User talk:Sasata/Archive 12

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cortinarius vanduzerensis

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Cortinarius vanduzerensis 134617.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR vs. JSTOR

id= {{jstor}} and jstor= are NOT equivalent. The former creates an id link at the end of the entry the same way doi= and pmid= already do, the latter generates a hard-coded direct link from the article title, which forces the use of {{Subscription required}}. Why it was implemented in that bloody awful way I have no idea, but direct links to subscription when there are other options (here {{jstor}} or doi)? Are Bad Things. Plus you cannot have a direct link and a jstor parameter at the same time: only the url= link will be used and adding the jstor= becomes pointless (and all but one Mycologia articles in S. salm. are direct-linked to Cyberliber, see for example ref #19). I've come to think that {{jstor}} was a better option than DOI (or at least safer in that they never require checking that the DOI works/exists), but I'll admit it's a personal choice. Circéus (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given up worrying about them. I thought I had it figured out once, then the citation bot came along and added Jstor links, even when the article had direct links to the article in Cyberliber, or if it already had a doi link. I've wasted too much time reverting the bot's additions, but eventually realized it never tires... Sasata (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we kickstart a quick discussion at WP:Plants to see which way people lean, then send the talk page at {{cite journal}} a "WTF people??"? Circéus (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. Here's a nice fresh example to use, only minutes old! Sasata (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Now hoping that no one decides to revert. As far as I can see, |jstor= is now equivalent to |id={{jstor}}. Ucucha 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, should save some future bot reverts. Sasata (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"I would need a map"

Got FP. Thanks for the support and also for the comment as it had an influence. Kind of rolled around in my head until I realized that a single map combining political and species information would be helpful.TCO (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome; of course, now I'll be expecting a nice map like that for every turtle article you guys write ;) Sasata (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Academics are wonderful people...

I contacted the publishers of Micologia e Vegetazione Mediterranea- they said they couldn't send me a PDF, but I gave my address, and they sent me the issue of the journal in the post! Time for an afternoon of mushrooms I think :) J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! That'll save some future hassle. I saw you mention Guzman-Davalos in a recent edit; you might want to reference this phylogenetics paper somewhere in the article if you can fit it in, it's essentially the latest word on Gymnopilus infrageneric classification (by the expert herself). Also check out Gulden et al. 2005 (link at the bottom of that page). Sasata (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the discussion of the infrageneric placement of the species using that source, and I have gone ahead and renominated the article. Thanks for the tip! J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I need a support

I mean a review. Freudian slip. Could you please go over this short, light article: U.S. state reptiles? (There is actually a little C. picta connection in that I have to deal with foreigners not knowing what state reptiles are (and the converse, from here, people not understanding not understanding. That and covering all the content, since it is a schoolchild favorite.) TCO (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look soon, but no guarantees (the fungi get angry if I don't devote most of my wiki-time to publicizing them). Sasata (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Double-checking my interpretation

Since Ucucha is super busy and going out of town soon, I was wondering if you would feel comfortable reviewing a source of mine and ensuring that my interpretation is correct. It's one of those phylogenetic discussions with multiple types of tests, and I don't feel the source was very clear. The article is the Small-toothed Sportive Lemur, and the part I want checked is the second paragraph in the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section (using the Ramaromilanto, et al. ref). Normally it could wait, but I'm afraid that given how little information there is about this species, this may be my only good DYK hook, and I want to make sure I have it right. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Ucucha has given this his ok? Sasata (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like he was on top of it. Thanks anyway!  :-) – VisionHolder « talk » 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mephedrone (again)

Hi Sas, unfortunately my plans for FAC are having to go on hold for a while - I'm off to Rwanda for six months later this week so probably won't have the time for it. I plan to return to it when I'm back though and won't have to pester you for papers then either. Who knows, maybe some pharmacologists will have got round to publishing something by then! Thanks for your help so far though. SmartSE (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rwanda eh? Is this trip for pleasure or are you saving the world? Good luck with whatever you're doing there... remember to shoot any interesting fungi if you have a camera handy and if it's convenient. Mephedrone is a pretty hot topic, so I'm sure you'll have some updating to do when you return. I hope to make psilocybin a FA by the time you're back! (p.s. thanks for adding that link to Psilocybe hispanica; I saw it, got intrigued, read the article, and have been working on an expansion that should be ready soon.) Sasata (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully a bit of both, working with farmers producing your favourite stimulant-containing beverage. Sure, I'll keep my eye out for 'shrooms, also got a large arboretum to try and document... You're right about it being a hot topic, think there will be a lot published about it whilst I'm away. No worries about the link, thought it sounded like something you might be interested in, thank New Scientist for alerting it to me. G'luck with psilocybin, doesn't look too far off to me. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Coffee... interesting. Check out List of coffee diseases, lots of those fungus articles need pics too :) Sasata (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, it'll be months before they appear though as it would take days to upload from here. Do you know of any (preferably small) programs/plug-ins which allow decent offline editing? I checked out Wikipedia:Text editor support before but it was goobledygook. (It's not just any coffee either, but maraba coffee!) SmartSE (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Clathrus ruber.

Great work! LittleMountain5 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galápagos tortoise/archive1

Hello Sasata, I feel like this article is pretty close; perhaps you, Minglex, and I could patch up the references? If we could get a discussion going on the article's talk page we could begin sorting things through. Thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on FAC page. Sasata (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate big articles....

I am going to take White Stork to FAC soonish, which is somewhat daunting given its size, hence I'd like to reduce any guffs beforehand. All input appreciated - even a cursory lookover due to time constraints much appreciated :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll drop some pre-FAC notes on the talk page in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's do it!

What's this weekend looking like for you? Although we still have to work on Pygmy slow loris, I would like to finally write the Slow loris article this weekend. I can take the phylogeny part of "Taxonomy and phylogeny", "Physical description", "Habitat and distribution", and "Conservation" if you can write the taxonomy part of "Taxonomy and phylogeny", "Behaviour and ecology", and possibly an "Etymology" section if we can track for formal explanation for the name "Nycticebus" (Nycter = "bat", and cebus = "monkey"). Would you be game for that? Or would another weekend work best? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's from nyx "night" + cebus "monkey". You can cite Palmer for that. Ucucha 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol... I think that's the second time I've screwed that up. Anyway, thanks for the ref. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be busy this weekend, and won't have much time for editing. During the week actually works better for me; I'll start working on those sections, and maybe we can have the article expansion-ready by next weekend for a DYK. I've been working on the Pygmy article at home and it's coming along, but it takes me longer than usual because it's not a mushroom :) Sasata (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand. I enjoy writing about lemurs more, although it helps a little that this is a prosimian. Do you want to do sandbox editing, or do you think we can construct it in five days (to make DYK, if possible...) without sandboxes? Even if you'd prefer to use sandboxes to avoid conflicts, would you mind if I worked directly in the article? If not, do you mind if I start this weekend? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me either way; I'll follow your lead and either start adding stuff in on Monday or save it in a sandbox until you're ready to dump it in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Later this evening, I will continue work on the article. I've used a good chunk of the most important information from the conservation article and adapted (or duplicated) it for the new Conservation section. I don't know if you're aware of this, but in the last week, the article has been getting hammered with hits—approximately 11–17k a day. Apparently there's a new "Slow loris with an umbrella" video on YouTube that was just popularized by some internet personality (or lack there of) named rwj. Within hours of me posting the Conservation section, people started speaking out against the video, and particularly the slow loris pet trade. Needless to say, it's important that we finish the article this week while the topic is ultra-hot. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting about the surge with the viral video. Slow Loris will be near the top of my to-do list for this week. Sasata (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, my stuff is pretty much done, and I think we still have a really good shot at DYK if we finish and nominate by Wednesday. I have most of Tuesday free if you want my help with the "Behavior and ecology" section in order to speed things along. Just let me know. (It's much more important to me that you write the part about taxonomy because I am incredibly burnt out on that topic.) And sorry if I'm coming across as pushy. I really want this DYK since I wasn't able to mention "tooth cutting" with my Conservation of slow lorises DYK. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your excellent additions to the "Taxonomy" subsection. Good job! Have you seen anything about the early taxonomy of the species, particularly the type species, "Tardigradus coucang" described by Boddaert in 1785? Groves & Maryanto 2008 go into it a little bit on pages 115 & 119. I may have a few other sources, including this. It's up to you, but if you want, I can try making some additions later tonight. It's up to you. But as I said, great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source Brandon-Jones, et al. 2004 may tell enough of the story. Again, it's up to you. However, I do have access to several sources that should sufficiently cover the details, so if you'd rather have me write it, I'm fine with that. It looks like I have a few additions to make to the anatomy, evolution, and conservation material anyway. If anything, just let me know when you plan to revise the behavior stuff. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I'm flooding your talk page.  :-( Anyway, I think the article (as it stands) is good enough for WP:GAN. If it's alright with you, I'm going to go ahead and nominate it. Feel free to add your name to the nomination. When I get home this evening, I will notify the rest of the collaboration team so that they can add their names to the nomination if they want. From here on out, I think we're just prepping for FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

... work in progress, more additions later tonight. GAN is early, if we wait a few days it'll be more helpful as a pre-FAC review. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm getting sleepy, so I'm going to crash early tonight... leaving the article completely to you. Sometime tomorrow I'll try to add a few last minute edits, and pending feedback on my question at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Expansion question, I may submit for DYK. (If you finish and want to submit, that's fine, too.) As for GAN, I figured that it will be at least a week before anyone even offers to review it, but I'm sorry if I jumped the gun. Anyway, only a few GAN reviewers offer pre-FAC quality reviews at GAN, and the most obvious is in Panama for the rest of the week. By the time he gets back, I'm sure the article will be completed. If you disagree, you have my permission to revert the nomination. I won't be offended. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to 27,823/6,898=4.03X expansion. Will continue adding tomorrow, including your suggestions above (if you don't get there first). Sasata (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't have time this morning, although I did add a small bit about their dispersal to the islands of Sundaland. Regarding their "toxic bite", do you have access to this: Anaphylactic Shock Following Bite by a 'Slow Loris,' Nycticebus Coucang by Henry Wilde, 1972 – VisionHolder « talk » 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just downloaded and read that paper—it does not state that any human deaths have been caused by loris bite. I'll expand and amend that in the article soon. Actually, just saw the end where the author reports of a single death, so the article is accurate. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes look great. The only thing missing is information about where the toxin comes from... and maybe that they are the only primate known to have a toxic bite. Ankel-Simons may have some information on that as well, which I can check after work this afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's some N. coucang skullz shown here ... interested? Sasata (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to access the link from work, but I know that Jack uploaded some Nycticebus skulls to Commons not too long ago. I'll certainly consider either adding those or any new ones you upload. If you don't mind, please make them available so that we have options. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright... The source you pointed to had a higher resolution copy, so I've uploaded it. (Otherwise it was the same photo as what Jack uploaded.) I'm considering swapping out the "eye" picture under "Description" for the skulls. What's your opinion? Otherwise, I found an excellent source for the toxin information, and thank the stars for Amazon's book preview, I was able to read the chapter I would normally not have had access to. (If you try it, search "toxin" and immediately go to the appropriate page range per the reference.) From this, I feel I have "completed" the bit about their bite. I also have a few small additions to make to the "Conservation" section to make, and then I'll wait for you to finish your work before I clean up the behavior summary in the lead. As far as I can tell, we'll be done at that point. Anyway, because time was about to expire, I've nominated the article at DYK and added you as a co-nom. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since few people seem to respond on the Slow loris talk page, I just want to make sure you saw my latest post there. As you've noticed, no doubt, I've added some behavioral information regarding their toxic bite. I needed some of that information for my closely-related FAC, so I went ahead and added it to both articles. I sincerely hope I haven't stepped on your toes too badly. Anyway, I thought I was going to add more tonight, but I won't be. A big glass of wine has hit me too hard, plus I have an interview in the morning. I promise not to touch the article again until you're done. All I have left to add (if you don't) is some details about reproduction (possibly), a few gory details on cranial anatomy I've unearthed, and a tidbit on territorial behavior in males. But like I said, it can wait until you're done. I sincerely hope we're still cool after this mad rush. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all good dude! I plan to keep on adding bits of info as I find it here and there (still plan on combing through the entire Biodiversity Heritage library search results for Nycticebus... there's lots), but tonight I also have to visit some reviews. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've made the last of my additions, assuming Dr. Nekaris doesn't provide new information. I have also adjusted the refs so that all books and journal articles use Sfn. Aside from finding time to read through it one last time, I'm comfortable with it for both GAN and FAC, at least in terms of comprehensiveness. Otherwise, let me know when you're getting close to publishing the pygmy slow loris article. If you decide against it, let me know and I'll try to write it as a break from my research paper. Unfortunately, it's the most viewed species article of the five. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's in the GAN range, but still has a ways to go to meet comprehensiveness for FAC (still have a lot of material & sources to work through, but need a nice 6-hour stretch of free time to really get into it). Still working on Pygmy. Many candles burning :) Sasata (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just noticed that "Nekaris et al. 2010" in the short notes could refer to at least two sources in Literature cited... could you fix these? Sasata (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  I just test them out, and all of them seem to link to the correct article. In terms of simple appearance, if we want them to be visually distinct, then we'll have to address that issue on the {{Sfn}} talk page. (Since the code lists the first four authors and the year, they're not confused in the link. However, they all get condensed to "first_author et al. year".) – VisionHolder « talk » 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Hm, I was actually only peripherally aware that you could click on the link and it would take you directly to the source... good enough I guess. Here's another reference tweak: some author initials are separated by spaces, others are not; this should probably be made consistent. I also wouldn't mind cleaning up the double fullstops in some of the citations (eg. after et al., and after lists of editor names). Is it ok if I do this manually by removing selected fullstops from the templates, or is this built into the template and impossible to remove? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  The double full stops can be fixed manually by removing any "." at the end of the last "fist name" for editors/authors... as far as I've seen. As for the spaces between initials, that's partly due to inconsistencies in how the bot populates the field (in the case of {{cite doi}} templates, and partly my own negligence. To be honest, I'm not sure what the preferred approach is, since some editors insist that we spell out the first names if possible, leaving the mix of references looking funny either way. Feel free to fix up what you want, and I can do whatever you don't want to. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any preferred approach, just as long as we do it consistently within the article. I'll go in and remove spaces between initials, and try to manually fix the double fullstops. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Psilocybe hispanica query

I've added a query to this article, as it is unclear who sent the specimens to Ott. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 20, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-03-20. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Episphaeria

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aseroe floriformis

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Psilocybe hispanica

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good going! We both have a Spanish GA article up at DYK at the same time. :D

Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Galapagos tortoise references

Some various editors have put in time to sort out and reformat the references over at Galápagos tortoise. Perhaps you could have a look and offer commentary? Thank you! --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Blast from the recent past

I was randomly looking at a reference in List of Armillaria species and it turns out we had overlooked a species. The authors noted that nobody else had noticed Singer's (varietal) name since it was described, though, so not big deal, I suppose. Just wanted to let you know. Circéus (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, would ya look at that! I used that paper once too. I guess that species was published after I wrote the bulk of the article, and I didn't check closely enough for recent species. Will start a stub. Sasata (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I got done doing everything I could in List of Agaricaceae genera except the research to replace Kirk & al.'s "widespread" (which basically mean "we can't be arse to describe the distribution it more usefully"). I'm thinking of going for an even more ambitious List of Agaricales genera now... (using the same trick as in List of Victoria Cross recipients to link to the three existing lists). How complete would you say the genera lists in on the family pages are? Circéus (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that would be ambitious at 400+ genera ... but a good chance to update and improve a well-known fungal order on the 'pedia. To answer your question, I'm not exactly sure. I'd say "mostly" complete, but I've been adding info in a piecemeal fashion over the last 2 years, so it's quite possible I've overlooked a big chunk somewhere. Count me in as a active helper for this project, should you wish to undertake it. Sasata (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I do have a few comments re: the Agaricaceae list and related articles (I haven't undertaken the more detailed research that would clarify those yet, though):

• Chamaemyces seems to be pretty clearly not monospecific (see Didukh & al. in bibliography).
  • Agree. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Kirk & al. (2010:138) confusingly say that recognizing Chlorophyllum "would make Macrolepiota non-monophyletic". They also say (2010:374), Leucoagaricus "as presently circumscribed is paraphyletic."
• Not sure what to make of it, but according to Mycobank, the type of Cystodermella should be in Cystoderma.

• Molecular analysis per Saar et al. 2009 has Cystodermella granulosa placed convincingly in Cystodermella. Sasata (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Some sources out there (Including our Lycoperdaceae article) at least imply Disciseda ought to be in that family. See also the HTML comment regarding the spelling of Disciseda's type species. Apparently, some (equivocal?) evidence may place Mycenastrum there.
• Vellinga's checklist (not very complete, though) recognizes Hiatula, but I haven't yet looked into it. She also sinks Gyrophragmium in synonymy, but I'm with the other side on this one.

• I'd go with following the Dictionary's stance on Hiatula (i.e., synonymous with Mycena) in the absence of molecular work to convince me otherwise. Geml et al. in 2004 found that Gyrophragmium dunalii nested within Agaricus and changed its name, but I'm not aware of any work done with the type (Gyrophragmium delilei), so I guess the genus is ok for now... Sasata (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kirk & al. (2010:522) say placement of Phlebonema is not certain (only genus they do that except those that are or might belong in the Cystodermateae).

• Have now mentioned the uncertainty in the article. Doesn't appear to be much (if any) literature about this genus other than Heim's original pub. Sasata (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Let's see if I get this right: Cystodermella and Cystoderma are known not to belong here (cf. cladogram in Agaricales). Other genera that might be in the same clade are Floccularia, Phaeolepiota and Squamanita (Currently Tricholomataceae), the support is not quite strong enough in the case of the latter three for definite confirmation, hence why Cystodermataceae has not been validated yet (it might fall to Squamanitaceae). Is that correct?

Circéus (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see you've started your mammoth project. I feel like starting List of Russulales genera, which would be easy in comparison at only ~80 genera. If you need a break, I'd love to get an opinion on the taxonomy section of Agaricus deserticola, which will probably be my next FAC attempt. (p.s. as thanks I'll blue the redlinks in your list :) Sasata (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If you have access to Donk's "The proposed names of the Agaricaceae" (Beihefte Nova Hedwigia, 5), it'd be nice to know what he says of Cheilophlebium without having to travel across town. Circéus (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This one? I can have a look at that if necessary. Ucucha 15:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fancy Harvard library ... Sasata (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • UGH. Got the copy in front of me. It merely (p. 50) gives an etymology (χεῖλοζ, "lip, margin" + φλέψ,εβοζ, "vein", as it happens) and then quotes the protologue of this "forgotten name". I'd check Singer's Agaricales if it's got anything, but it's in the other biology library, the one next to where I has class this morning. AUGH. *puts it on to-do list* Circéus (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Circeus, have you seen this? Sasata (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No (I have now included it in the list), but I remembered this, and ask, "are we following it?" Caus if we do we need to update List of Agaricales families and I don't have to bother with Amylocorticiaceae (though if we add a more complete list for that family, that would help: currently the number cited does not match the number of genera listed). Circéus (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

State of Genera lists in family articles

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)  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	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	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

Reached maximum completion

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)

G. H. Cunningham

There is red link in Acanthophysium - Gordon Herriott Cunningham. May be it is Gordon, not George?--Adept Ukraine (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed to George Herriot Cunningham. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what you think about this one - http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/cunningham-gordon-herriot-cbe-frs/1 ? Or this - http://www.jstor.org/pss/769309 ? What is it: some kind of mistake or two different people? I just can't understand this. --Adept Ukraine (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... doing a search I see that different sources use different first names, even though they are all clearly referring to the New Zealand mycologist. The Dictionary of the Fungi uses Gordon, so my instinct now is to go with that, but I'm going to dig around a little bit more before I update all the pages. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adept Ukraine, it's definitely Gordon (several reliable sources confirm). I've changed all the instances on the 'pedia I could find. Thanks for helping to root out this error! Sasata (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Carousel ...

I think I got them all. The teenagers blessedly decided that they needed more time to get ready for the mall, so I was able to get to them today ... Thanks again for the review, I do apologize that there are a number of "I have no idea, and no sources say anything about that beyond what I have in the article..." but them's the breaks, sometimes the sources just don't exist. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Slow loris

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! You won't believe it, but we hit 39.2k hits! That makes this DYK #9 all-time for hits. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! You guys did even better than T. rex. Ucucha 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

omg... I forgot about that T. rex hook. That was great! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! It was certainly worth holding out for the DYK. Ok, time to get cracking on the pygmy... I'll have it ready for pre-GAN inspection by this weekend. Sasata (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait to see it. That species is both the most well-bred in captivity (zoos), and is becoming the most popular in the pet trade. It really deserves a good article! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Polyozellus is a genus of fungi in the Thelephoraceae family, a grouping of mushrooms known collectively as the leathery earthfans. A monotypic genus, it contains the single species Polyozellus multiplex, first described in 1899. The distinctive fruit body of this species resembles blue- to purple-colored clusters of vase- or spoon-shaped caps with veiny wrinkles on the undersurface that run down the length of the stem. Polyozellus has had a varied taxonomic history and has been reclassified several times at both the family and genus level. The range of Polyozellus includes North America and eastern Asia, where P. multiplex may be found growing on the ground in coniferous forests, usually under spruce and fir trees. It is an edible species, and has been harvested for commercial purposes. Polyozellus multiplex contains the bioactive compound polyozellin, shown to have various physiological properties, including suppressive effects on stomach cancer. (more...)

Ready for FAC with Slow loris?

Once Conservation of slow lorises passes FAC, I was thinking about nominating Slow loris. Do you feel it's ready? If not, just let me know when. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should go ahead and nominate. I may be adding a little bit of material in the next days as I work on pygmy, but it won't be anything major, and I'm sure we can handle anything that comes up at the FAC. Sasata (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Boletus chrysenteron

Boletus (Xerocomus) chrysenteron

Sasata,

Would you mind verifying the identity of the 'shrooms in the picture at right. The image on cammons is named Xerocomus chrysenteron, which I assume is now Boletus chrysenteron. However, the image on the Boletus chrysenteron page looks nothing like this to me. Is that because this image is a better specimen, because of variation, or because of misidentification? Please reply on my talk page here or at Wikispecies. I have move permissions at Commons, so that the image can be renamed, if necessary. Thanks for any help you can provide. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult, if not impossible to identify mushrooms from pictures, especially when there are no shots of the pore surface, or any indication of color reactions from bruising/cutting; also, the image doesn't show any possible tree hosts. With that caveat in mind, it's entirely possible that this is B. chrysenteron. However, one of the typical characteristics of this species are reddish tints near the base of the stipe (visible in the image currently in the article), but these are not obvious here (perhaps because the color balance is off—too much yellow). Sorry, but I can't say any thing more definitive than that without more information. Sasata (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow loris taxonomy

By the way, where/how did you determine that L.'s Lemur tardigradus later became Nycticebus coucang? I always figured it was Loris tardigradus. Where you said it, you only cited L. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi VH; unexpectedly busy in RL. Will find/add that citation tonight. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm getting ready to move, myself. Unfortunately, there's an issue with the taxonomy section at the Sunda slow loris GAN, and I was thinking I could handle it, but without access to some of those original sources, I'm not sure if I can cover the early taxonomy. I'm hoping that maybe these missing details might help with that GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue, do you have access to doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1953.tb00153.x, cited in Slow loris? I don't. Ucucha 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

PDF sent. Sasata (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, safely received (also from Visionholder, by the way). That leaves me wondering about the sentence in Slow loris which says that Linnaeus described Nycticebus coucang in 1753, though: Osman Hill clearly says that all Linnaeus's lorises were slender lorises. Ucucha 00:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... you may be right, there's some confusion (well, to me at least) about the progression Lemur tardigradus L. 1753 -> Tardigradus coucang Boddaert 1783 -> Lemur tardigradus Link 1795 -> Nycticebus E. Geoffroy 1812 -> Nycticebus tardigradus -> Nycticebus coucang. WIll investigate further. Please fix the taxonomy if you figure it out first :) Sasata (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I mostly know what's going on: Linnaeus (1753 and 1758) named the slender loris Lemur tardigradus. That he named a slender (and not a slow) loris is made clear by his comment that the critter lives in Ceylon and by his references, which refer to slender lorises (Stone and Rehn, 1902). Boddaert (1785) [not 1783 as far as I'm aware] first named a slow loris, Tardigradus coucang. In the 19th century, a lot of people for unclear reasons decided that tardigradus referred to the slow loris (which was then Nycticebus tardigradus, while the slender was Loris gracilis). In 1812, Geoffroy named the genus Nycticebus, but didn't list the names coucang or tardigradus. In 1902, Stone and Rehn made clear that tardigradus was in fact a slender loris, and therefore used coucang for the slow loris. Everyone else since then has followed them. Ucucha 01:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried my best to summarize this on the Slow loris article, along with a clarification on the type species. Please double-check me, and if everything looks okay, I will perform a minor transplant to the Sunda slow loris article in order to close out the GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, the more critical eyes the better. Still plodding along with pygmy, but it's slow going. I keep finding new articles to investigate, but it's over 3500 words now, and its time to stop adding and start making the prose sound less crappy. Oh yeah, RL too ... Sasata (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the dedication! Don't be afraid to leave some of the work for us. Your RL is more important than mine. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still a few problems; the text still incorrectly says coucang is the type species, for example. I'll try to rewrite tonight when I'm home. Ucucha 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hi Sasata - just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for the review of True at First Light. I'm very pleased with that nomination because the article is better for the reviewer's comments and you led the way. Again, thanks so much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and you're quite welcome. The article didn't really need much work, just minor tweaks, which made my reviewing job easy. Sasata (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fossa is a cat-like, carnivorous mammal that is endemic to Madagascar. It is a member of the Eupleridae, a family of carnivorans closely related to the mongoose family. Its classification has been controversial because its physical traits resemble those of cats, yet other traits suggest a close relationship with viverrids. The fossa is the largest mammalian carnivore on the island of Madagascar and has been compared to a small cougar. Adults have a head-body length of 70–80 cm (28–31 in) and weigh between 5.5–8.6 kg (12–19 lb), with the males larger than the females. It has semi-retractable claws and flexible ankles that allow it to climb up and down trees head-first, and also support jumping from tree-to-tree. The fossa is unique within its family for the shape of its genitalia, which share traits with those of cats and hyenas. The species is widespread, although population densities are usually low. It is found solely in forested habitat, and actively hunts both day and night. Over 50% of its diet consists of lemurs, the endemic primates found on the island, though tenrecs, rodents, lizards, birds, and other animals are also documented as prey. The fossa is listed as "Vulnerable" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The greatest threat to the species is habitat destruction. (more...)

Roy Hallings pictures on Mushroom Observer

I recently contacted Dr. Halling about using a photo of Royoungia boletoides that he had on Mushroom Observer for the article on Wikipedia. On MO it is licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA which (because of the NC) is not approved for use on wikipedia. Well he actually complained that several other of his photos were already being used on wikipedia in violation of this and I found a couple of examples: Strobilomyces foveatus and Phylloporus alborufus the latter of which I had changed the license tag and it was marked for speedy deletion. I saw that it was your upload and I wanted to check and see if this was the right course of action, or if there was something deeper going on here, or maybe you could talk to the rights holder. Thanks! --MTHarden (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very careful about uploading only properly licensed images to Wikimedia Commons. Any images that are uploaded were properly licensed (i.e., in this case, with CC-by-SA 3.0, not the CC-by-NC-SA 3.0 which they are currently listed as). The licenses were changed by Dr. Halling after they were uploaded to Commons (I was not aware of this), but I'm not sure what the protocol is when the owner changes licenses post-publication. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See for example my comment on his image of Durianella where I indicated that I had already uploaded his image to the corresponding Wikipedia page; when he posted the image, it was originally cc-by-sa 3.0 but the license has since been changed to cc-by-nc-sa. Sasata (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. The MO website though shows the last modified time the same as the creation time, so maybe they don't log changes to the license. Here is the text of Dr. Halling's complaint to me:

" Thanks for the email and for asking about the image(s).

Until folks who have posted my earlier images on Wikipedia (specfic Boletellus images) actually give me credit for the images and put a link back to the original Observation on MO (not just to the MO site) and/or to the copyrighted version on my bolete pages at the NYBG, THEN I am not inclined to change the tags for any future images.

Please note: I really do prefer to share images and information - that's why I post on MO. However, when proper attribution is not given, or when I am not alerted to the re-purposing of my intellectual property without attribution, THEN I am inclined to be less generous. I hope you understand."

And it does look to me like those conditions (attribution and linkage) are met, so maybe this is something that he would be willing to work with us. --MTHarden (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I checked the two Bolletellus images of his I've uploaded (File:Boletellus ananiceps 83782.jpg and File:Boletellus dissiliens 41925.jpg), and they both seem to meet the conditions he desires. If you correspond with him again, please let me know what I can do on my end to make my uploads more compliant with his wishes. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I started a talk on the Commons file about the rights. [3] MO does provide a lot of great mushroom pictures! --MTHarden (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in, creative commons licenses are non-revocable, so now offering the images under a different license does not change the copyright status of copies of the image acquired under the original license Jebus989^✰ 18:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gyromitra_esculenta#Not_the_only_toxic_mushroom_consumed

probably worth reopening debate at Template talk:Mycomorphbox...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lingering comment at the FAC

Ucucha had a question about Oldfield Thomas, which I left for you. Sorry if it slipped by in the clutter. Would you mind taking a look since you wrote that section? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw it; will respond this afternoon—am only able to edit in 5 minute bursts as occupied with other stuff throughout the day. Thanks for getting to all the other comments so quickly! Sasata (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if I have time (which I'll probably do), I'll try to fix it myself. Ucucha 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gymnogaster

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great cleanup of Psilocybin

Good job. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (3)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Boletus edulis is a basidiomycete fungus, widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere across Europe, Asia, and North America, and has been introduced to southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The fungus grows in deciduous and coniferous forests and tree plantations, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with living trees by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots. The fungus produces spore-bearing fruit bodies above ground in summer and autumn. The fruit body consists of a large and imposing brown cap which on occasion can reach 35 cm (14 in) in diameter and 3 kg (6.6 lb) in weight. It has tubes extending downward from the underside of the cap, rather than gills. Prized as an ingredient in various foods, B. edulis is an edible mushroom held in high regard in many cuisines, and is commonly prepared and eaten in soups, pasta, or risotto. The mushroom is low in fat and digestible carbohydrates, and high in protein, vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre. Although it is sold commercially, it has not been successfully grown in cultivation. Available fresh in autumn in Central, Southern and Northern Europe, it is most often dried, packaged and distributed worldwide. (more...)

Pygmy slow loris

Hi Sasata, how is the rewrite of pygmy slow loris going? If you don't have enough time, perhaps you can put what you have on Wiki so we can finish it jointly. Ucucha 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ucucha, I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks (and finding frustratingly few mushrooms despite being surrounded by forests). Will be back to normal routine by Monday, and I'll post the rewrite then. It would be great to have you on board with along with Visionholder to whip it into shape. Talk soon. Sasata (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'll definitely be helping, and I hope you'll find some mushrooms in the last few days. Ucucha 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha and Visionholder: I have posted my rewrite in a sandbox. It's not ready to go live yet, as it still contains a lot of copy/pasted material that hasn't been changed much from the source (mostly from the CITES document). I imagine much of this needs to be trimmed down, some material is repetitive, and should be better organized. Haven't really touched the lead yet. I'd appreciate any help in organizing/rewriting (and suggestions for a DYK hook!). Sasata (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Say....

Have you teh fulltext of that fungus article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia canei/archive1? My library lacks digital access of that journal :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I included the link but inserted an extra character at the end. Should take you directly to the article at the Cyberliber site now. Sasata (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fungus stubbed @ Plectronidium australiense. Sasata (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spongiforma squarepantsii

Hello Sasata, Thank you very much for finding that photo on the article that quickly. Also for adding all the usefull information for it! Br, Dryke (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I check Mushroom Observer many times daily, and was surprised to see that some photos of the species were uploaded shortly after I added some information to the article. I also nominated it for DYK. I'll probably keep working on the article in the next few days and submit for GA. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Then it might definately be nice if the picture of the SpongeBob-creature could be added too. (I asked it already in commons anonymously) Keep up your great work, Dryke (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

William Beebe GA candidacy

I’ve made most of the changes that you suggested to this article, but there were a few things I wasn’t sure about, and one suggestion you made that I agreed with but didn’t know the right way to implement. I should be available on and off to discuss these things with you both today and tomorrow. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hey Sas, thought you might like this photo combining two things you like - coffee and mushrooms! I won't be surprised if you can't ID it, but it would be cool if you can. In case you can't tell they are tiny (about 2cm). Got a few more shots for you but they'll have to wait - there aren't many fungi here though as Eucalyptus is pretty inedible to them it seems. SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, how's the Rwandan coffee work going? In the picture, it appears as if some of the cap margins are turning black (deliquescing, in fungus lingo), so I'd guess one of the coprinoid genera, maybe Coprinopsis. See the second image in Coprinopsis lagopus for a roughly similar species with a deliquescing cap. There are over 200 species of Coprinopsis, however, so I wont even try to guess what this species might be. Perhaps one of your other shots might show the gills? Sasata (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All good thanks - African time can be very frustrating, but I drank my first home-processed espresso a couple of weeks ago which makes up for it! Your guess looks pretty good to me (not that I know anything about mushrooms) and I thought a gill shot might come in handy - any use? SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may come in handy; I did a quick lit search for coprinoid species that grow on coffee waste, but it looks like more specialist literature will be required (to which I don't have easy access). You may get a more specific ID at Mushroom Observer. Seen any coffee leaf rust growing on the plants? Sasata (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'll put them all up on mushroom observer when I have a chance. And yep, plenty of it - have some photos of more severe infections than the one in the article at the moment which I'll upload in the future. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Zoopagales

I thought we were following the Hibbett et al. classification, under which Zygomycota is defunct. There is no division Zygomycota listed on the Fungi page, so that page needs to be synched with the Zoopagales page, if we're retaining Zygomycota for some taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi EP. The upper-level classification of the Fungi, including Zygomycota, is in flux right now, and I'm not sure a clear consensus has yet been established among mycologists. I just did a search for "Zygomycota", and it appears that the taxon is still in common use in papers published in 2010 and 2011. For my work here, I've mostly been following the classification of the Dictionary of the Fungi (2008), and in their Zoopagales entry, they give Hibbett et al. (2007) as a reference... so I don't know if that means they disagree with their conclusions, or have just opted to remain conservative with regards to changing upper-level classification until more analyses are published. We really could use a Fungal classification article that goes into more detail about this. Agree totally about getting these articles in synch, but it will require someone surveying the recent literature and trying to determine what the consensus is... I will move this closer to the top of my to-do list, but hopefully someone gets there before me :-) Sasata (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena galericulata

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating "very well known"

Your external web site does not govern the use of hyphens in Wikipedia; rather, WP:HYPHEN does. In particular, WP:HYPHEN #3, the fifth bullet point: "but normally 'a very well managed firm', since well itself is modified". Also in the articles where you reverted my edits, well is modified by very. Please un-revert my changes. Chris the speller ^yack 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN itself does not contain an example that opposes its instruction. The conflict is within other parts of the MoS. Please follow the guidelines on hyphens. Chris the speller ^yack 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, your example, "Among the most well-known members", immediately follows "so avoid constructions like these:", so I suggest that you avoid it. Chris the speller ^yack 02:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't change the crappy examples in WP:MoS, because the page is protected. The guideline in the fifth bullet point is crystal clear, so why don't we avoid wikilawyering and just follow it? I haven't yet taken on the WP article on "Hyphen", but it has no bearing on the WP:HYPHEN guideline. Chris the speller ^yack 02:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We're cool. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 04:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Spongiforma squarepantsii

The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Galiella rufa

Hello! Your submission of Galiella rufa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AnakngAraw (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Clito or Infudibuli

Clitocybe geotropa should probably be Infudibulicybe geotropa since we recognize that genus. Think you can have a look? Circéus (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, see user talk:Casliber#Clitocybe vs. Infundibulicybe. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Galiella rufa

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Meinhard Moser

Hey, I've finally gotten around to expanding Meinhard Moser- I was wondering if you have access to the journal Sydowia? Neither of the articles I have read (the obituaries) have much by way of a bibliography, as "as one will be appearing in Sydowia, hopefully during 2003." He has around 200 publications, so I'm not sure how exactly I would format it (leave out the minor ones? Long table? Separate article?) but I'd love to get hold of that article, if it was ever published. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sydowia is online at [4], but I couldn't find any obituary for Moser (there is one for one Emil Müller in 60(1)). Ucucha 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the "2003" part—the online stuff only goes back to 2005. Ucucha 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Older issues are available at Cyberliber, but they only go to 1978. My university library subscribes; I can scan the article for you next time I go, but can't give a firm date of when that will be – any time in the next three weeks... As for a list of publications, I'm not sure myself. I have a similar dilemma with some other mycologist biographies I've been working on. 200 publications sounds like enough for a separate list, but is there a precedent for this type of article? Sasata (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really good of you. How annoying that it's not online- it means there's no chance of making use of copy-paste! There is some precedent for bibliographies; note, for instance, George Orwell bibliography, a featured list. Admittedly, Moser's no Orwell, and I can't think of a separate bibliography for someone so minor that I have seen, but it gives an idea. I'd like to keep it all in the one article, if possible, but I'll wait until I see the bibliography (if it did get published) before I make a decision. Of course, I very much doubt I'll have the patience to copy out lists of things in a language I can really read... J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pholiota communis

Calmer Waters 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

L. lubrica: Leotiales versus Helotiales

Hey, I was following the Zhong source with "Leotiales"- it's worth noting that the article Helotiales does not mention Leotiaceae, while Leotiales does. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2011- I've already messed around with the image a little. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do some reading and get back to you on the classification. Thanks for the TFA heads up, the article needs to be updated with some recent research—doi:10.1007/s13225-010-0070-0 Will finish up the GA review tonight. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, Leotiales. Sasata (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, it's ended up looking pretty good, even if I do say so myself! J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome; its brethren Leotia viscosa is begging for similar treatment ;) Sasata (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (4)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lactarius volemus is a species of fungus in the genus Lactarius. It is distributed in warm temperate regions and northern areas of the Northern Hemisphere, and has been collected in Europe, North America, Central America, and Asia. A mycorrhizal fungus, its fruit bodies grow on the ground at the base of various species of trees from summer to autumn, either individually or in groups. It is considered a choice edible mushroom, and is sold in markets in Asia. The colour of the L. volemus mushroom varies from apricot to tawny, and the cap may be up to 11 cm (4.3 in) wide. The pale golden yellow gills on the underside of the cap are closely spaced and sometimes forked. One of the mushroom's most distinctive features is the large amount of latex ("milk") that it exudes when the gills are damaged. It also has a distinctive fishy smell, which does not affect the taste. The mushroom also contains a natural rubber that has been chemically characterized. (more...)

DYK nomination for Tremella encephala

Hello! Your submission of Tremella encephala at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 03:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Suillus pungens a Feature Article! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees, as there is currently a backlog. Any help is appreciated! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tremella encephala

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stereum sanguinolentum

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tuber oregonense

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Trade?

Love to- shall I just leave some thoughts on the talk page? J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. My review will take a few days. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you DYKing Limnoperdon as a 5x?

It's a hooker, and I see some "mocha chocolata ya ya"! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't yet formulated a solid hook... something about it being an "aquatic puffbal"? Any ideas? Sasata (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Smarty pants, are we? ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of George Binney's DYK

Dear Sasata, Thanks for your review of Sir George Binney's DYK. I have trimmed the hook down to what I think is exactly 200 characters. I hope it is OK now. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

Category:Pezizales and Category:Pezizomycetes

As the class Pezizomycetes contains only one order Pezizales, I am inclined to merge the category Category:Pezizomycetes down to Category:Pezizales. What do you think? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)