Talk:Harrya chromapes

Points of Interest

Opening Paragraph

• The evidence for erecting a new genera included morphological features, which were confirmed by the molecular evidence.

• Changed to this: "In 2012, it was transferred to the newly created genus Harrya when it was established that morphological and molecular evidence demonstrated its distinctness from the genera in which it had formerly been placed." How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• In fact, molecular evidence that was inconclusive existed before this study, I believe it was in Manfred's thesis and a 2000 paper, "28S rDNA sequence data and chemotaxonomical analyses on the generic concept of Leccinum (Boletales)".

• I do not believe the "scabers" are true scabers, that is, formed in the same manner as the true scaber of Leccinum and Leccinellum. I'll check later though cause I cannot remember for sure

Taxonomy

• We now know that the spore print color range that was previously associated with Tylopilus is no limited to Tylopilus

Similar Species

• The yellow foot seems to me to be the only constant feauture. I have collected specimens that lacked the scabers and/or lacked any pink tones. No matter what, even after a good rain, I have always seen the yellow foot. Though sometimes I did have to cut the mushroom open a bit to find it.
• Not sure if it is appropriate, but I think, as do some others, there may be two lineages: one for conifers and one for oaks

Fun Fact

All the MEN specimens in the paper were collected less than 10 miles from the type locality. All I have time for right nowM.E.Nuhn (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I worry that jumping straight into taxonomic controversies in the lead will be off-putting to non-mycologist readers.

• This info now moved to the end of the lead. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Are Ceriomyces and Krombholzia still in use? If so, redlinks would be useful; if not, mentioning as much, if possible, would be a helpful addition.

They are quite defunct, with near zero chance of coming back.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a note explaining their fates... Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Harria" I assume this is a typing error?

Must be, it is Harrya. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and does not stain blue when it is bruised or injured" Worth mentioning that this is a useful identifying characteristic for boletes? There are lots of colours that it doesn't stain!

The vast majority of boletes stain blue or brown. There are others, but for Tylopilus, if it stains, usually staings brown/brown-red and "Boletus" usually stains blue, if it stains. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally know that bruising colour is important, I'm just worried that readers unfamiliar with the area may consider this a rather odd fact without providing this sort of context. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Added "(an important diagnostic feature of many bolete species)" and modified the page numbers in the citation to cover this fact. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The tubes are depressed around the top of the stipe and are almost free from attachment." Do you mean the individual tubes are depressed, or the hymenium is depressed? This sentence is difficult to follow.

For boletes the tubes are the hymenium, so he means all the tubes near the stipe are depressed.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• See here for a visual example. I reworded a bit, but am open to suggestions for prose tweaks to enhance clarity. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "layer of tangle hyphae" Do you mean tangled, or is "tangle hyphae" a term I'm unfamiliar with?

• Typo, fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "although it shares a similar yellow stipe base." I don't think it can share a similar yellow base- it either has a similar yellow base, or shares a yellow base.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Sciophila, and Mydaea" - species of the genera

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing about the edibility of the species in the main article- at least a line or two would be good.

• I already have "The mushrooms are edible and good, but popular with insects, and so are often infested with maggots." but can't find much more to add than this. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• The formatting on the Singer 1947 note is throwing me a little. Same with "Martínez-Carrera D, Curvetto N, Sobal P, Morales P, Mora VM".

• Singer 1947 is a journal citation, but it is part of a series, so that's why publisher info is included. I fixed up the formatting for the other one. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Category:Edible fungi?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Images are great (shame the lead doesn't have the red on the stipe, but nevermind) and the sources seem completely appropriate. I'm sure I'll be able to promote once the above issues are resolved. (I made a couple of small edits.) J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a helpful review, JM. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Very happy with the fixes/clarification; another look at the article reveals no further problems. Happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)