Talk:Glutinoglossum glutinosum

Glutinoglossum glutinosum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 12, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Glutinoglossum glutinosum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the glutinous earth tongue got placed in a new genus this year?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glutinoglossum, Glutinoglossum glutinosum.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. A fantastic name! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you link "fruitbody" to basidiocarp- surely, it would be an ascocarp?

Oops - fixed (x2). Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "earth tongue" is worth a link? Alternatively, if earth tongue is simply the common name of the Geoglossaceae, I think the lead sentence should be rephrased.

Earth tongue is the common name for the family; I've rephrased the lead sentence. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tiny thing, but you note that Hustad et. al. saw that G. glutinosum and G. heptaseptatum form a clade, and then you mention the description of G. australasicum and G. exiguum, but there are a couple of other species in the clade, too, according to the cladogram.

Hustad et al.'s 2013 analysis only contained the two Glutinoglossum species; the cladogram is based on their 2015 publication. Hopefully this has now been made more clear from the caption and the text. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The spores are smooth and cylindrical, sometimes with a slight swelling in the middle, and sometimes slightly curved; they measure 59–65 by 4–5 µm. They have" Here, it reads as if the "they" is referring to spores.

It is referring to the spores! Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ascospores occupy about the upper two-thirds to three-quarters of the ascus, resulting in a hyaline (transparent) base." I'm not sure about "resulting in", here- that implies a kind of causal connection which isn't there. How about something like "leaving a hyaline..."?

Done. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Although black earth tongue species are generally not worth eating,[14] Charles McIlvaine opined in his 1902 work One Thousand American Fungi that "stewed it is delicious."[18]" Again, there's a shift in subject here- the subject of the first clause is "black earth tongue species", while the "it" in the second clause presumably refers specifically to G. glutinisum. How about "Although black earth tongue species are generally not worth eating,[14] Charles McIlvaine opined in his 1902 work One Thousand American Fungi that, if stewed, G. glutinoglossum is "delicious".[18]

I like that version ... changed. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"14-septate" and "7-septate" are a little jargony

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any difference between "saprotrophic" and "saprotryphic"? Is one more generally preferred?

A saphrophytic species is one that utilizes saprotrophic nutrition (i.e. it's an adjective form). Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the category "inedible fungi"- the Arora quote doesn't preclude edibility ("not worth eating" does not mean "cannot be eaten"), and you have another source which explicitly does call it edible, even if it's an old one.

Sure, cat removed. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell us the language of the Imai sources, if non-English?

Specified language for the non-English publication. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. There's a little inconsistency in publisher/location information, but certainly not worth fretting over at GAC.

Added locations. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review! Sasata (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy to promote now- a very solid article. As a closing thought, can I just draw your attention to the spores again?

"The spores are smooth and cylindrical, sometimes with a slight swelling in the middle, and sometimes slightly curved; they measure 59–65 by 4–5 µm. They have between two and seven septa, although three is most typical in mature specimens."

I'm not clear on how spores have septa, but you said above that the "they" in the second sentence does refer to the spores; perhaps this could be clarified? Anyway, I'll leave that with you. Sorry for the delay. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]