'm trying to spread out the workload.) I'm not getting many ghits on "scarlet-stemmed bolete", apart from ones with similar text to the Wikipedia article, and generally there's a "no aliases" rule at TFA. I bend the rule for a common name in addition to a scientific name, but I don't want to break the rule. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wolfiporia species cleanup[edit]

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem; I stubbed all of the species redlinks in Wolfiporia for good measure as well. Sasata (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Suillus luteus[edit]

Thank you for your message. The page references you requested reg. Suillus luteus are 266-267. The book is in both Greek and English. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need more information.

regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.118.251 (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Suillus luteus has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

....aaaand is at FAC now. Have been buffing Suillus bovinus too, may as well do that one....also scanned some others. Any other pique your interest? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jersey cow is a fine choice, there's ample literature out there to make a beefy FA. I look forward to expanding enough to include some of these excellent images! As for piquing my interest ... they all do! But I'm also itching to use my new bolete books... Sasata (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I did think about Boletus aereus and the others close to B. edulis too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Am buffing aereus as well. Also, forgot that Boletus pinophilus is GA, but could maybe do with a big shove the Extra Mile Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got less literature on purely European boletes (compared to those that at least make an appearance in North America), but I'll see if there's anything useful I can add. I'd be interested in taking on one of the bolete genera to GA/FA, or even any of the families. Sound interesting? Sasata (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, there's barrowsii as well I'd like to buff. Did you have Singer's book? That was good for infrageneric classification. The genera are in a bit of flux, let me think on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten distracted by eye-candy Clavariaceae and its genera; I'll rejoin the cow expansion when my bolete muse returns :) Sasata (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW...to keep the production line coming, have nominated B. aereus as a co-nom by you and me as I find it makes the process much smoother (24 hours coverage for starters!) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Good! bovinus next ... Sasata (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Any other book stuff you have to add to it? Probably push it to GAN soon...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll set aside some time tonight to work on it (have been busy lately). Sasata (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added what I think is relevant - still more journal articles but they seem to be on obscure enzymes and dissecting uptake etc. BTW Another article that might be fun to buff is Gyrodon lividus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm finished adding stuff (for now) and think it's ready for a GAN. Agree with G. lividus (the genus page could use an overhaul too...) Sasata (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn...Gyrodon lividus is proving hard to dredge up info for..as is the genus..have been trying to read up on them both but really meagre pickings. My impression is they are probably ripe for a paper or review sometime soon...maybe punting Rubroboletus pulcherrimus over the FA line or something..I did have an inkling about Tapinella atrotomentosa but a cursory look suggested sources might be hard for that too....anyway just some stream-of-consciousness writing. I guess anything that has been recently given a new genus name might be good..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought the same myself about G. lividus. I still have a bit of stuff to add, but GA is probably a good end goal for the time being. Will have a look at the others when I get back from travelling. Sasata (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
An easier target might be Xerocomus subtomentosus actually....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did have that bolete on a to-do list. The synonymy is imposing. Why is Fungorum still calling it a Boletus? Another option is Rubroboletus satanas, now that it has a nice new genus. Sasata (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to do Rubroboletus satanas at some point, just frustrating that no-one has published the split and recognition of North American satanas as eastwoodiae (have they??) - as soon as that is done, I reckon we buff it in a flash. Xerocomus subtomentosus looks best bet for next, other possibles include Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca too...? Or...anyway, there are a bunch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
H. aurantiaca looks like an interesting one; I will expand it for a couple of days and get back to X. subtomentosus soon. Sasata (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just stumbled across alot of cool stuff about Turbinellus floccosus in the 1947 paper about different growth habits at different elevations. Not sure how much has been upheld or disproven but interesting. Another article that is not far off GAN...and I suppose Gomphus clavatus might be an FAC nom with not too much buffing either...decisions decisions....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking both of those could use an update & expansion... I'm in! Sasata (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Just see where your enthusiasm leads you. I am oscillating between the three of them....Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
H. aurantiaca has been coming along nicely, and I think I can still scrape out some more from my sources tomorrow. I suspect the others will be relatively easy to put together as well. Sasata (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We should add Ramaria formosa to the "easy to buff to GA" list. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok - have scoured my books for stuff on Ramaria formosa and added what I can. Now for journals I guess....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got some more book info to add, hopefully tonight. Sasata (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sutorius eximius[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sutorius eximius you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sutorius eximius[edit]

The article Sutorius eximius you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Sutorius eximius for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Geopyxis carbonaria[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Geopyxis carbonaria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Phengaris rebeli reassessment[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that the GA reassessment page for Phengaris rebeli seems to be still open, despite you initiating it nearly two years ago. I don't think anyone has closed it, and I thought I'd let you know about it. I assume everything has long been solved? Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about this completely. I'll have a look more closely this weekend. I'd like to check out some of the refs myself to see how closely they are to the text. Sasata (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay cool. I just thought it was slightly odd that a reassessment page was open for so long, so it would have been wise to tell you. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Geopyxis carbonaria[edit]

The article Geopyxis carbonaria you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Geopyxis carbonaria for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gomphidius maculatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sutorius eximius has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Mushroom[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Self-trout Thanks for cleaning up after me - I attempted to fix a couple of minor formatting issues and I think I ended up just making it worse. samtar(leave me a message) 17:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, formatting cleanup is easy ... it will take a lot more effort to clean up other problems with the article :) Sasata (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sutorius eximius[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Suillus luteus[edit]

Harrias talk 15:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bridgeoporus[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bridgeoporus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phellodon[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Phellodon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bridgeoporus[edit]

The article Bridgeoporus you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bridgeoporus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 3, 2015[edit]

Hey, I'm not sure whether to use stubby-stalk, short-stemmed slippery Jack, or neither in the summary ... it depends on whether either of those names really does get a lot of use. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick internet search shows that "short-stemmed slippery Jack" appears to be the most commonly used name on English-language web pages I checked. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see that today, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phellodon[edit]

The article Phellodon you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Phellodon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cunninghamella bertholletiae[edit]

Sasata, I am planning to assign a student to this fungus this semester. I think the Index Fungorum record is wrong and this should not be synonymized with C. elegans. The most recent monograph suggests they are different. I'm curious if there's something I'm missing. Medmyco (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, feel free to revert my move then, I was not aware that more recent work had outdated IF's synonymy. Sasata (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Before I do let me double-check with Dr. Summerbell that there isn't some reason I'm unaware of that explains the Index Fungorum record! Medmyco (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exserohilum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hilum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Exserohilum[edit]

Hi! I noticed you updated the Exserohilum page. I'm currently doing research before I add onto the page, there is a mini draft in my own talk page. I was just wondering if you want to work together? I'm currently reading a book about "Molecular Detection of Human Fungal Pathogens" and "Identification of Pathogenix Fungi". So I'm open to anything you might have for me. Yihengsong (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure! I don't have any particular expertise in the topic, but am happy to help improve the article. I will probably end up making stubs for all of the species redlinks, then come back and add info to the genus article. Feel free to add info from your draft (after you've rephrased from the original source text), and I'll copyedit and tweak the wiki-formatting. Sasata (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dicranophora fulva has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Phellodon[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Phellodon niger[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macrolepiota clelandii[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macrolepiota clelandii you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hygrophorus erubescens has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]


Psilocybe semilanceata distribution[edit]

Hi !

Where is the reference of this "However, it has also been reported occasionally from warmer locations such as India, South America, and Australasia." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boussole folle (talkcontribs) 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Refs for these locations are in the "Distribution" section. Sasata (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, but this is not because it has been reported in warmer countries, that means P. semilanceata grows on warm climate. India and Australia are huge countries, and have regions with cool temperate climate.Boussole folle (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Sasata (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Macrolepiota clelandii has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Suillus bovinus[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anomoloma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Circumscription
Hapalopilus albocitrinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Poria
Lecanora argopholis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Circumpolar
Lecanora hybocarpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Parmelia
Leccinum versipelle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fr.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Dicranophora fulva[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
Women Science.png
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "physical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hapalopilus nidulans[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hapalopilus nidulans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Macrolepiota clelandii[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus erubescens[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles you contributed to have been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Laetiporus cremeiporus[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophoropsis rufa[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Boletopsis grisea has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Everett Smith Beneke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophoropsis[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 16, 2015[edit]

Sasata, a summary of yet another Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: looks fine to me, thanks. Sasata (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Precious again, your four-footed earthstar, - "very pleasantly surprised to find a cluster of earthstar fungi growing on a rotting log—the lead image shows the beauties in their natural state only moments after I saw them"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Rathfelder#Assess before removing stub templates[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Rathfelder#Assess before removing stub templates. Thanks. – Allen4names (contributions) 02:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mycosphaerella coffeicola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hilum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stropharia caerulea[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stropharia caerulea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Project[edit]

Merry Christmas. Do you intend to work on a major group of non-animal organism like flowering plants? LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jerry; nope, only fungi. Sasata (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Boletopsis grisea[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bovista pila[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bovista pila you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rcej -- Rcej (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bovista pila[edit]

The article Bovista pila you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bovista pila for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rcej -- Rcej (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hygrophoropsis[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hygrophoropsis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Bovista pila has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Your GA nomination of Hygrophoropsis[edit]

The article Hygrophoropsis you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hygrophoropsis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bovista pila[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Moser[edit]

I've been playing around with the Moser article for the last couple of weeks and I've gone ahead and nominated it at GAC. I suspect that you're sufficiently uninvolved to take on the review if you feel so inclined, but you're also welcome to jump in as a conominator or watch from the sidelines if you'd prefer! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I'm sufficiently uninvolved, and also inclined! Review undertaken. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Psilocybe septentrionalis[edit]

I see. We have a little bit of circular referencing going on here. I got the image from the Wikidata entry, which was placed there by a bot, which it got from the Wikipedia article. But the image was deleted recently, and the Wikidata entry wasn't updated. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)