Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2016 update

[edit]

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

Mucoromyceta

[edit]
should be an article. This Subkingdom is too significant to be a draft. Make Mucoromyceta a article Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphis neeladriensis

[edit]

Species only sourced to predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this. The big question I'm seeing is if Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium and Mycobank that list this species are enough independent verification to compensate for the predatory journal issue. I'm not seeing a strong case being made for that, but I'm not as familiar with the fungal taxonomy organizations either. KoA (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help illustrate climate change information on Wikipedia and win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg

[edit]

Dear all

I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition at Wikiproject Climate Change to encourage people to help improve visual information about climate change including the impact on ecosystems, biodiversity loss etc. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.

Please let me know if you have any questions

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Climacocystis?

[edit]

I don't usually edit in this area, but I recently came across Climacocystis and Climacocystis borealis and noticed they were still using manual taxoboxes. I was planning to just sort out the taxonomy template and convert them over to automatic taxobox/speciesbox myself, but noticed that the articles place the genus within Fomitopsidaceae while MycoBank[1] places it within Climacocystaceae and Index Fungorum[2] doesn't place it in a family at all - what taxonomy should we follow for the purpose of the taxonomy template here? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Mycobank as that seems most up to date. See Liu et al 2013 for description of family Climacocystaceae and this placement is also followed in the classification at Outline of Fungi. The Justo et al 2017 study cited in Fomitopsidaceae article doesn't recover Climacocystis in Fomitopsidaceae and places them in an informally named clade.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Index Fungorum has a record for Climacocystaceae with Climacocystis as its type, so is a little inconsistent as the genus page isn't updates. Outline of Fungi has a note on the new family. The published latest classification by the Outline of Fungi consortium can be found in Hyde et al (2024).  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jts1882, seems like it's fair to say Climacosystaceae is the currently accepted family placement and Index Fungorum is just lagging behind. In the absence of any disagreement, I'll follow that classification for the taxonomy template and update the articles accordingly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done - though on adding the NatureServe status to the C. borealis speciesbox I noticed that NatureServe placed this genus in another, entirely different family, Hapalopilaceae, which seems to now be considered a synonym of Phanerochaetaceae... and this is why I usually stay away from fungi! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hapalopilaceae is the older placement. NatureServe cite Species Fungorum (2018) as its Scientific Name Reference and Mushrooms of North America (Phillips, 1991) as the Concept Reference, which is probably where the family was taken from. Looking at archive.org, there is no Species Fungorum record archived before 2022, but the archived records of Index Fungorum had family Fomitopsidaceae in 2016 and 2020 and Hapalopilaceae in 2003.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ascospore

[edit]

I has bugged me for about 2.5 years that the ascospore article was redirected to ascus, even though they are both clearly topics worthy of their own pages. Finally got around to it on my "to-do" list, so this issue has now been rectified. The ascus article ("level-5 vital article") looks comparatively weak, so it too now goes on "the list". Esculenta (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life-stage morphs

[edit]

Although the Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph situation has improved on the accepted nomenclature of fungi species, it still leaves us with a bunch of genera to deal with. Specifically, many genera traditionally held either anamorphs or teleomorphs, with sources specifying what the teleo/anamorphic genera corresponding to a certain ana/teleomorphic genus are. Under "one fungus one name" this strict division no longer held, but history still holds its weight.

Example 1: Aspergillus. In Aspergillus § Inner taxonomy I choose to list the former teleomorphic genera because (1) surprisingly some of them have articles and (2) their scope is not properly conveyed by a heterotypic genus-to-genus synonymy. If a redirect is to be created for one of these red links, I would argue that it would be better redirected to the subgenus page.

Example 2: Cordyceps and friends. Unlike in the case of Aspergillus, the nomenclature around this genus is far from settled. There are a few genera that branch within this group, one being Isaria: synonymized but holding a species bearing a conserved name, hence not empty. I've thrown in Cordyceps § Anamorphic genera to try to make the situation less confusing. (There are a bunch of pages starting with Isaria but have been moved to another genus on Species Fungorum... I should move them when I'm not busy with other stuff.)

There are simpler cases, but the point is: basically every random fungal genus I come across requires some quick mention of the (now former) "corresponding genera", both for the purpose of looking up where some species may have recently went and for a basic sense of what is more related to what (like what you'd usually expect for non-fungus genus names).

Perhaps it should be a goal (as in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi#Goals) of this WikiProject to (1) list these kind of correspondences and (2) when necessary, clarify recent major changes? Artoria2e5 🌉 12:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi&oldid=1294075372"