Talk:Boletus edulis

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Boletus edulis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
December 16, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Fungi High‑importance

	Fungi portal This article 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I think that the most commonly used name for this mushroom in English is cep, not porcino or porcini.

Cep (spelt like that) is a word in its own right in English. It is related to the French word cèpe.

Strobilomyces 14:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at least, it's known most commonly known as porcini -- that's the term cooking shows and grocery stores use. Janet13 18:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be moved to its English name. — Gulliver ✉ 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The swedish name is "Karl Johan svamp" named after the king Karl Johan, who supposedly liked it very much. I just thought that was worth mentioning ^_^ //Swedish wikipedia reader

The article says: "The standard Italian name porcino means "piglet" in Italian". That is not correct: "porcino" is actually an adjective that means whatever you're talking about is connected to swines. (source: I'm a native speaker. Or you can check the authoritative "Treccani" dictionary http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/porcino/). For instance, of a person you could say they have a "muso porcino", meaning their face resembles that of a pig. The phrase "fungo porcino" means, exactly as described in the rest of the article, "hog mushroom", or "the mushroom of the swines". I am adjusting the article to reflect that. 87.0.234.61 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie, Italia! Anonymous Italophone, thanks for your help here. I did some rewording that I believe preserves the intent of your edits. Eric ^talk 14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last para. of the Commercial Harvest section, I'm think that the statement "Succesful [sp.?] attempts at cultivating B. edulis have been done by Spanish scientists by mycorrhization of Cistus species..." is a bit off. The statement cites Wang & Chen, 2014 which does say: "Spanish mycologists produced porcini mycorrhised seedlings with Cistus species in vitro (Agueda et al. 2008) and produced fruiting bodies in Cistus plantation as early as 3 years after outplanting (Oria de Rueda et al. 2008)." However, that appears to be a misapprehension by the paper's authors. Oria de Rueda et al. actually says: "Our most dramatic finding, however, was that high yields of both B. edulis and B. aereus were associated with cistaceous shrubs as young as three years." Note that Oria de Rueda et al. were sampling random sites with naturally-occurring host plants, not an experimental outplanting: "Scrublands dominated by Cistus ladanifer and Halimium lasianthum were analyzed in each area. The Cistus and Halimium plants were mainly two to three years old, since the ground had up until recently been dedicated to agriculture." I think the assertion in Wikipedia's article should be corrected accordingly - successful cultivation would be a very big deal for this species.--24.108.192.43 (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Might it make more sense to have this as Boletus edulis? And should we not treat the word porcini as a plural? —Ian Spackman 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and moving to "Boletus edulis", with redirects for cep and porcini. There are many names, but porcini is definitely not the one it should be under, since it is a) foreign, b) gramatically plural, and c) not universal. "Boletus edulis" is at least the standardized name, even if in Latin. Martinp 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Penny Bun" mushroom is its traditional name for the UK, although porcini is well-understood. Although mushroom hunting is not as widespread in Britain as it is in continental Europe, it's gaining in popularity (as I have noticed more rivals than just the squirrel and rabbit!!!)

Edit and other things

I have added the Czech term for this mushroom to the list of foreign names, and noticed a comment asking why the list is there. I'm not sure either, but I like it. After all, the mushroom has names from a variety of languages in English (for what it's worth, I think it's most commonly called a porcini mushroom these days, at least in the UK), and mushroom-picking is a much bigger thing in many non-English-speaking countries.

I like the variety of names from other languages, adds colour. Cas Liber 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fungo di Borgotaro

The material on this website is interesting. My italian is nonexsistent, as is my knowledge of EEC naming regulations, but it is a fascinating mention of official names, much like Parmesan Cheese (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

There are false b. edulis mushrooms in the USA. Newer books are getting into this nore. I hope no one is poisoned by this poison mushroom due to this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.192.127 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article states b. edulis is found in Central and Southern Europe. Yet several boletes definitely grow abundantly in Sweden and in Finland (Northern Europe) where they are very popular. They are also exported in quantity to e.g. Italy.
If it grows from mid-summer, why is it only harvested in autumn?
Can the large name section be trimmed of translations (common names section)? Maybe only the English names should be included? Or the English names and a sampling of other names that are interesting or helpful?
The similar species section is very listy. Can it be condensed or written out in a better way, or is this standard? Having a large section early in the article covering other species seems to break up the article a bit (related species section).
On my old school monitor there is a big gap in the text where the taxonomy section starts.
The taxonomy section doesn't say what the name signifies (means in latin) but later the article says the mushroom is edible as the name implies?
The description section is written very technically. It might be nice to add a sentence giving a generalized description of what the mushroom looks like for the casual reader.
Are they really ground in "pasta"? In ravioli maybe. I would think they would be sliced when served as part of pasta dishes and soups.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues arise from the fact that Boletus edulis, like many "species" of fungi, is a genetically complex group of closely related species and subspecies, and also varies considerably within species by region, climate, etc. I am not a mycologist (beyond the hobby/amateur sense of the word), so I can't really give a better explanation than that.

If they fruit in mid-summer (and they do, some places) as well as autumn, this should be changed. I'm sure a fungus this prized is harvested whenever it fruits. I found some in the North Cascades on 8/16. The largest European commercial harvests are probably in the autumn.
Someone previously spoke in favor of keeping the common names; I also like the diversity and would keep, at a minimum, the English translations of the foreign names (i.e. "beef liver mushroom" in Chinese), if not the entire section. There are the sidebar language links for the actual articles in foreign languages.
The related species are important for identification as well as their past taxonomic inclusion/association with B. edulis. There may be a better way to present the information, of course.
A Google search of "latin edulis" returns a number of sites that define "edulis" as "edible" in English.
The description is not too bad as far as fungi go, actually. Cap size, color, stem (aka stipe) size and shape, spore color, etc. But it can benefit from an introductory sentence that speaks in very common terms.

I can't speak to the web browser rendering or culinary issues. Do you see a table of contents box? That's what's on my browser between the intro paragraph and the taxonomy section. I will take a stab at some of these edits, but we should keep talking about ways this article could be improved! -- BlueCanoe (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Boletus edulis, like many "species" of fungi, is a genetically complex group of closely related species and subspecies, and also varies considerably within species by region, climate" seems helpful and interesting. I understand it may be obvious within the fungi community and common with mushrooms(as you've indicated), but it's certainly worth including for a species of interest to commoners and outsiders like this one is based on its widespread use in cooking. The fruiting time and harvesting time discrepancy just struck me as weird because both time periods are included in the opening paragraphs. I don't think it takes long for mushrooms to grow? Which would be an interesting factoid (time from sprouting? budding? to maturity) and how long a season in a particular place is. Like how long does a plant grow from start to finish and how long are they present in a particular area? Anyway, I think those basic kinds of facts are interesting for an encyclopedia article. Some of the other issues can probably be addressed with formatting improvements. I agree that some of the names can be of interest, but I know that including straight translations for the sake of including translations is discouraged. Thanks for your courteous and informed response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the as king bolete and penny bun name be included in the opening paragraphs? Expanded on in the taxonomy section (I don't think it says where they are known by those names). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would include the statement in the article, but it should be well referenced. The problem is that the mycological issues here (taxonomic, genetic, regional, etc) are complicated and I don't know if any one person/reference knows the answers to all these questions. The genetics of fungi are still being investigated, let alone reconciled with pre-existing morphological identification. This is where a professional mycologist would be helpful.

The "king bolete" is an English-language name, while "penny bun" is British, as I understand it. In my personal experience, Americans use both "porcini" and "king bolete". I don't think the article should introduce the subject exclusively as "porcini", since that is not a universal term in the English language useage. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, English mushroom guidebooks called it the penny bun mainly, and cep sometimes, but the market/profile of porcini has meant this name is more widely used in australia anyway (not sure about UK and US). My vote for names in lead would be porcini, penny bun, cep and king bolete as these four are all widely used. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

This is a high-profile article of high importance in the Fungi Wikiproject, and is due for a GA/FAC makeover. All interested parties are welcome to add to this to-do list:

scour academic databases for good info and refs to add (working on this one, there's lots) Done

ok I'm mostly done this. Sasata (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add section on nutritional composition Done
add section on medicinal properties/usage

on the fence about this for now... it's used in Chinese medicine as a component of "tendon-easing pills", it's got in vitro antiviral effects, some research presented at a conference suggest anti-inflammatory and vasoprotective actions, but is has debatable anticancer effect... will think some more. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

find & add refs for common names section
fatten pests section; Done ~~might be cool to add a pic of a Sepedonium mold-infected specimen~~

problem with a mold-pic is that one can't be sure the infected specimen is actually B. edulis, and that type of pic might be better suited at the Boletus article. I think instead I'll look for a closeup of the stipe to put in or near the description section. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fatten microscopic characteristics section (or maybe not - too technical?) Done
scour Mushroom Observer for some photos that may be better quality; Done would be awesome to have a pic of the spores

more pics added; no quality spore pic unfortunately. Sasata (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a "Similar species" section is usual for mushroom species articles, but it would have to be integrated with the existing "Related species" section; more info on how to distinguish between the closely-related species. Done

There's other, eastern North American species that resemble B. edulis that could also be included. But now I'm thinking about what about all the European or Asian similar species that aren't getting mentioned (i.e. systematic bias)? More thinking/research needed. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flesh out lead Done
alt text Done
copyedit & ensure strict MOS compliance; checklinks, dabs Done

Looks pretty good to me, but I wouldn't mind finding someone else uninvolved to have a read through before FAC. Any volunteers? Sasata (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Sasata (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and of course else in in the conversation directly above this, which I have only now just read :) Sasata (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some culinary books by Carluccio etc. I think that given that it is a delicacy, some more culinary expansion would be good. I really should be doing my tax today, but will try to add something later. Also, I'd not redlink taxa that are currently sunk into this taxon. Others would be good to stub up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed Boletus regineus; do you think it's worthwhile to create a new article for the variant Boletus edulis var. grandedulis, or better to just include it as a subsection somewhere in this article? Sasata (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with subsection first off. Whether or not it has its own page a summary should be here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fascinating - actually one of the books I was looking at recommended looking on golf courses (which I didn't think much of at the time) but this places that observation in a whole nre perspective (now to find the book again and fish it out...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the stuff I put in about collecting from polluted sites and bioaccumulation sticks out in the edibility section.... any suggestions for a better place? Done

I have a gut feeling that as the main use of the fungus is culinary, that the article should be weighted towards that. I will see if this can be embellished at all...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds reasonable. I'm mostly done adding stuff from the academic literature now, will just be tweaking and copyediting. I'll have a look in some cookbooks at the library this weekend. Sasata (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Swede above noted that B. edulis is named after after a former king of Sweden, see here and here for sources... can we fit this in somewhere? Common name section or in first paragraph (i.e. history) of culinary uses? Sasata (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only did one year of Swedish, and lack a comprehensive dictionary, but the sources overlook that the common word in Swedish for porcini (porcino) is matsvamp. That, I presume, was then renamed after King when his obsession with the king bolete stirred public curiosity, and the vernacular term.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it goes okay in the common names bit, which is a bit listy and could do with some more embellishment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the ecology?

The "Pests and predators" subsection has no business being where it is, and "Fruit body production" is an... idiosyncratoic choice for a first-level division. Both of these should be together as an "ecology" section, which could probably hold information scattered across other sections: e.g. the last paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" is not actually about bioactive compounds, since these don't actually have bioactivity (as I understad it, anyway: they do not seem to have effects on other organism), but about the mechanism that allows the plant to thrive in heavy-metal-polluted soil. Circeus (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Sasata has unearthed a load of material. I have reconstituted an Ecology section now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it's much better organized now. Plus, I can now justify expanding the part on mycorrhizal associations that previously felt somewhat out of place. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names - how to delistify

Okay, I have placed alternate names here:

The mushroom is known as Ontto txuri or "the blond" in Basque, hřib pravý (Czech), cep (Catalan), vargánya (Hungarian), vrganj (Croatian), borowik szlachetny or prawdziwek (Polish), baravykas (Lithuanian), белый гриб "white mushroom" or боровик (Russian) (reference: Molokhovets E. Classic Russian Cooking: Elena Molokhovets' "A Gift to Young Housewives" (Indiana-Michigan Series in Russian & East European Studies (Paperback)). Indiana University Press. Bloomington, 1998, page 95, ISBN 0-253-21210-3 [1], accessdate =2009-11-06) dubák or hríb smrekový (Slovakian), jurček or jesenski goban (Slovene), hrib or mânătarcă (Romanian), manatarka (Bulgarian), herkkutatti or "delicious bolete" (Finnish), harilik kivipuravik or "common bolete" (Estonian), baravika (Latvian), stensopp (Swedish), steinsopp (Norwegian), Karl Johan or spiselig rørhat (Danish), eekhoorntjesbrood "little squirrels' bread" (Dutch), вргањ (vrganj) (Serbian), 牛肝蕈 or "beef liver mushroom" (Traditional Chinese). It is also known as khubz el a'a or "crow's bread" in Arabic (Syria and Lebanon).

Any we can find some anecdotes about we can re-add to the article. I do agree that having a list of every name in every foreign language is not a done thing. Some do look like they warrant stories of their own if we can source them, and can be readded then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is related to the I/P area, though I caught your note on an I/P page (Tiamut's). A small point. There is no pronunciation for the Chinese characters. But if the text is to conform to the transliterations of other languages, it should read,

niugan xun (牛肝蕈 ) or "beef liver mushroom" (Traditional Chinese).

If you prefer to have normal tonal accent transcription included, that would be niúgān xùn.

It's called the yamadori mushroom in Japanese (山鳥茸). That just means literally 'mountain (山)bird (鳥)' but yamadori has a more specific avian meaning, referring to the copper pheasant. I don't know whether by calling it yamadori, the Japanese liken it to any kind of mountain fowl, or have in mind the copper pheasant.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird/fascinating. Any sources and anecdotes and we can add... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Shinmura Izuru (ed.) Kōjien (2nd.ed.) Tokyo,1969, p.2234, the Japanese yamadori mushroom is classified under the indigenous saru no koshikake(猿の腰掛 or 'monkey's chair') family.

However the Japanese 'monkey chair' corresponds to the Chinese líng zhī (靈芝 'magical herb') i.e., Ganoderma Lucidum species. My knowledge of mushrooms is limited to what comes my way as I pursue my culinary greed, and the toxic hallucinogens discussed by Gordon Wasson, so I can't throw much more light on this. The copper pheasant is another matter. Japanese peasant lore says the pairs separate and live on different sides of a mountain, and thus, in classical poetry the yamadori image is used as a trope for a solitary status befalling lovers.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh, I just remembered why the word yamadori was familiar to me...from bonsai as well...hunting the perfect tree specimen or yamadori in the mountain landscape (or carpark :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's yama+dori, where '-dori' is deverbal, from toru to take. Lit. 'mountain-taking' (collecting in the mountains), and written 山取り or 山採り. I note there are wiki articles on the word and bonsai practice in Polish, French and Portuguese. The French, the only article hazarding an etymology, translates the term as 'voie de la montagne'(!!!), which looks like confusing tori with tōri(road, pathway). I've mislaid my Japanese primer on bonsai techniques, but if it turns up as I forage around my shelves, I'll look it up there. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this unsourced addition: "- In Norwegian as Steinsopp "stonemushroom"." Sasata (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and this:

"In Albanian, it is called pankushe or barkushe, the first name probably deriving from Latin and the second one its analog in Albanian meaning "the belly one" from bark = "belly". In Russia and some ex-Soviet republics B. edulis is known as "white mushroom" (where "white" means "noble" as opposed to "black" i.e. common mushrooms). Its Polish name prawdziwek stems from prawda or truth, suggesting it is the "true mushroom", reflecting its status as the king of field mushrooms in that country. In Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, it is known as pravi vrganj (true vrganj), or more often only as vrganj, which is actually the common name for the whole Boletus genus. In the Czech Republic, it is also known by these popular names: bílý hřib ("white mushroom"), bílý kozák ("white Cossack"), červený hřib ("red mushroom"), jalovcový hřib ("juniper mushroom"), nakládáček hřib ("truck mushroom") and other names." Sasata (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional values

My suggestion is that part of the text about the nutritional information should be converted to some sort of table, like the one at orange, for example. I found another study, a Turkish one [2], with somewhat varying, but useworthy results.--Paffka (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll work on it. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added a table. The article didn't explicitly give the caloric value, so I calculated it myself using the standard fat=9 cal/g, protein&carb=4 cal/g conversion. I also converted ppm to mg/100g. I hope this isn't considered original research :) The text of the section needs a revision now with this new information, as some of the values are different between table and text... have to decide whether to just stick with one source, or mention the significantly differing values in a footnote or something. Also, for aesthetic purposes, it would be nice to lengthen the text a bit so the bottom of the table doesn't protrude into the next section. I'll work on it some more this weekend. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(groan) well, one lot of numbers are for fresh and the other for dried. These nutritional stats are one of the bugbears which ket me away from food articles :/. Maybe best option is to accurately state who (i.e. researchers and which university they are with) said what exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have expanded the section some more... tell me if it's better or worse now. Also, maybe the larger size means the subsection should be split off into a section, and subsectioned (Carbohydrates, Lipids, Amino acids, Trace metals and minerals)?? Sasata (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fight the natural tendency to split into smaller subsections - we need a big section for the RHS nutrition table - just reading through now... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend changing the reference on nutrient table from USDA nutrient database as it is not factual. This item is not in the Food list. The link does take you to the USDA food List, but the species is not actually there. I have no idea where those nutrient values actually come from. Further, all foods in the USDA food list have a 5-digit numerical traceability number that I think would avoid these types of errors. There are several errors in other articles related to "USDA" nutritional values (mushrooms are commonly in error) and that 5-digit number would weed out incorrect posts. If there is a reference, I would love to have it. Tough finding reputable sources... dhebert@emperorspecialtyfoods.com (we well cultivated and wild mushrooms). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.177.218 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not the USDA nutrient database, the source is provided in reference 119 (Çaglarlrmak et al. 2001) The percentages refer to the approximate USDA recommendations for adults. Sasata (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia?

Is this species found in Australia? Hall et al. (Edible and Poisonous Mushrooms of the World, 2003, p. 121) intimate that it has been introduced there, but do not say so outright... Sasata (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I have never heard that before (if it was confirmed there'd be a host of mushroomers descending on deciduous or conifer plantings around the place :)) - will double check but I am highly dubious...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then...

What else does everyone wanna do ~~prior to~~ before taking the plunge....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with what's there now, and am confident that anything that comes up can be dealt with readily... so whenever you're ready. Sasata (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing: the Carluccio book will have to go in a "Cited book" subsection or something... not sure what you want to call the headers... Notes/Footnotes etc. What do you think of the current "Notes" section? Are those two ok as is, or should I just integrate them into the regular "references"? (p.s. could you add a publisher location to the Carluccio ref as well?) Sasata (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crud, I forgot about that. My preferred format is a lvl 3 subheading called cited texts which is unambiguous (within the whole section called references). Others have felt differently before but I feel mine is the clearest. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

To be checked

The text reads: 'French names include cèpe frits and cèpe aux tomates.'

This looks to me highly odd. Firstly because cèpe frit, namely 'fried porcino' is grammatically fine, but "frits" is a plural adjective sitting poorly with the singular (cèpe) it defines. Cèpes frits would be fine, but is surely a dish, 'fried porcini' , not a term for a kind of porcino, and the same may go for cèpe aux tomates which sounds like a boletus cooked in a tomato sugo?Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, checking on google books I note that Valdo Verreschi's La Cuisine toscane (Tuscan cooking) just supplies a recipé under cèpes frits. Slice the porcini lengthwise, dip both sides into flour, then fry in oil. It's a mode of cooking not a term for a variety of boletus.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I checked the source, and I had misread recipe names for common names. I have moved this information to the proper section. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use the standard citation template, because its simplicity defeats my aged brain. Apologies if, in adjusting, this requires some extra work from you. The data is/are there, as best as I can put it/them in traditional academic form. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, thanks for that - We can fix it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did well to put ceppatello with cèpe because all of those words from Spain and Portuguel through to French and its dialects, (it is also true of Welsh, Breton and Irish) come from the Latin cippus (boundary stone, pillar) which came to be used for a tree trunk. An alternative origin for boletus has been argued for, associating it with the southern Pyrenee's Boltaña (Latin =Boletum) an area famous for its mushroom. If you like I could run up a provisory redraft of the section, without encumbering it with too much polyphilophilological sutlership, as T.E.Eliot would have put it.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular this section, though sourced, is nonsense, due to the source's frivolous disinformation:

The vernacular name cep is derived from the Catalan cep or its French name cèpe, although the latter is a generic term applying to several species. In France it is more fully cèpe de Bordeaux, derived from the Gascon cep "trunk" for its fat stalk.[17]

Nonsense because the Catalan, Gascon, and French words are all derived from low Latin, going back to cippus. Secondly, cèpe is generic,(as is indeed porcino in Italian, which refers to several sub-varieties) but it is also the standard French word for boletus edulis, according to the virtually definitive Littré.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the opinion of the Trésor. However, Trésor does not trace French cèpe directly to Latin. Like our text, it gives the French as having been borrowed from Gascon: the French reflex of cippus would rather be cep "vine stock" via Middle French seppe "branch". Circéus (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Littré says of the etymology of cèpe, (boletus edulis): 'Ce mot est probablement le même que cep (vine-stock), à cause de la comparaison de ce champignon avec un tronc.' Émile Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française, Gallimard, Hachette, 1958 , Tome 2, p.48. We therefore have a conflict between authorities, Trésor and Littré. Clearly then we need clarification on the (to me) bizarre idea that uniquely, French cèpe (Boletus edulis) comes from a dialect word in Gascon unrelated to Latin cippus, whereas in Italian ceppatello (Boletus edulis) is derived from Latin cippus (Ottorino Pianigiani, Vocabulario etimologico della lingua italiana, Florence 1907 (I Dioscuri, Genova, 1988 reprint) p.263 writes:ceppatello, that it is a 'specie di fungo buono a mangiare, la cui cappella è di colore scuro dalla parte di sopra e bianchiccio dalla parte di sotto, così detto perché spunta vicino ai CÉPPI.' I.e.'a species of mushroom that's good to eat, whose cap is darkish on top, and somewhat whitish underneath, thus called because it grows close to the trunks (ceppi) of trees')

Is the Trésor source saying, unlike Littré which is coherent, that French took the word for boletus edulis from one of its dialects, when other Romance languages like Italian and Catalan have terms like ceppatello ,cep, looking cognate with cèpe (Boletus edulis), but which are derived from the one Indo-european root, via Latin cippus? One asks, then what is the etymology of Gascon cep? One asks what is Catalan cep doing here? By the way, the boletus edulis in Catalan, a language spoken by passionate mycophiles, is usually called ciurenys/surenys, (Colman Andrews, Catalan cuisine: vivid flavors from Spain's Mediterranean coast, Atheneum, 1988 p.88), though cep is also used (Jaume Fàbrega, Josep-Maria Terricabras, La cultura del gust als països catalans: espais geogràfics, socials i històrics del patrimoni culinari català, Edicions El Mèdol, 2000 p.60)

'Probably' does not indicate certainty, of course. But there are inherent technical problems, therefore, in detaching cèpe (boletus edulis) from cep (vine stock), and certainly to say that 'In France it is more fully cèpe de Bordeaux, derived from the Gascon cep "trunk" for its fat stalk,' only begs the question as to why the Gascon word for 'trunk' should be treated as unrelated etymologically to the late Latin word for 'trunk' (cippus, which underlies ceppatello, boletus edulis). In terms of philology method, this is all quite odd.

Let me illustrate with a chart for cep (vinestock)and its cognates

English	Latin	French	Spanish	Portuguese	Italian	Provencal	Gaelic	Welsh	Breton
vine stock	cippus	cep	cepa	cepa	ceppo	cep	ceap	kyf	kef

Gascon cep, referring to the mushroom, is cognate with Italian and Catalan words like ceppatello and cep. Gascon is, Basque substrate or not (and if it were a borrowing from Basque one would expect a calque, which apparently does not exist, on Ontto txuri or "the blond" from that language), functionally a dialect of French, and to say that a French word happens to derive from a dialect of French spoken in Gascony, despite the fact that it is cognate with other words for the same thing in other Romance languages is, well, queer. Of course, one can find sources that challenge Trésor on this. I.e. re cep, John Ayto writes: ‘Their name (in modern French cèpe) comes from Gascon dialect cep, which goes back to Latin cippus, ‘stake’.’John Ayto, The glutton's glossary: a dictionary of food and drink terms, Routledge, 1990 pp.55-6. But John Ayto is not a philologist. He's a reputable glutton.

As usual in wikipedia, one gets good sources with bad, mediocre, or dubious information, and if one applies common sense, or one's specialized background, to cut through the conflict in data, you are accused of an infraction of WP:OR! Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this is complicated, at least for me, by the fact that the ceps boletus is distinct from boletus edulis. See Clifford A. Wright Mediterranean vegetables, Harvard Common Press, 2001 p.228 Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I meant that cèpe traces to Latin via Gascon, as opposed to being the word used in standard northern French from the start. Plus Littré was published in 1877 and not revised significantly before 2004. French etymology was in a sorry state at the time. It is COMMON for a standard language to borrow words and usages from its dialects: cf. chai, aboteau... For what it's worth, Robert agrees with me on the Gascon connection, and if I had access to more etymology sources (I'm home right now), I bet I could find more. Circéus (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, but no need to get hot under the collar. You say that the standard French word for 'boletus edulis' came into French via Gascon, and into Gascon from Latin?

Fr. cèpe(boletus edulis)← Gascon 'cep'← Latin cippus'.

Fr.cep(vine-stock)← Latin cippus'

But Italian ceppo means both 'vine stock'(cep) and 'stump, lower trunk of tree' (cp. metaphorically cèpe would be 'stump' because the king's bolete grows round tree stumps, and is like a dwarfish tree), and both senses derive from Latin cippus, undoubtedly via Italian.

All I see in your distinctions is a common prejudice reflecting a naive traditional distinction between 'language' and 'dialect', particularly strong in France, where a purified standard court vocabulary (Racine's limited vocab of 2000 words) is 'French' and everything outside lacks 'clarté', reflecting the voices of a rambunctious vernacular. All languages, however, were, have been, and ever will be inflected by the pressure of dialect. To suggest that Gascon, spoken in an area contiguous with northern Spain, was the dialect vehicle through which the late Latin-Italianate cippus/ceppo/ceppatello inflected French is geographically bizarre, esp. when regions like Catalan and Provence to the south/southeast contained reflexes from the Latin cippus. That the dialect of Gascony, given the scarcity of dialect literary sources, is viewed as the intermediary is an interesting, but unprovable hypothesis. Etc.etc. Still, if you can come up with up-to-date articles or dictionaries which affirm the hypothesis as certain, I'd be the last to protest, as opposed to raising taciturn eyebrows.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for figuring this stuff out and improving the accuracy of the article, it's all Greek ... er Latin to me. Seneca is a dab, I'd fix it but have no idea if it's the Elder or the Younger. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it (Seneca the Younger's Naturales Quaestiones was the source). Sorry if my comments re ceps and cèpes are abstruse, more dissatisfaction with the fact that too many sources just copy each other, and confusion is profuse in otherwise good books. Well, good luck on the FA. If I can be of any help in other articles,where philological issues may crop up, by all means drop me a note on my page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the point is to help Casliber as Sasata to get this to FA standard. The original problem was that the text cites either a Catalan or French via Gascon origin for the vernbacular English 'ceps'. This is what the source says. French sources, as Circéus insists, relate standard French cèpe to Gascon, and make no mention of Catalan (which our text adduces as a possible source for the entry of this term into English usage around the mid 1860s). I can provide another example of French texts identifying the standard French term as derivative from Gascon.

Cèpe (N.m) gascon cep.tronc)

Terme abusivement applique par fois à tous les représentants du genre Boletus (Champignons Basidiomycètes). En fait seuls méritent d’être appelés Cèpes les Bolets de la section edulis come Boletus edulis, Cèpe de Bordeaux ; B.persooni, Cèpe blanc; B.pinophilus, Cèpe des Pins ; B.aereus, Cèpe tête de nègre.’ Bernard Boullard, Dictionnaire :Plantes et Champignons, Estem, 1997 2nd.ed. p.161

I don't believe this, on the grounds set forth above, but it is no business of wikipedia, or wiki editors, to interfere with what RS say. One RS has it that the English word has a Catalan or French origin. The French term is then, as per RS, related to the inflection of Gascon dialect.

So, for Casliber and Sasata's purposes, that stands (even if I believe this is just a matter of good sources copying what earlier sources say, uncritically!).Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...wow...all this happened while I was asleep. A fascinating read. Thanks all. My eyes are still a little bleary-eyed...just need the coffee and to see what the article looks like (this was the first thing to pop up on my watchlist) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: One thing we can do when the situation gets messy is highlight which sources say what.....an abusive term??? Is that right or does it mean something different in French? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that I have read over the above a few times to get my head around it, I am more than happy for the cep bit to be modified to more reliable sources - after all the reference I have for this bit ("The vernacular name cep is derived from the Catalan cep or its French name cèpe, although the latter is a generic term applying to several species. In France it is more fully cèpe de Bordeaux, derived from the Gascon cep "trunk" for its fat stalk.") is Jane Grigson who is a cook not an etymologist or linguist, hence this serves as a de facto tertiary source. Given the difference in derivations, quoting both french authorities (and stating "Littre states.." etc. sounds good. I like the alternative catalan names, and given they are such mycophiles, I thnik including the alternate more common name is prudent. So to sum up, I am happy to clean up reference formatting etc. and minor tweaks if Nishidani and Circeus you guys wanna have a play with it :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the FAC and reference fiddle, please see here within the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent attention to detail! I will work on bringing the refs up to par and get back to you later. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd.ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1988 vol.2 p.1042 sub 'cèpe' gives French and Gascon(Gascon cep tree-trunk, mushroom. Secondly, it gives the origin of the Gascon term from Latin cippus. Nothing about Catalan. But note that where the OED gives cèpe as a boletus, the Gascon term said to influence it is given a generic meaning of 'mushroom' (which made me suspicious). The word 'vernacular' was what worried me when I first read the section. 'Ceps' is more culinary jargon, used by gourmets with some considerable familiarity with the French countryside, and dates its first use in English to 1865. The 'vernacular' term, as opposed to the gastronomic term, is 'penny bun'. However the OED has no mention, at least in the 1988 edition (as opposed to updates?) of 'penny bun' in the sense of boletus edulis (it gives as the meaning of 'penny bun', a bun that costs a penny).

In any case, we don't need to turn this, against the rules, into a research project, and I think you both can edit in whatever, in your respective judgements, I and others may have noted down, according to the strict exigencies of the project. Best wishes for the FAC!Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, the longer OED, I did have that lying around, just need to get some AA batteries for the damn magnifying glass it comes with.....(sounds of rustling in numerous drawers and cupboards) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one? I picked up a copy in England, the illegible 2 vol.version, almost three decades ago, but gave the magnifying glass to an uncle who had problems reading fine print. Another uncle then died, and left me enough money to buy the 20 volume 1988 edition. It's splendidly legible, and never came with a magnifying glass, which isn't needed. Ever need a quick check of anything there, drop me a line, and I'll copy whatever.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That must look very nice on yer bookshelf (hehehe) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a problem, given that it's shelved on an unstable Swedish 50s bookcase I inherited. As to looks, Joseph Needham's multivolume Science and Civilization in China solidly encased behind glass, above my head, beats the OED anyday, though appearances deceive, and as I look up, I keep on thinking of the apocryphal story of Charles-Valentin Alkan's death. Not a bad way for a bookish type to kick the bucket actually, though mushroom poisoning must take the cake. At least there, you enjoy on the palate, for some minutes, what will kill you!Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I'm very impressed by the ergosterol peroxide stub, I de red-linked because I couldn't find enough myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Herrenpilz

Hello all- I think the "gentleman's mushroom" translation for Herrenpilz might want changing or elaboration. From looking around on the web, it seems the meaning of Herr in this mushroom name is more lord, as in nobleman or landowner. I found a couple sources that indicate that during the Middle Ages, peasants were expected to hand over these mushrooms to the local lord. Hereis one source, in German. Scroll down to the section Steinpilze für die adligen Herren. Here is another more detailed source,also in German. Let me know if you want translation; I'll watch here. Eric ^talk 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this problem. The prefix Herren- means 'superior, high-quality', and so I've corrected the gloss with reference to an etymological dictionary. The webpage references to peasants turning the mushrooms over to the nobility is almost certainly an example of pseudoetymology. Doremo (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation below moved from User talk:Doremo Doremo (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doremo- I saw your change re Herrenpilz and wanted to ask you about that translation. I haven't been able to get access to the book you reference. Did you see some definition for Herrenpilz that indicated the en translation would be "'superior' mushroom"? That is not how I would translate that term; I think you will find the meaning to be more "lord" as in sovereign or master. This Duden definition gives the etymologie as meaning "lord among (of the) mushrooms": eigentlich = der »Herr« unter den Pilzen; der Pilz gilt als vorzüglichster Pilz unter den Speisepilzen; it also says that the name is meant to convey that among edible mushrooms, it is considered the "prime" one. LEO definitions: Herr, vorzüglich. Note: the -st(er) suffix is the superlative form. Move this to the article talk page if you want. Eric ^talk 17:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant citation from Kluge (Seebold, Elmar. 1999. Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 23rd edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 371) is "Herr ... Herren- in Komposita ... dann häufig für 'besser, hochstehend.'" As such, it's comparable to, say, Herrenapfel, Herrenbier, Herrenbirne, Herrenbrot, etc.; that is, not apples, beer, pears, and bread that must be forfeited to a lord, or that rule over other apples, beer, pears, and bread, but simply apples, beer, pears, and bread of superior quality. A more poetic (but still accurate enough) gloss for Herrenpilz would be 'noble mushroom' or 'noble mushroom, superior mushroom'. Duden puts "'lord' of the mushrooms" in scare quotes because it's a funny/ironic literal translation, and then gives the explanation vorzüglichster Pilz 'first-rate mushroom, most excellent mushroom' without the scare quotes. Doremo (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I don't know if Duden is really claiming the term is ironic or funny; I read those quotes more as an acknowledgement that there is no feudal-style ranking among mushrooms. In any case, I strongly suspect that when a native German speaker hears Herrenpilz, he's not hearing Herren the way an anglophone hears superior. I think it's evoking something much more akin to noble, lordly, or kingly--maybe in much the same way as anglophones came up with king bolete. Eric ^talk 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it's like king bolete (or king crab, king cobra, etc.); a metaphor denoting the best of its kind. It really raises the question of how literal a gloss should be because both 'noble mushroom' and 'superior mushroom' are accurate, depending whether one focuses on the literal or denotative/idiomatic meaning. Just as it might be useful to write "German Sauerstoff ('oxygen', literally 'sour substance')" it may also be useful to write "German Herrenpilz ('superior mushroom', literally 'noble mushroom')" to convey both the idiomatic and literal meanings—or simply "German Herrenpilz (literally, 'noble mushroom') because the denotative meaning B. edulis is already clear from the context anyhow. For me, the main issue is that it is not derived from the folk story about forfeiting them to the nobility. Doremo (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I only now saw that you'd replied to my old post about the etymology (which I'd forgotten completely about)! Should we move this discussion to that section? I like your last suggestion above. Eric ^talk 21:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll change the gloss to 'noble mushroom'. Doremo (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that reads better. Have you seen the conjecture on German websites about Steinpilz having possibly grown out of Schweinpilz? One interesting Steinpilz caption on Flickr. Eric ^talk 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Steinpilz conjecture is likely simply a conjecture; per Kluge and Grimm, the name refers to the firmness of the flesh ("wegen des festen fleisches"), such an older name is unattested, and a sound change /ʃv/ > /ʃt/ would be very peculiar. The term Schweinpilz is sometimes found for Suillus luteus (e.g., in Krünitz's Oeconomischen Encyclopädie), which matches the etymology of the genus name, sometimes also for Boletus luridus and Suillus bovinus. Doremo (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authority year?

The taxobox has binomial_authority = Bull. without a year. The text says first described in 1782 and the caption on the etching of Bulliard says 1783. The pub date for Herbier de la France is given as 1780-93 and 1780 on the linked doc. Clarification needed! --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I have corrected the date to 1782 in the image caption. IBCN rules (which also governs fungal taxonomy) say not to include a publication date when giving the full name & authority, so we follow that convention in fungal taxa articles (albeit inconsistency, I admit). Sasata (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording change

In the lead there is a sentence which reads "...by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots". The verb to envelope typically means the subject of the sentence wraps itself around the object. In this case the object seems to be "sheaths of fungal tissue". So unless I am mistaking the intent of the sentence (which is certainly more than possible) It should read " by enveloping the tree's underground roots with sheaths of fungal tissue", or something to that effect. I hesitate to make a change to an FA article that is currently on the main page without discussion however. Colincbn (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I have altered the text per your suggestion—thanks. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tons

Y'all are showing measurements in tonnes (tons). What kind of (tons), please? Long or short? - Denimadept (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tons quoted are US short tons of 2,000 pounds. I've made a wikilink to disambiguate at the first mention that is clearly a short ton. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In future, I recommend using a link at the beginning, and "short ton" throughout. Not everyone reads the entirety of an article in detail. - Denimadept (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: Since Wikipedia is quite international, why settle with a national measure like the U.S. short ton? Why not the more generic 1000kg:s or tonne? This would make the figures clearer for a much broader audience? I feel we should strive for as much genericism as possible without national preferences and last I checked, the metric system is far more commonly in use around the world than the imperial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.82.183 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the few species sold pickled"

this raises two questions, firstly is there an article on mushrooms sold pickled, i guess not, there is no link. secondly, what mmakes someone includes this. we dont see many mushrooms pickled today, but among the 20 or so i seen, non were boletus. i actually suspect all edible mushrooms have been traditionally pickled in quantity, and if i have seen closer to twenty without searching.. are they nowadays really a few? 80.57.43.57 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Any reason why the Pierre Bulliard image is facing away from the text? As far as I can see it is also in breach of another MOS guideline as it is placed on the left at the start of a section. Two birds could be killed with one stone here by moving it over to the right. -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better. Very interesting article BTW. -- Cassianto ^Talk 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porcini

I've reverted the recent change to "porcino" in the lede because of clear statistics here. Other Google Books data: "the porcini is" (46 hits) vs. "the porcino is" (5 hits), "made with porcini" (47 hits) vs. "made with porcino" (0 relevant hits), "uses porcini" (10 hits) vs. "uses porcino" (1 hit), "can buy porcini" (4 hits) vs. "can buy porcino" (0 hits), etc. Any change to "porcino" should be based on good evidence that the term is dominant in English. Doremo (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen "porcino" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Casliber! Porcini is the plural form of porcino, the Italian word for this species. The "Italiano" link at the left of the article page will take you here: it:Boletus edulis. @Doremo: I don't seek consensus for what I see as a copyedit. Google hits and incorrect usage in books don't prove anything beyond the fact that incorrect use of porcini is widespread. Would you have us change the first line of Chanterelle to read "...commonly known as the chanterelles"? When you follow the "but look how many people are doing it" reasoning, we end up with articles like Panini (sandwich), which was deliberately moved from the correct form panino after a few editors decided that since a lot of people were already using the word incorrectly, our encyclopedia work should follow suit. You might want to take a look at Argumentum_ad_populum. Eric ^talk 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to object to Panini (or Zucchini or Spaghetti etc.). If you can provide reliable sources showing that porcino is the dominant usage in English, then you've got a good basis for making the change. The Italian grammatical usage on the Italian WP page is irrelevant. Doremo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct use of the term may well be irrelevant to you, but it shouldn't be irrelevant in the formulation of a serious reference work. If misunderstanding or misuse of a term is widespread, that may be worth noting in an article, but we should not grant legitimacy to incorrectness merely because it is pervasive. Eric ^talk 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: porcino vs porcini

Should the text of this article employ "porcini", the plural of "porcino", as a singular term? Eric ^talk 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC statement appears to be improperly worded (non-neutral because it contains argumentation). I suggest: "Should the text of this article employ porcini or porcino as the English name of this fungus?" Doremo (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: porcini is the plural form and porcino the singular according to the OED (here is its entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (subscription access); note that searching for porcini in the OED leads directly to this porcino entry). The porcini form is far more often heard in English, but that's because you usually get more than one . The article is doing a good job here by mostly referring to this mushroom in the plural form and with an agreeing plural verb. I suggest to continue this practice wherever possible. It would be better to swap the two forms around in the first sentence. in the Commercial harvest section, it would be good to change some of the dried porcino mushrooms exported to Italy → some of the dried porcini exported to Italy; both are correct, but the latter reads better. Other than that, imho the article is doing very well on this. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far as I can tell, porcini is conventionally used for both the singular and plural in English, while porcino is quite rare[3], despite the use in Italian, and changes in the count of loan words have a venerable history. Still, I would support Stfg's suggested compromise to keep the peace. Tdslk (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a couple of comments on this, if I may: firstly, the ngram compares "porcino mushrooms" with "porcini mushrooms", which are plural phrases using the porcine word attributively and don't really prove that either is the singular form. In general, ngrams prove frequency of words and phrases but not grammatical categories. It would be better to use good-quality dictionaries as sources for that question. Secondly, that source isn't about foreign plurals becoming English singulars, but about words that look like plurals, but aren't, being given singular forms by back-formation. There is indeed a history of changes in the number of loan words. For example, spaghetti is plural in Italian but a mass noun in English. But this is other-stuff. Has this happened to porcini yet? I think we need to take dictionaries for this. ("What's this mushroom, Fred?" "It's a porcini, Jim." Sounds wrong to me, but that's OR, of course.) --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the Ngram data give an incomplete picture. That's why I also included the Google Books data "the porcini is" (46 hits) vs. "the porcino is" (5 hits) above, which gives better phrasal context for use as a singular. Doremo (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the attributive use, denominal attributives are usually singular (i.e., toothbrushes, shoe stores, chanterelle mushrooms etc.), so the Google Books data "porcini mushrooms" (452 hits) vs. "porcino mushrooms" (22 hits) indicates that the -i form is being used as the singular modifier. The equivalent Ngram graph (here) indicates the same. Doremo (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for those observations, @Stfg. I'm sure you know as well as anyone that "It's a porcini, Jim" sounds wrong because it is wrong. And I don't think it's original research on your part to say so. Anyone with a basic notion of Italian hears a mistake in "a porcini" or "a panini" (equivalent to "a porcines" and "a sandwiches"). I'm not claiming that it's incumbent on speakers of one language to be familiar with the plural forms of another language's words. But those who aren't familiar with Italian don't detect that they're hearing those plurals, and would have been equally happy had the singular forms been the ones to become adopted (as long as the things tasted good). So, given that we're an encyclopedia, what's the harm in erring on the side of not erring?
    - @Doremo: I think those Google Books hits are going to be heavily weighted towards recent publications, which are naturally going to reflect recent trends. I'll wager that the majority of the books that came up in your above hit comparison were written in the past decade or so, after the sudden upsurge in American awareness of porcini (as both word and food), and after the explosion of the internet. Any trend in the real world after the mid-1990s is going to have proliferated on the internet, but no matter how many times someone writes "porcini mushrooms", it still means "porcines mushrooms". It seems to me that trends these days metastasize out of control before copyeditors have any chance to treat them.
    - A temporal progression taken from my bookshelves that may provide some useful context:
      - The 1981 edition (2005 printing) of the National Audubon Society's Field Guide to Mushrooms lists the species as King Bolete, and comments that it is also called Cep or Steinpilz. No form of the word porcino appears in the book.
      - The 1995 edition of the Joy of Cooking (a book containing many non-English culinary terms): The mushroom section mentions B. edulis as "a great European favorite known to gourmets as cèpe or Steinpilz"; I found no mention of porcino/porcini in the book.
      - The 1998 edition (5th ed., 2001 printing) of the Collins Robert French Dictionary: The entry for cèpe gives the English culinary definition as cep, with a botanical definition as "edible boletus."
      - The 2001 edition of the Food Lover's Companion has an entry for porcino, and it notes the plural as porcini.
      - The 1992 (3rd) edition of the American Heritage Dictionary lists cep, but not porcino/porcini. The current (5th, online) edition, however, dutifully reflects current American usage and contains the entry porcini mushroom, explaining in its definition that it comes from the plural of porcino. (A disappointing revelation for this editor, but I'd already stopped sending them Christmas cards after they discontinued referring to incentivize as a "usage problem.") Eric ^talk 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to @Stfg and @Tdslk for your input. A couple things to note: I think research would show that the word porcini, especially used as a singular, is much more prevalent in American English than in British English. Though I have not spent a great deal of time in Britain, and therefore do not speak from day-to-day experience, I believe the terms penny bun and cep are much more common there than in the U.S., and that the word porcino, to the extent that it is used in Britain, has been on the anglophone tongue for much longer (sorry, I couldn't resist) and did not make a sudden appearance in the vernacular the way it recently did in the U.S. ("penny bun" top hits: BBC, First Nature, Woodlands.co.uk, etc.). I doubt America adopted the Italian plural form by choice, or because of that fact that we usually encounter more than one of the tasty devils at time. The plural porcini popped up on American menus 10 to 20 years ago—for a long time canonically followed by the word mushroom out of fear that diners wouldn't know what it was, just as we adorably put penne pasta on the same menus that otherwise leave diners utterly on their own to deduce that spaghetti, linguine, and lasagna are pastas as well... My suggestion here is that the great majority of American usage of the word porcini likely proliferated from people copying the ill-informed initial use of the word by a handful of trend-setting and trend-following restaurateurs and food writers a relatively short time ago, and (gasp) in the absence of copyeditor supervision. Eric ^talk 03:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't comment on UK but they were pretty unknown in Australia, so even penny bun and cep would not be recognised by 99% of people. Only since the dried procini have been widely available are they known...and they are only known as porcini here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thinking about this a bit - trying to think of something that reflects usage yet incorporates the (obvious) italian syntax. How about:

Boletus edulis, commonly known as ~~the~~ porcini (singular porcino), as well as penny bun or cep, is a basidiomycete fungus.....

this way we highlight common usage as well as get the syntax right...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better would be "... commonly known as porcini ...", since the definite article implies singular. ("The robin is a merry bird", not "The robins are a merry bird", LOL.) --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

d'oh! yes absolutely.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not read well to me. You have a singular subject followed by a singular verb ("is"), which requires that the synonyms also be singular. We wouldn't write "Quercus petraea, commonly called Durmast oaks, is ...".

What's wrong with "Boletus edulis, commonly called cep, porcino or, rarely, penny bun, is ..."? You could add the plurals (ceps, porcini) in brackets, but those would fit just as well in the Name section below. Less is more here. I'm sure there are people who would talk about "a porcini"; the same people might perhaps also talk about "a zucchini". That those expressions are, through ignorance or unfamiliarity, in popular use does not imply that we need to display the same ignorance or unfamiliarity here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, I agree. See the recent edit history of the article. Eric ^talk 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's apparently not commonly called "cep," "porcino," or "penny bun" (in comparison to "porcini") based on the usage data. Many of the people that say "a porcini" or "the porcini is" are indeed probably the same that say "(a) zucchini is," "spaghetti is," "confetti is," "macaroni is," "graffiti is," "(a) pepperoni is," "rigatoni is," "(a) salami is," "tortellini is," "calamari is," "linguine is," and "manicotti is"—all quite usual and standard in English regardless of the etymologies of the words. If we relied on etymology, the words bodice, stamina, agenda, math, and truce would also be plural (not to mention measles, news, etc.). The singular use in English is not equivalent to ignorance or unfamiliarity with Italian, Latin, Middle English, etc. Doremo (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the usage data you refer to seems to be from Google, and from recent years. All of those Italian-origin words except zucchini are used almost exclusively as mass nouns in English, as are math, measles, and news, (and zucchini quite often, if not mostly). The other words all came into English hundreds of years before porcini. Eric ^talk 04:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Google data are (is) a good basis for judging contemporary usage. In any case, though, this doesn't solve the basic problem that the mushroom seems to be most frequently/commonly called "porcini" (whether singular, plural, or mass) and seems not to be most frequently/commonly called "cep," "porcino," or "penny bun." Doremo (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: "Boletus edulis (English: cep, porcino, or penny bun, usually called porcini) is ..."? That puts the singulars in order of frequency (per Google Ngram) and also nods to the most frequent common name designation without defining its grammatical status. Doremo (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good to me. (Sorry I've been offline for around 24 hours. Lots of interesting discussion above I might have replied to, but by now it would probably just be chitchat rather than helping to a solution.) --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Doremo, that looks good to me. Two suggestions/ideas: We might consider adding king bolete in there, as I believe that was recently--if it isn't still--the most common of the common names used by mycologists, at least in North America. And, not to belabor the point too much, I think we might consider adding some temporal and geographic component to "usually called porcini", maybe following it with something that indicates the usage is recent, and--if I'm correct--mostly in North America. I wish we could poll the U.K. to see what they called these fungi 20 years ago and what they call them now. I was hoping more people would weigh in here--now would be a handy time to summon all members of [[Category:Pedantic fungi-eating British Wikipedians]]. Not to snub you, @Casliber!...it seems the species was only recently introduced to grow in the southern hemisphere. Eric ^talk 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British (Southern England). Where I live, the supermarkets sell them as ceps. The porcine word isn't used.^{[Original research]} I think we need sources before claiming regional/temporal variations. Would changing "usually" → "often" take care of this one? --Stfg (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BrE Ngram data indicate that "porcini" currently predominates in published material. All of the Ngram data (AmE, BrE, all E) indicate that "porcini" became established or dominant about 30 years ago, in the early 1980s. Changing "usually" to "often" would indicate that the term is less frequent than the others, which would be misleading. Doremo (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doremo: I think you're over-using ngrams, which are not selective on reliability of sources, and are over-selective for published sources versus everyday usage (e.g. shops, menus, online recipes, ...). "Currently predominates in published material" is not quite the same as "usually". Ngrams are useful, for example, to prove existence and notability, but once again it needs to be said that we should rely on good dictionaries, since lexicographers do research usage. By the way, I made that suggestion not to make any assertions of my own, but to help us to avoid making a too-strong statement about regional and temporal variations that we probably can't reliably source. --Stfg (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King bolete is a term I've heard as well (in the USA). Mushrooms Demystified puts it first on the list of common names: "king bolete, cep, steinpilz, porcini, etc." (This is from 1986, and all common name listings give them as singular nouns, FWIW.) Tdslk (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should rely on all sources, not just ngrams. The question of time when terms came into use has been raised more than once, and ngrams are very useful for that. It's important to consider a variety of sources, not only field guides, but also cookbooks, dictionaries, etc. The problem is that I can selectively pull up any individual source (e.g., dictionary or field guide or mycology or cookbook) to favor a particular term, but that doesn't say much about comparative frequency. Doremo (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea you could do searches like that in Google Books! Thanks for showing us that, @Doremo. Departing from your search parameters, I changed the range to 1970–present, and it was interesting to compare, in British English, the paths of cep and porcini--and really interesting to see how the results differ when you toggle the case sensitivity. And I'm surprised to see, in American English, that porcini surpasses porcino way back in '78 or '81 (depending on case sensitivity, which also makes a big difference in AE).

I agree with you in general about dictionaries, @Stfg. But a pox upon my beloved AHD and upon the Cambridge University Press! I must throw in my own observation that in everyday American usage, porcini is by far the most common in recent years, though I obviously wish it were otherwise. I hope we can find a way to make at least some temporal/geographic note re porcini. Eric ^talk 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toggling the ngram to "case insensitive" is a bit dangerous in this case because it brings up many (false) hits for CEP. Doremo (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dang, right! And it looks like it doesn't accept Boolean or other operators, e.g. "(Cep OR cep),(Porcini OR porcini)". Wish there were a way to effectively add the like-named trends in a graph like this one. Eric ^talk 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no new discussion here for several days. Shall we leave the lede as it currently reads, or change it to the proposed "Boletus edulis (English: cep, penny bun, or porcino, usually called porcini) is ..."? The latter suggestion (corrected here for ngram frequency) was backed by at least three editors. The name king bolete appears even lower in ngram frequency, so there's no compelling reason to add it, although it could certainly be squeezed in after porcino. Doremo (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer this suggestion to the current wording in the article. I do think king bolete is worth mentioning there in spite of ngram results. Eric ^talk 13:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it and also added king bolete. It can be further modified if a different consensus emerges later. Doremo (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::I prefer ..." porcini (singular porcino) " and then other common names...but not super-strongly so am not hugely fussed really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm very reluctant to label porcino as a singular (thus essentially labeling porcini a plural) because it over-categorizes the lexeme. Porcini may sometimes be a mass noun (mass nouns are singular), sometimes a singular (certainly singular as a modifier: porcini mushroom, porcini sauce), and sometimes a plural (alongside the frequent plural porcinis). Doremo (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to Category:Pedantic fungus-eating British Wikipedians. I'm afraid that an awful lot too much attention is being paid to Google here, and not nearly enough to reliable sources. I'm not going to go through hundreds of cookery books to report here exactly what each one says, but the first two I picked off the shelf, Jane Grigson's Mushroom Feast (1975) and Alan Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food (1999) list it under "Cep"; both give porcini, in italics, as the Italian name; only Davidson mentions "penny bun"; neither mentions "king bolete". Until recently these were invariably(?) known as ceps in Britain, though that is probably changing; so "usually called porcini" is to me factually incorrect (though true in Italy, of course). I do also have a variety of fungus books, but they are in Italian, so not helpful here. I propose a more neutral wording: "Boletus edulis (English: cep, porcino or porcini) is ..." and then cover other names in the Common names section. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn, yes...-us! Your proposal sounds good to me, a more concise intro sentence. Re king bolete: I wouldn't expect to see that used in culinary books; I think it's more of a field term. Maybe we could work a little history of term use into the common name section. Eric ^talk 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Porcini" refers to Italian cuisine, and is used to label the product here in the UK. "Spaghetti", likewise. If I heard an English speaker refer to "a spaghetto" I would assume it was a joke. Maproom (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom Not sure what you mean re "Italian cuisine"; porcini is the Italian common name (in the plural) for B. edulis, whether cooked or growing on the ground. As for spaghetti and like words, that's discussed above, and we are not likely to find ourselves referring to individual strands of spaghetti anywhere near as often as to individual mushrooms. Eric ^talk 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar

Which dialect is this FA supposed to be in? It currently has more than one. --John (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out. --John (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20090107041412/http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomking.html to http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomking.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality image

Here's a quality image for your consideration. The whole upload (29 photos of various fungi) needs a license review and I'm a bit stumped by what is needed. Schwede 66 01:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20130523094609/http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.pdf to http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20110721185827/http://www.belogradchik.info/1/content/view/390/2/lang%2Cbg/ to http://www.belogradchik.info/1/content/view/390/2/lang%2Cbg/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20140517151731/http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/State_Herbarium/Resources/Publications/Journal_of_the_Adelaide_Botanic_Gardens/Journal_search/25/1 to http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/State_Herbarium/Resources/Publications/Journal_of_the_Adelaide_Botanic_Gardens/Journal_search/25/1

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cep#Requested move 20 June 2018

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cep#Requested move 20 June 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic use of N-word removed

French names for related species are used under Related species and are translated to English in the article. One of the species listed is Tête de nègre (Boletus aereus), which is translated to English in the article as "negro's head". As the common name used in the French article for Boletus aereus is Cèpe bronzé and the English is "dark cep", I am changing the listed names accordingly. 80.217.118.1 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong photograph

I have it from a pair of professional Oregon USA independent consulting botanists, Bruce Newhouse and Nick Otting, that the centrally bulbous photograph at "Stem shape can range from club-shaped to centrally bulbous" is actually of Boletus aereus. Bruce Newhouse was a co-founder of Cascade Mycological Society. He and Nick Otting are published by Oregon State University Press. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm posting a question to the uploader of the photo to Commons. He does not provide much info in the description: commons:File:Boletus_edulis_JPG9.jpg My question to him is on the file's talkpage. Eric ^talk 09:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The calcium DV% amount is incorrect

In the nutrition section. Chaptagai (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]