Talk:Caloboletus calopus

Caloboletus calopus 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 August 25, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
September 16, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2006.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Boletus calopus, a European mushroom, derives its scientific name from the Ancient Greek for "pretty foot," referring to its attractive stalk?

Current status: Featured article

Edible

IS it edible ? Robin48gx 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it's not edible. Last sentence of the opening paragraph. BigBen212 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.google.com sez:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5489e/y5489e06.htm "Edible in the Russian far east (Vasil’eva, 1978); said to be poisonous in Slovenia (www.matkurja.com) and by other field guides."

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8046/edible.html "Devil's Boletus (Boletus Satanas) causes unpleasant syptoms even when taken in small amounts. Similar poisoning is caused by the Bitter Bolete (Tylopilus Felleus), Peppery Bolete (Chalciporus Piperatus) and Boletus Calopus all of which have an unpleasant peppery or bitter taste."

http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/Mycology/Animal_Interactions/Toxins/tableToxicFungi.html says "P", or "Poisonous (usually non-lethal, symptoms severe)"

Has anyone expired from ingesting B. calopus? Is it humanly possible to get past the taste to actually eat enough to kill you? mdf 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you term edible. I guess the taste renders it inedible and/or mildly poisonous. Also there is the problem of regional variation and whether fungi far apart are in fact different species (as is suspected with this one). Sounds interesting to follow up on though.Cas Liber 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked up the refs, some interesting reading there. I note that the author Vasil'eva notes a few other species as edible that others regard as poisonous or inedible. Cas Liber 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boletus calopus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First look to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to common name and something about scientific description may help clarify the technical way you're using the terms

Linked both in the lead. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why use stipe rather than stem, when you use cap instead of pileus? (You also use "stalk" further down- potentially confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject.)

Using "stem" may cause confusion with the analogous but anatomically different plant structure; cap has no similar homologies. Have replaced instances of "stalk" with stipe. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on interwiki links in the main article. You're also quoting the German name as a word, and so it should be italicised.

Done. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the taxonomy section would be better off in chronological order?

had a go - do you think it reads better in chronological order? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology of ruforubraporus? (I'm less concerned about the form...)

Added both. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour but this species has red pores". As the subject of the clause is the cap, how about something like "and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour, but sports red pores"?
"B. chrysenteron" Is this an outdated binomial? It's currently a redirect

Now in Xerocomellus – fixed. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It grows on chalky ground from July to December, in Northern Europe,[21] and North America's Pacific Northwest and Michigan,[25] though the latter appears to be a different subspecies if not a separate species." Odd sentence- the latter what?

I've removed this, as this statement was not in my more recent edition of this book. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... now replaced with a more comprehensible, sourced statement. Sasata (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the chemicals interesting or useful at all? Any potential applications?

I added a bit of info (that might be interesting to a chemist); as for potential applications, not really. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other bits I picked up on but which I wouldn't push for GAC:

Missing page number in the Phillips source (and an ISBN would be good for consistency). Same for Carluccio- no page range. No accessdate for the British Mycological Society source.

Fixed Phillips; BMS source doesn't require accessdate as it's a PDF of a text document. Cas has Carluccio page#. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Macrofungus resources and their utilization" source is a bit odd. What is it? A book? A journal article?

Oops – forgot to add journal name. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are "Smith, J.", but you have some "Smith, John", some "John Smith" (I think- they're Chinese names) and some "Smith J". Consistency would be nice!

Should be better now. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution focuses a lot on precisely where in the US, while just saying "Northern Europe".

That's a drawback of having mostly N.American sources ... will keep looking to see if this can be fleshed out before FAC. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

alot of European mushroom books are incredibly vague and often omit even general geographic information on distribution. I might have to visit a library for that and even then might not be able to pinpoint anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images and sources look great. Article's on the shorter side, but seems to cover all the bases- the only thing it may be accused of lacking is any microscopic details beyond the spores, while your mention of B. panniformis does have some. If there aren't the sources, then there aren't the sources; I certainly wouldn't hold back GA status on those grounds. I suspect there is more to be said about the chemistry, too- a Google Scholar search is pulling up a lot of (to my eyes!) dull-looking papers on chemical extracts. I doubt any are super-important, but if you're looking for further expansion, there may well be more out there. A couple of other bits of potential interest:

This paper may also have some more similar species.

I've added a bit sourced to this paper–thanks. Sasata (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paper, according to a Google Scholar quote (...reported the isolation and structural elucidation of two highly functionalized sesquiterpenoids from a Korean collection of Boletus calopus. On the basis of mainly NMR evidence, the authors...), mentions in passing that it has been found in Korea.

Added distribution in Korea. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made a couple of small tweaks- it's looking very strong. I'm guessing that there's probably a little more expansion to be done before FAC (despite the already very long list of references!) based on the very large number of hits on Google Scholar. Regardless, I'm happy to promote. Great work! (Also, I think this is my 200th GA review- an apt topic!) J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - I think we were feeling a little bit at a plateau with this and your comments gave us an idea of what to do next, so good all round. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from me – 'twas a helpful review. Sasata (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caloboletus calopus. 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/20130302235323/http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf to http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.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) 01:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]