Talk:Entoloma sinuatum

OK, note to self - stands at 93 words on Jan 22, before exapnding for crack at DYK. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the compound responsible for toxicity been identified? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I was googling for that with no luck so far. The situation is similar for many fungi. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

The writing in this article is very bad. The summary paragraph is a mish-mash of statements strung in sequence without logical connection or context. (Note that mushrooms do not have symptoms; mushroom poisining has symptoms.) Consider also this sentence: "More recently still, it has been called by its current name of E. sinuatum." This sentence says nothing and is a tautology. Of course it will be called by its current name more recently than any older names. Or consider this setnce which leads off a section: "Appearing as a medium to large mushroom, this bears a cap usually 6-15 cm wide (2½-6 in), occasionally reaching 25 cm (10 in)." The sentence uses "this" as the leading identifier. It needs an antecedent, particularly since it has a participial clause dependent upon it for context.

The article needs a throrough rewrite before it can even be considered for GA status. This does not consider some of the missing information. For example, the mushrrom is found in North America and Europe... OK, but does that include both Mexico and Alaska? Greece and Norway? It seems unlikely that a mushrrom species would be that widely distributed and not occur on other continents. The article needs more precision in the information it provides. The taxonomy section is also hard to follow because of the many names provided in such a short space. This could be helped by a rewrite, and by utilizing the synonyms= feature of the {{Taxobox}} template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get onto it. Hard when no-one else is doing fungi :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I work primarily on bryophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I feel so sympathetic now! Call me if you need copyediting :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The followiing paragraph from the taxonomy section needs improvement: To complicate matters further, Quélet had proposed a broader genus Rhodophyllus for all agarics with adnate or sinuate gills and angular spores in 1886, countering Kummer's erection of Entoloma to genus level, with the alternate combination of Rhodophyllus sinuatus. There was a split for many decades between mycologists following either author, though later authorities have tended to favour Entoloma.. There is alot of jargon (naming specific kinds of gills without explaining how they differ from any kind of gills, using the term "agarics" whose origin is not obvious to non-biologists).

- I ditched agaric as it is a tricker term now anyway given that some gilled fungi are unrelated etc. - so I left it at gilled fungi and linked the gills to the illustrations.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) - tried to jig the last bit too a bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: a fact template has been added where one reference is required. This may be the reference used later on in the text but I feel it needs to be used here as well since you are making a statement about how very much larger than average specimens have been reported.

- no problemo - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, good use of references

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass, covers taxonomy very well compared to most articles

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Future improvements could include the use of more images to illustrate the differences between this species and the ones it is mistaken for. More detail of the effects of poisoning and the treatment could also be added. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. thanks for the tips. I was musing on...(drum roll)..... the next step... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See, you get there eventually ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking web of science

Yields (search terms "Entoloma sinuatum") Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Title: Trace element levels of mushroom species from East Black Sea region of Turkey Author(s): Tuzen M, Sesli E, Soylak M Source: FOOD CONTROL Volume: 18 Issue: 7 Pages: 806-810 Published: JUL 2007 Times Cited: 21

 Done added...it's been cited a bit too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Title: Trace metal contents of higher fungi from Zigana Highland in Turkey Author(s): Sesli E Source: ASIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Pages: 636-640 Published: JAN-FEB 2007 Times Cited: 5

3. Title: Mercury in mushrooms and soil of the Tarnobrzeska Plain, south-eastern Poland Author(s): Falandysz J Source: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART A-TOXIC/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Volume: 37 Issue: 3 Pages: 343-352 Published: 2002 Times Cited: 30

 Done added....it's been cited a bit too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(search terms "Entoloma lividum")

1. Title: ARSENOBETAINE AND OTHER ARSENIC SPECIES IN MUSHROOMS Author(s): BYRNE AR, SLEJKOVEC Z, STIJVE T, et al. Source: APPLIED ORGANOMETALLIC CHEMISTRY Volume: 9 Issue: 4 Pages: 305-313 Published: JUN 1995 Times Cited: 68

2. Title: Regarding the sequela which can leave intoxication due to Entoloma lividum. Author(s): Azoulay L Source: COMPTES RENDUS DES SEANCES DE LA SOCIETE DE BIOLOGIE ET DE SES FILIALES Volume: 89 Pages: 33-34 Published: 1923 Times Cited: 0

 Not done I think we can safely leave this one out due to its age and the fact it is in French - I'm sure the same info has been summarised elsewhere WRT its toxicity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NB: Nil results with "Rhodophyllus sinuatus" Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redeuilh (see ref 3) states he wrote an article in 1995 Bull. Soc. Mycol. France 155-68. Worth gettting. I can read it on tuesday in the library. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redeuilh (see ref 3) states Romagnesi felt there were two (distinct but closely related) species - lividum and sinuatum - in an article 1987 Bull. Soc. Mycol. France (vol 94 pp. 105-06) and elsewhere.

damn - both are French only. I think there is enough info in monographs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If something can somehow be arranged, I can totally help XD. Circéus (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for thy life Circeus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit to my utter incomprehension of that line. In any case, I talked of an "arrangement" because I am not in Montreal atm, so I can't go and look up the articles myself <_<;;. Circéus (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, didn't realise you were not in Montreal. I just realised French is your native language so I will go and photograph the Frnech articles above (which I can't read) and email them to you. I will send the Taxon articles through for reference. Actually, you might have to send me a blank email first as the email finction does not allow me to attach stuff to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You can just send the Taxon reference. Unless it's from an Ingenta-only article, I can get JSTOR through the uni proxy. I'm visiting my parents for Christmas, hence the problem. Circéus (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Other stuff to do:
• find out how is this classified infragenerically (I don't have any Entoloma literature handy, but there's some at the library)

Machiel Noordeloos has a website where he's placed lots of information on entoloma with links to a great paper, but has not updated the classification of the genus as such yet. I've added the cladistic stuff, but spore materiual can be embellished as can classical classification. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• find out what's up with synonym Rhodophyllus sinuatus Singer 1951

I have covered that in para 3 of "Taxonomy" section...but I agree that I have no idea how Singer 1951 came to be attached to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It comes from Singer's " The Agaricales in modern taxonomy", which is in the uni library. Will try to get this week.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

aaand was unpopular by the looks of things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• needs microscopic characteristics

Noordeloos' monograph is in the library - thankfully some of it is in English - my Italian is no good...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I could add another full paragraph based on Ammirati 1985... do you think there's enough already or would you prefer the extra detail? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• not completely convinced the gill pic I put in is correct (attachment looks adnate with a notch, rather than free), but will see what other sources says about the gills. There are other photo options for gills if this one is bogus.

• gill attachment is "almost free to sinuate" according to one source, more or less corrobrated by other sources I checked, so the gill pic can stay. Sasata (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agerer 2002 needs a page # (Colour Atlas of Ectomycorrhizae; it's at my library)

•  Done Sasata (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• what is the identity of the toxin?

it is unknown the last time I checked.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• scour Web of Knowledge, JSTOR, Google Books, and my library for any additional info Sasata (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a nice stamp - not sure what to do with it though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say just put it in the toxicity section, which won't be getting an image of a chemical structure (since we don't know what the toxin is). But, what do we know about copyright status of German stamps? Sasata (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• No idea. FUR? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Public domain! I'll upload and add. Sasata (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bah. The comp photo has an annoying grid pattern, and the stock an even more annoying watermark. Not really worth it, IMO. Before I give up, I'll see if I can order it cheaply online, and if so, I'll get it and take a macro myself. Sasata (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that was easy. For about 5 bucks I got a set of eight mint 1974 East German stamps including this one, so I'll be able to use the others in their articles too. Will be sent from Britain, so could take a couple of week to get here. Sasata (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• any objections to list-defined refs? Sasata (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • no, go for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done (but some books refs still need locations) Sasata (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• lead needs fattening Sasata (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

done. enough do you reckon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's about right.

• lead: "Entoloma is a genus of pink-spored fungi, of which this species is the largest." That last part should be in the body of the article, and needs a source. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reference nitpicks:

• Give full names when known or stick to the author format given by the source?
• Spaces between author initials or not? (e.g. Benedict, R.G. vs. Benedict, R. G. ?)
• Separate out multiple uses of single source into "Cited books" subsection (currently Benjamin 1985 and Noordeloos 1985)
• Consistently link author names if link available or not? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) Aesthetically I actually refer "Smith J" over "Smith, J.", but the latter looks less odd when placed next to "Smith, John" - which I aim for if possible. (2) Had not thought about spaces - my initial thinking is that the period makes a big enough space (3) agreed, will do (4) yes, I like linking if possible consistently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph confusing me at FAC

I'm posting here rather than at the FAC since it seems unnecessary to go into details of copyediting there. I'll post a link at the FAC to this section.

I am unclear about the "Despite" sentence, as I said at the FAC; but I now think I understand everything up to that point. I am aware I am probably mangling the specialized meaning of some terms such as "describe", but here's how I would rewrite the first few sentences to convey what I now think they mean:

"The fungus now known as Entoloma sinuatum has had a complicated taxonomic history. The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard named it Agaricus lividus in his 1788 Champignon de la France. Bulliard did not formally describe it but provided notes that were sufficient to make it clear he was discussing E. sinuatum, although it later became apparent that the illustration accompanying his text actually depicted Pluteus cervinus. Meanwhile, Christian Persoon independently described E. sinuatum under the name Agaricus sinuatus in 1801. German mycologist Paul Kummer, following Persoon's name, moved it to Entoloma in 1871, resulting in the current binomal name; and one year later Lucien Quelet, following Bulliard instead, similarly moved the fungus to Entoloma, resulting in the name Entoloma lividum."

I hope this makes it clearer what I'm trying to get at; for the lay reader the paragraph was very dense, and I hope this is a little easier to navigate. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I made some (perhaps similar) tweaks while you were writing this. However, I see a few problems of my own. The source cited—Redeuilh (1999)—does not actually say Agaricus lividus is Pluteus cervinus, only that it is a species of Pluteus. Also, Redeuilh says that there is unanimous agreement that Bulliard's concept of Agaricus lividus refers to a Pluteus species—which does not rhyme well with any assertion that Bulliard somehow intended to describe Entoloma sinuatum. Ucucha 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, similar tweaks; if you compare you'll see I added rather more explanatory bits than you have done, presumably because I know so little about the topic and need more explanation. Any thoughts on whether my version contains anything further that could be used? And I assume you'll post a note based on your comments above about Redeuilh at the FAC? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet whether all that you say is correct—for example, Bulliard actually says that "Agaricus lividus" tastes well, which doesn't seem very consistent with this species. I'll leave my comments here for now, to avoid duplicating them; I'm sure Cas will address any issues. Ucucha 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also asked user:Circeus for input. Ucucha 04:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just have to redownload the 99 Rediulh Taxon paper and read it again. Back soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay - this is how Reduilh describes it - Bulliard illustrates and names a mushroom Agaricus lividus, along with some notes, which point to it describing a species of Pluteus. Quelet comes along and writes up a new description of Entoloma lividum, but using the name as a reclassification of Bulliard's name, yet ascribes it to what we now know as E. sinuatum. Many if not most authorities, guidebooks etc. follow suit. Meanwhile Persoon (legitimately) describes Agaricus sinuatus which turns out to be the first true description, and Kummer (and some others) follow this name. Bith names appear in print (alongside Rhodophyllus sinuatus, to make things more confusing) Noordeloos points out the error of Bulliard's description, leaving E. sinuatum as the name by precedence. Reduilh (unsuccessfully) proposes the official Conserving of E. lividum. I'll rejig the para now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• update - okay guys, is it clearer now? I have reworded so the first para on how the three common scientific names came about, and the second is later jostling over the names and reasons for final ruling. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weren't you going to send me the French redeuilh papers? I don't remember where that showed up, so I don,t remember the refs (if I had them, I could go get them at the library). I'm going to have a go at rewriting the section, but knowing why the 50s shift to sinuatus happened would help. Circéus (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Congratulations on the FA, Cas! With regard to these two paragraphs, I think they are much improved, and if the article were still at FAC I'd be supporting. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Thx Mike :) Circeus I got the 1999 Reduilh article where he proposes conserving lividum, and teh followup where it was opposed 11-1 (did I send you them????). I failed to find the French papers, and my email to Machiel Noordeloos bounced. I'll resend the taxon paper of Reduilh, and try to hunt down a valid email address for Noordeloos. It'd be great if he could chip in with some comments and papers on Entoloma - he looks pretty approachable by the looks of his website (Rhodophyllomon digivolve to Entolomon...injoke there) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I would only need the bibliographic refs, since they are available at my uni library (I checked back then). I'll double check if they aren't given in his conservation proposal. Circéus (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Circeus digivolve to... Duncemon THe references are discussed RIGHT ABOVE ON THIS VERY PAGE. *groans* I'll get on campus tomorrow and look those up. Circéus (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[undent] I got the romagnesi article,. It basically and briefly argues there is definite ground to treat E. lividum Quél. and E. sinuatum (Bull. ex Pers.:Fr.) P.Kumm. as separate species, and that's it, and not that helpful since he argues from latin descriptions of both species without saying where they're from. Nordeloos is also given (in Redeuilh, 1995) as having come to a similar conclusion (Persoonia 11:159-74, 1981 and 12(4):457-8, 1985, the latter is also the protologue of E. eulividum), whatever Noordeloos' arguments were, it would appear he had changed his mind by the time he got to his Fungi Europaei monograph. However, I do believe it could be helpful if anybody who has access to it could look up what exactly he says as Redeuilh (1999) calls him "the only monographer to have queried the usage" and presumably he discusses his reasons for reversing his E. eulividum (which is only justified if E. sinuatum is not a synonym).

As a side note, Bulliard's "Agaric sinué" is VERY different in illustration from his A. lividus.Circéus (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! The image could feasibly be E. sinuatum although the largest mushroom in the middle looks funny with a very wavy-marginned cap (?) Still it has pink gills....but there is no text at all related to it :( I can re-read Noordeloos tomorrow if I get a chance to go to the uni library...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only reason E. sinuatum doesn't go back to Bulliard too is because he wrote the name out in French ^_^;;; I think that image is actually its holo- or lectotype. Anyway, I think the reason why lividum "lost out" at some point was that change in the ICBN when they (originally) devalidated older fungal names. I think I can now write a fairly good, maybe even gripping narrative. I hope I can be excused for getting a bit lyric in places. Circéus (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aww, lyric is good, remember we're aiming for "brilliant prose" :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we have a new narrative. Is it any good? Also for some reason "Rhodophyllus lividus" appeared twice in the taxobox synonyms. I cut the one attributer to Singer. Circéus (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the expanded and clear explanation. I have a few comments. The part around "These two classifications coexisted for many decades," should make clearer what the alternative classification is (Entoloma). I presume that the changes to the ICBN mentioned only applied to fungi; if so, that should be mentioned explicitly. Ucucha 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for pointing those out. Circéus (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice. I like it. It is sequential and explanatory. Nothing leaps out as copyeditable. "saga" is definitely the right word. Even though it is a theoretical combination, I have never seen Rhodophyllus lividus used as the primary name, but seen it written as a synonym. The other three are all through my old fungus books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A source to track down sometime

Didier Dufresne, 1999, "La vengeance de l'entolome livide" Sasata (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it's youth/kid's lit, in a collection noted "funny stories". And a pretty obscure pub at that: the publisher identifier is 6-digits! Circéus (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well never mind then--I saw it mentioned on the French wiki article. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entoloma sinuatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724152641/http://www.entoloma.nl/pdf/Co-David_et_al_entolomataceae.pdf to http://www.entoloma.nl/pdf/Co-David_et_al_entolomataceae.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)