Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Fungi (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

March 2016 updateEdit

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Some questions about fungi Wikipedia articles for Kew GardensEdit

Hi all

I've made a contact with someone at Kew Gardens who is head of fungi, I'm hoping to work with Kew to share some content on Wikipedia and Commons. I wanted to give her some information on the state of fungi articles on English Wikipedia, a couple of questions:

  1. How many fungi species articles are there? I see from the article assessment there are 20,000 articles but assume this includes families etc
  2. Is there a main recongised source of information for funghi articles like Plants of the World Online is for most articles covered by Wikiproject Plants? Is it index fungorum (also run by Kew)?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to get a good estimate of the number of species articles. I gave you an estimate for number of plant species articles, but plants make more use of automatic taxobox/speciesbox, and plant higher taxa are consistently placed in categories for their rank. There are 14,118 fungus articles with taxoboxes. There are 3997 articles in Category:Fungus genera, 503 in the category for families, 146 in the category for orders and 41 classes. That leaves 9431 articles, but some of those are going to be infraspecies, or higher taxa that aren't in a rank category.
Mycobank is another important source, along with Index Fungorum. There hasn't been any discussion regarded whether Mycobank is preferred over Index Fungorum or vice versa. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Plantdrew, thanks very much, super helpful. John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Attamyces - inactive taxon. Unsure how to redirect or delete.Edit

EDIT: I found the answer. For future reference for others the solution was to add this at the top of the page (using source editor) on the Attamyces page to redirect away from it.

#REDIRECT Leucoagaricus gongylophorus

((R from alternative scientific name|fungus))

Replace brackets with curly brackets.

Hopefully this was the correct thing to do?

EDIT2: The redirect was changed by another user to the genus page for Leucoagaricus. So for future reference for others I presume that this was the correct course of action. As it was a monotypic genus and they redirect species page to the genus I was not certain myself on where to send the inactive genus page. Thanks for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MycoMutant (talkcontribs) 18:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

————————


The monotypic Attamyces bromatificus is a synonym for the leafcutter ant fungus Leucoagaricus gongylophorus.

http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=309369


I presume at some point they were merged based on DNA but I've yet to find a source on when or how this happened.

I think Attamyces should be redirected to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus or else deleted. I'm new to editing and don't know which action is more appropriate or how to perform such a thing. I have added a note on the Attamyces page explaining that it is a synonym with a link to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus and I've also taken the description and reference from the Attamyces page and included it in the L. gongylophorus taxonomy.


Hopefully someone more experienced can help me out here or tell me what to do.


Thanks (also if anyone knows of any other ant associated fungi let me know and I'll look into them. I've gone on a bit of a dive at the moment and submitted a page for Myrmecopterula too but most everything else I'm finding are just L. gongylophorus, unspecified Leucoagaricus or Leucocoprinus species or lacking in solid information). MycoMutant (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Because Attamyces is a generic synonym for Leucoagaricus, it should redirect to that genus (I've changed the target). The species name Attamyces bromatificus should redirect to Leucoagaricus gongylophorus. Redirect pages like these should get tagged with {{WikiProject Fungi|class=redirect}} on their talk page (to help with future searching/record keeping/maintenance). Nice work on the mushroom pages! Esculenta (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance and for redirecting the other defunct Leucoagaricus synonyms. I was unclear on the correct course of action since Attamyces was monotypic and monotypic species always redirect to the genus page so the Attacmyces page was sort of the page for the ant fungus species itself. I've always struggled a bit with markdown stuff as syntax makes my head hurt but I'm having a lot of fun diving into these old journals. MycoMutant (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How about a page on the 'Applied Use of Fungi'?Edit

Dear WikiProject Fungi community,

Hello! We would like to create a Wikipedia page on the 'Applied Use of Fungi' given the enourmous use fungi are currently being investigated and exploited for. We would like to ask here if there is some objections or other considerations to take into account.

We want to call this initiative the 'Visible Fungi initiative' and we seek to liaise with fungi 'practitioners' (researchers, artists, collectors, DIY, enthusiasts, growers, etc.). Applications of fungi can be in architecture, art, citizen science projects, fashion, industry, materials, patenting, etc.

We aim to encourage fungi practitioners to (i) edit the page themselves, (ii) share examples with the hashtag #VisibleFungi on social media (Twitter), and/or (iii) upload images & files on fungi on Wikimedia commons.

We aim to cross-link existing pages into and from the page Applied Use of Fungi. We speak various languages and would like also to encourage people to translate the page and write in different languages (and help with translation whenever we can).

In general, we also seek feedback from the members of the WikiProject Fungi community if they share the feeling that fungi are underrepresented on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons (e.g. media files on 'fungi' seem to be dominated by mushrooms).

Thank you for the feedback! CorradoNai (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Inactive type species - best to remove hyperlink or redirect to synonym?Edit

Not sure on the correct protocol here. On the Leucoagaricus page Leucoagaricus macrorhizus is listed in the taxobox (correctly) as the type species but has since been reclassified as Leucoagaricus barssii. Is it worth creating a redirect page to it or just removing the link and leaving the old species name in as plain text? I wouldn't bother for defunct synonyms usually but since it's the type species it seems like it might be worth doing. MycoMutant (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Or put ''[[Leucoagaricus barssii|Leucoagaricus macrorhizus]]''? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Added a brief note on the Leucoagaricus barssii page about the type species being reclassified.MycoMutant (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Reclassification of many Coprinellus species as Tulosesus (2020)Edit

I've created a genus page for Tulosesus with a list of species from Species Fungorum and for now I've linked the species to their Coprinellus synonyms, the ones with existing pages anyway. I'm happy to modify the existing pages and add more details since most are very sparse but I don't feel totally confident/competent in doing the redirects or renaming solo yet. So could do with some assistance from more experienced users here.

It seems worth doing since ink caps are a common one for ID requests and I'm seeing some confusion with the odd person using Tulosesus. MycoMutant (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you move the page, the redirect will be created automatically.
Just go tot Coprinellus spcies article and click the move tab. Enter the new page title (just change the genus is the new name textbox) and give a reason. I've moved Coprinellus amphithallus to Tulosesus amphithallus.
Sometimes the move might be blocked if someone has set up a redirect at the new page name. It wasn't an issue for the one I moved. Then you need to ask someone to do a more complex move which requires additional permissions. Asking here should be OK as I think some page movers watch the page. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look tomorrow and use the one you did as a example to work out how to do the others.MycoMutant (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There is an option to see which links are redirects, displaying them in different colours. This can be very useful when navigating the taxonomy.
You have to edit your commons.css file (User:MycoMutant2/common.css; you will need to create the file) to add the following:
 .mw-redirect {
     color: #006633;
 }
 .mw-redirect:visited {
     color: #009900;
 }
 .mw-redirect:hover {
     color: #990000;
 }
 .mw-redirect:active {
     color: #990000;
 }
As always, if you have a problem/question just ask. There are lots of people here who want to help newcomers, which we all were at some point. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
All pages have been redirected and updated. I'll do another pass of them later to check for any mistakes but I think it's all good. Thanks for the CSS snippet. It made it so much easier to keep track and I wouldn't have thought to do that.MycoMutant (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

New task forceEdit

Esculenta started up a lichen task force this week. A few of us have joined it already, and we're eager to expand our numbers. We're busily tagging appropriate articles at the moment, but have big plans for improving the 'pedia's coverage of all lichen-related topics in the future. If you're interested, please join us! The shortcut is WP:LICHEN. MeegsC (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Using a sortable table for species list containing observation totals.Edit

I haven't seen this done before so I don't want to commit it to the List of Leucocoprinus species page without getting some feedback here first.

I've drafted the list in my sandbox:

User:MycoMutant/sandbox2


My own critique of this idea:

  • It works ok on mobile but does increase the page width compared to the existing list making horizontal scrolling necessary. This could be addressed by retaining the existing, basic list and adding this sortable one under a second header.
  • This format makes copying things harder than the existing list and won't produce 'Leucocoprinus birnbaumii (Corda) Singer (1962)' as the other does without throwing spaces in between. Also addressed by retaining existing list.
  • The number field on the left isn't useful to search by since it performs the same function as the alphabetised list. It is just handy for seeing the total number of species but this may only be useful to me. If the original, alphabetised list is retained this one could be reorganised to default to arranging species by the most common first. Field title could be changed to 'most common' or some such.
  • Authority could be split into the original describer and the authority who reclassified it but this may just over complicate things since novel species would have a blank or repeated field.
  • Likewise a second year field could be added for the original description year but again I think this would be too much.
  • The journal references to the description could be included or referenced but as these are on the species pages I don't think it is needed here.
  • The observation fields could be reworded to shorten them and they could be restructured. I avoided presenting the GBIF data alone without iNaturalist recordings and then having the total iNaturalist ones as the second field since the number of observations on iNaturalist itself is not the same as those in the GBIF dataset. I do think it is necessary to separate them however because it introduces significant bias and errors into the results for the species which the iNaturalist auto recognition most often suggests.
  • Region data will be added in a new field when I have finished creating pages and combing through the information. I think this will be useful to organise the species and look for ones in your area.
  • A field could be added for the species recorded as appearing in plant pots or greenhouses (since these are surely why most people end up on the Leucocoprinus pages) or this could be included in the region field since only a small number are. 'Worldwide. Found in plant pots.' maybe? I don't think including a separate habitat field would be necessary since many species are recorded on wood and soil so it wouldn't really be searchable.
  • I will probably add in links for the authority names when I'm done.
  • If the original list is retained then species with no observations could be removed from this one however then the year and region organisation for them would be lost.
  • This is the first time I've tried to use a table on here - let me know if I have made a mistake or if there is a better option.
  • I am sure there is probably a way of doing a sum on here so the without iNaturalist field could be generated by subtracting the figure but I wasn't able to find out how quickly so just did it manually.


Surprisingly this did not require significant time or effort to compile (so glad I bought an expensive gaming keyboard with a built in macro recorder) so if you think this is a bad idea please tell me and I won't mind. It should not be difficult to update periodically. Appreciate any feedback people want to offer and feel free to edit sandbox 2 to experiment with it.

Thanks. MycoMutant (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • says Index Fungorum accepts these species, but links to Species Fungorum (similar, but different)
  • in general, separate species list articles are created if there are over about 100 species in the genus. There’s no exact rule, though, but I'm wondering if the list could just be accommodated on the genus page? Of course, if you included species "formerly" placed in Leucocoprinus that would extend its length considerably
  • not sure how useful the numbering is, since the # of species is stated explicitly at the start.
  • also don't think being able to alphabetically order the authorities is useful (unless one is willing to put in the code to properly sort it, see e.g. the code behind List of Armillaria species for an example of this; even then is it that useful?)
  • not sure how I feel about giving such prominence to GBIF and iNaturalist observations; regarding my area of interest (lichens), identifications on iNat are typically dubious (see doi:10.1139/cjb-2021-0160 to see what I mean), but hopefully people more knowledgeable about these platforms will comment
  • good idea to include the explanatory blurb about GBIF and iNAT, but without citations, it reads like WP:OR
  • nitpick: author citations are usually written without spaces (on Wikipedia) (e.g. “(A. Pearson) E. Ludw. & P. Mohr” -> “(A.Pearson) E.Ludw. & P.Mohr”
  • might want to ask for more feedback on the WP:ToL talkpage, as there's more species list-article creators there who might have opinions on the formatting. Esculenta (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. Realistically I think that right now this is probably way more useful to me than its going to be for anyone else. (Sorry this reply got long, feel free to skip it if you're busy. Tl;Dr: I agree, thanks for the feedback).
    ----
    • I originally copied the date and index fungorum text from an existing species list page which I updated due to a recent reclassification. I'll change the name and link it to the the species fungorum section on the Index fungorum page instead.
    • Wasn't aware of that guideline. I created the Leucocoprinus species list page because I didn't want to flood the genus page with 70 odd red links which would only prevent people finding the common species. My thinking was that over 50 was probably too many if most were too uncommon to be of interest as it just made the page tedious on mobile.
    Before I started editing I used to use the selected species list on the genus page to try to identify species in plant pots and it was annoying how many didn't have pages. So I wanted to maintain that for common species which people will realistically encounter whilst keeping the full list separate since most are so obscure.
    The Leucocoprinus page and the one for L. birnbaumii see a reasonable amount of daily traffic and I expect most people are there after finding mushrooms in their plant pot so I've tried to make it amateur accessible. Hence bogging it down with random species only found once in some remote rainforest a century ago seemed like it would just put people off.
    • Numbering I started using instead of bulletpoints for long lists after picking it up from an existing list page. When I updated it I just kept the formatting consistent as I presumed it was done for a reason. I find it useful but yeah probably doesn't make a difference to most people who aren't getting weirdly obsessed with Leucocoprinus species.
    • Authority I thought might be useful to arrange by name in order to find species classified by the same person but yeah without coding it isn't going to work. It's only useful to me whilst I'm hunting down species classified by the same authority in the same publication. Just included it to test out really but probably should be collapsed back into the species list.
    • Most of the GBIF ones generally look good once the iNaturalist data is removed. I split it into two fields to see how much difference it makes and it is significant. I think just removing the iNaturalist data entirely is best. It may also be worth filtering GBIF to remove some other sites to just keep the recognised institutes in there but this was a quick hack.
    Yeah iNaturalist is very dubious. Only really useful to see which species are the most well known I think.
    • Yep no citations right now, just knocked it up quickly to clarify the list idea before posting on here really.
    • Regarding authority abbreviations:
    I had been considering going without spaces and updating everything I had done so far. Wasn't sure on correct protocol as I'm seeing a lot of inconsistency. I was just maintaining the spaces after pulling the info from SF and running it through my notepad macro to format them.
    I saw that Mycobank uses spaces too so this seemed like the correct protocol. I've been using www.ipni.org to look up abbreviations and I did notice that spaces make its search fail. However I put this down to a lazily coded search function since if they don't use spaces they might as well just concatenate strings after fullstops to remove them. (Side note: I'm shocked at how poor the search on many of these sites is for finding journals and such.)
    Whenever I add a new authority I find the correct wiki page for them and drop the markup into a sorted txt file so I've got a list of the most common ones I need. It's no hassle at all for me to update all of them to not use spaces. So if you say thats the correct way to do it I'll update my work. Thanks for clarifying.
    I think I'll leave the list as a basic one right now and ruminant on this table idea as I go. It's really useful to me at the moment but I expect realistically it will need to be better arranged and coded to be of use to others. Arranging by region for instance isn't going to work when they have several.
    Thanks for giving me someone to bounce ideas off, it's always helpful. MycoMutant (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • One of the consistent things about Wikipedia is the inconsistency of formatting between different projects. Both abbreviated and unabbreviated forms are "correct", and in theory, redirects with both spaced and unspaced versions should be made (eg. Mull.Arg. and Mull. Arg. both "work"), but you can peruse the multi-article List of botanists by author abbreviation to confirm the botanical standard used here (most mycologists are on those lists). As a personal preference, I think it's a good idea if the species list (whether it be stand-alone or on the genus page) has brief information on distribution. For rare species this may just be a specific type locality, for others it can be summarised as cosmopolitan. Of course, then citations will be needed ... Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    I typically go with linking the abbreviation to the page name rather than relying on redirect pages as I have noticed they aren't reliable. So I've got all the ones I've used in a list. I'll do a find and replace on the txt file so future pages will be created without spaces in authority abbreviations.
    Yeah I think adding distribution is definitely worthwhile. It's part of why I was looking at the sortable table format as the usual (North America) or (Europe) bits I see tagged on after authority names aren't always too easy to browse. For things like the Amanita list I sometimes just ctrl f and highlight all with Europe as a quick reference to look for species but it's not ideal on mobile.
    Planning on adding distributions once I've got the pages done. Intending to revise the habitat and distribution section on most with links to verifiable observations where possible to try to better gauge distribution. Only started with this genus as I wanted the information myself for something and couldn't find it. Figured compiling all the references on Wikipedia as I collected them was just the best way to keep track. So the more easily browsable I can make it the better for me too.
    Whilst I have you, question regarding categories. Example: Leucocoprinus cygneus (J.E.Lange) Bon (1978)
    Should the category be Fungi named by Bon, Lange or one for each? Presume species described year category should be for original description rather than most recent classification.
    Thanks for helping. I think I'm getting there gradually. MycoMutant (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The intention for the category (this same topic seems to come up on the ToL talk pages every few years) is to give authorship credit to the person who first validly published the name (specifically, who first published the specific epithet of the name in use), so this taxon should get Category:Taxa named by Jakob Emanuel Lange and Category:Fungi described in 1940 (the year the basionym Lepiota cygnea J.E.Lange was validly published). Admittedly, there aren't any instructions about this on the category page, which perhaps explains why this is frequently done incorrectly! There are more complicated instances (for example, when "ex." is used in the author citation), but the principle above should cover 90%+ of the examples you'll find. Esculenta (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah I was trying to decide the best course of action by comparing to some of the most detailed species pages out there but I was finding a lot of inconsistencies. That's cleared it up. Thanks. MycoMutant (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)