Talk:Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review, but I may be slow. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial comments:

"Genetic analysis has confirmed it is a member of the boletes in the order Boletales." I think there's an ambiguity in the word "bolete". It could refer to a particular kind of morphology (analogous with "bracket"), and that's how our article has it. In this sense, the false chanterelle isn't a bolete, it's just closely related to the (main?) family of boletes. I don't know- just offering a thought.

Yeah...tweaked a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"contrasting it as "kind of pernicious" to its edible lookalike" This doesn't quite work

The source uses the latin "perniosus", which can mean "bad", "baleful", "poisonous" etc. Given the context i wasn't exactly sure though I guess it means "poisonous"....I just liked "pernicious". But will change as contrastive gives it away really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies- it was the syntax/tense, rather than word choice. I've made a tweak which allows you to keep "pernicious"; do double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aaah ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Later mycologists thought" Later than what?

It'll be sometime in the 20th century. Best would be to find the paper or book, which I suspect is Singer. ~~I need to sleep now though. Back tomorrow~~ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It is Singer (1975) who placed it in Paxillaceae, but I don't know why (presumably morphology). I don't have the book but Sasata does...@Sasata:? Anyway, have done this so all info aligns with what I know is in sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singer classified it in Paxillaceae earlier than that ... a Google Books snippet from this says "... Singer (1946, 1962) places Hygrophoropsis in the Paxillaceae because of similar textures in the lamellae and context." I'm pretty sure Singer 1962 would be the 2nd edition of Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy. After some Googly detective work, I figured out the 1946 source and have added it. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The false chanterelle has been described as edible (though not tasty) by some experts, but other authors report it as poisonous.[39]" Just to double-check- all of that information is in Miller and Miller?

Nope, it was undersourced ... now fixed. Sasata (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me in what way the final paragraph belongs in the edibility section.

Moved by Sasata Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a translation of the title of the Heykoop source? Binder et al?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently picked up a copy of the rather impressive (to my amateur eyes) Collins Fungi Guide (Collins Fungi Guide. London: Collins. 2012. ISBN 9780007466481. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help), so here's what's said:
- Haasiella venustissima is sometimes mistaken for it, but can be distinguished by its non-forked gills and pink spore print (pp. 178-80)
- Not poisonous, but inedible. Unpleasant, earthy smell/taste. Flesh soft, white to yellowish. Usually in "small trooping groups". Very variable species. (p. 422)

Thanks for that info, I've added some bits. Sasata (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasata: Sorry, I see now that our article on the genus Haasiella claims that H. venustissima is a synonym for H. splendidissima; IF and MB seem less certain. I'll leave that to you... Josh Milburn (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that. I am not familiar with the genus at all...so I guess that it another whole topic to explore and figure consensus on at some point (sigh) 11:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I just read the Haasiella paper PMID 22314595, and their data regarding the synonymy of the two species is pretty convincing; looks like IF and MycoBank is just slow to catch up (not unusual...). Have left a footnote in this article to clarify the situation. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images look fine, but is there a particular reason you've chosen the smaller image for the lead? I'd have said the one towards the bottom of the article is better, but I may have missed something. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That image has been there since the beginning I think (so not consciously chosen). I also came across file:2011-10-11 Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca crop.jpg but it is very like the Pennsylvania one. I like one that is side on to contrast the ones from above with one mushroom upside down. Need to think about this....Sasata you have any preference? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this, which shows the gills, stipe, cap surface, and habitat all in one? Here's another, perhaps not as attractive. Sasata (talk)

I think they're all a bit better than the current lead! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one you linked - i.e. this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, I'm happy to promote at this time. I still think the "later" is a little jarring (it's not clear what it's later than), but I'm certainly not going to hold up the review over this. I note that, as fair as fungi species go, this is a highly viewed article- over 1,500 last month. (Chanterelle had over 12,000.) Anyway- promoting now. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - might think of a reword. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another helpful review. Sasata (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]