Talk:Craterellus tubaeformis
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
binomial name
[edit]I think it is (Schäffer 1763) Quélet, 1888 (see french section for taxonomy)--Breugelius (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Both Index Fungorum and MycoBank indicate that (Fr.) Quél. is the correct way to display the authorities, based on the basionym Cantharellus tubaeformis Fr. 1821. MycoBank notes "as '(Bulliard)', but nomenclatorily this is a misapplication of Elvela tubaeformis J.Schaeffer; the correct basionym is Cantharellus tubaeformis, based on Helvella tubaeformis ss Bulliard". This information should probably go in the article sometime... Sasata (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
BioScan unreliable source?
[edit]The presence of the mushroom in Assam cites an article in BioScan, which has been marked by somebody as "unreliable source" as it does not provide proper peer-reviewing ("low-end" or even "fake" journal?). What is WikiPedia's stance on this? Lots of publications are not peer-reviewed in the usual academic sense, and they still can be used as references (e.g. all newspaper articles.) The article in question looks very much like a serious piece of scientific writing, which is why its publication in a "bad" journal in my eyes would not decrease its value (because it is not making extraordinary or controversial claims.) Lots of scientific publications are not very competitive (due to the limited novelty and utility of their results), and may end up in lesser (and even "fake") journals simply as a consequence of pressure to publish ("publish or perish"). The unrealiability of the article in this case should be based on something else than the unreliability of the journal, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.97.85 (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Craterellus tubaeformis. 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/20070804023903/http://www-mykopat.slu.se/Newwebsite/mycorrhiza/kantarellfiler/texter/craterellus.pdf to http://www-mykopat.slu.se/Newwebsite/mycorrhiza/kantarellfiler/texter/craterellus.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) 06:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)