Talk:Lichen growth forms

Derivation of the terms

For those of us without a classical education, a brief explanation of the derivation of the form names would be useful. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Great idea Pbsouthwood. I'll try to find some etymologies. MeegsC (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: do the added etymologies help? MeegsC (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

MeegsC, They do thanks. The article feels more complete now. The inner nerd applauds. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood LOL. Glad you approve! Thanks for the suggestion. :) MeegsC (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Etymologies

Here are some growth form term etymologies:

• foliose: L. foliosus, leafy < folium, leaf + suf. osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.229)

• areolate: L. areolatus, with areolae < areola, dim. of area, halo, open space + suf. -atus > E. -ate, provided with or likeness; or +suf. -aris > E. -ar, like, belonging to (p.38)

• byssoid: L. byssus < Gr. býssos, linen cloth of very fine threads + L. suf. aceus > E. aceous, of or pertaining to, with the nature of

• fruticose: L. fruticosus, similar to a shrub, shrubby < frutex, shrub + suf. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.234)

• leprose: L. leprosus, scurfy, scaly < lepras <Gr. lépra, leprosy < leprós, rough + L. suff. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.339)

• placodioid: Gr. plakós, plaque, tablet + NL. suf. -oides, contraction of Gr. oeides, which denotes similarity (p.482)

• squamulose: L. squamulosus, provided with small scales < squamula, dim. of squama, scale + suf. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.610)

Symbols: L. = Latin; Gr. = Greek; E. = English; NL = Neolatin; dim. = diminutive; suf. = suffix; < = derived from; > giving rise to.

Source: Ulloa, Miguel; Hanlin, Richard T. (2012). Illustrated Dictionary of Mycology (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: The American Phytopathological Society. ISBN 978-0-89054-400-6. Esculenta (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice! · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I made you a collage

Various lichen growth forms

I saw your GA nomination and dipped in. I was just making my annual "fungi I saw in my yard collage" and I just used the same app w some of your lichen photos. If it helps, go with good. If not, ignore me. Carry on with your fine work! jengod (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jengod! I'm currently working on the lichen and lichen morphology articles, and will definitely plug this into one or both of those articles. Nice work! MeegsC (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

There's very little wrong with this well-cited article, so I'll have few comments to make, and they're mainly of a general kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• The lead image group would be better arranged vertically, with the images bigger (at least as wide as those in the main text, preferably a little larger), individually captioned so the name of the growth form is visibly associated with its image, and with the caption trimmed (atm it says "from left to right / top to bottom" which makes no sense for a single row).

The change in effect is remarkable, and for the better.

• The article is inevitably rather technical. That does not mean that the first paragraph must be written in Klingon-speak. And especially, the first sentence should be simple and friendly to all, so "basidiomycete" isn't the right sort of language there, specially when the cuddly word "yeast" turns out to be the name of the linked article!

Not sure what to do here. Not all yeasts are basidiomycete yeasts (as our article explains). Some are ascomycete yeasts, which have not been found in lichens (at least, not to date). Hence my inclusion of "basidiomycete". Given that, do you still feel just plain "yeast" is sufficient?

For the lead, yes. If you want to talk fungal taxonomy (not sure why, in an article on form), then further down would be the place. Conclusion might be, the discussion of non-form issues might be best deleted here.

Okay, I removed it.

• I suggest that all the galleries be adjusted to "|mode=nolines" to remove the clutter of the frames, which serve no purpose here.

• Chapters 1..12 are all types of growth form, whereas chapter 13 lists lookalikes. I suggest that chs 1..12 be grouped into a single chapter named "Growth forms", with 12 subsections.

• That structure points up the fact that there is no introductory section, or rather, that the introduction and the article's summary have been summarily conflabulated into a composite organism, a summariduction. As WP:MOS doesn't describe such a beast, I suggest we move most of the current lead into an overview section (chapter 1). It probably needs a couple of subsections: a) about hyphal and cortical structure, and b) about the relationship of form to taxonomy. I'm not sure where the macro/micro thing fits as it doesn't seem to have much to do either with form or with taxonomy! Perhaps it doesn't belong here at all.

I've created an overview section, and stripped out a vast majority of the three former opening paragraphs. Does this meet with your approval? Obviously, I still need to redo the lead.

Looks the part, yes. I'm not at all objecting to a very brief "Context" section or paragraph about what a lichen is, whether there's mutual benefit to the component organisms, etc, indeed it would be a very good thing to begin the Overview with.

Chiswick Chap, how does the overview look now? If it's okay, I'll continue on to the lede.

Great!

• I think you will then have to look at whatever is left of the lead and rewrite or extend it to provide a brief summary of the rest of the article, per the MOS.

Okay, I think the lede is done. Can you have a look and let me know if it works for you?

I think you've done what can be done with the material.

• I note in passing that two sources, Nelsen and Purvis, are not used in refs. Are you in the process of adding something or are they to be removed?

These were used in the original lede, which has been much reduced. I've removed them.

• The lookalikes chapter is conspicuously un-illustrated, in contrast to the earlier chapter's worth of material. Given that 99% of readers will have little idea even what an Usnea looks like (why don't you say "beard lichen", etc, when good English words are available?), I'd say that a photo or possibly better a small drawing would be very useful for each of the lookalike types. Obviously this can't be mandated at GA.

Chiswick Chap, do you think I should include this section? It was suggested by another editor for terms that are used in various articles. However, these could point to the glossary instead (since they're not growth forms in the traditional sense).

I think it's fine.

Okay, I tweaked the wording in this section a bit to "remove the Klingon". I'll work on getting appropriate pictures.

• "They contain atranorin (a lichen product) in the upper cortex and physodic acid (another lichen product) in the medulla." Um, so what has this to do with the growth form, and how could it help the reader?

I've changed this to "They also share certain chemical properties in their cortex and medulla." The problem is, it isn't just the growth form that makes something a hypogymnioid lichen; they have to share the right chemical properties too. I figured I needed to explain that!

All right, at least it's brief. I still think you're mixing up the form "hypogymnioid" with the taxonomy and biology, the nature if you like, of Hypogymnia the genus.

Okay, I've removed the sentence completely. On a related note, should I even include Astrothelioid here? After all, it's only their spores, not their growth form, that makes an Astrothelioid lichen.

I think you've answered your own question. You could include a mention of Astrothelioid as a footnote to the Lookalikes introduction, but it's not necessary.

Okay, I've removed it.

• The 'Highlight duplicate links' tool on the left points up a bit of overlinking, e.g. fruticose, epiphytic, spores, medulla.

Where do you find the "highlight duplicate links" tool? I don't have that on my page.

Long since forgotten how I got it. I think it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/duplinks-alt

Thanks for that! It looks like it will prove useful...

• Few of the sources can be checked online. From my limited personal knowledge, things look reasonable, and the sources I spot-checked were fine.

Summary

I don't think these changes will take terribly long, and I look forward to seeing this as a Good Article shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap, I'll get started on these soon, and will strike things out as I complete them. MeegsC (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I think I've addressed all of your comments, bar the illustrations for the "look-alikes", which will take some time. Is there anything I've missed? MeegsC (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we're all complete here. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Chiswick Chap! I really appreciate your help in making this a better article. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Usoihe (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Usoihe (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Pre FAC feedback

ok some feedback...

Overall the writing itself impresses as clear and precise, just a bit confused about scope (see below) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Am not a fan of Overview sections as is a nebulous catch-all term - maybe something mroe defining, like context (as we're talking about the parent organism?) for first para, and second para goes under growth forms or something.  Done

• I'd put the meaning of byssoid close to the top of that section.
  • Only for this section (i.e. not for the other section definitions)?
    • I was travelling with an at-times annoyingly bad internet connection. hat stood out but didn't scan others. In general I'd have meanings (from Greek etc.) near the top near the name. Not a huge deal though.

• Do you think this article should be merged with Lichen morphology is the two seem to complement each other...?
  • I'm loathe to do this, as I'm in the process of greatly expanding lichen morphology. I think it would make that article too long.
    • Fair point. Just musing on it, then is this more of a "list" article? I guess how are you thinking the content delineation panning out across lichen morphology/anatomy type articles?
      • I've started the upgrade on lichen morphology here. I've got a long way to go! The anatomy article will be less "listy" as there aren't many different parts on the inside. And the articles on the various external bits (e.g. cephalodia) won't be listy at all.
• Who came up with these classifications of growth forms - why are the look-a-likes not proper growth forms?

• The concept of the three main forms is mentioned as traditional, but reading the article I don't know why, nor why they are reclassified later.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)