Talk:Lichinella
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Number of species
[edit]I'm not an expert but why does the text state there are 11 species but 12 are listed and 25 appear in reference 1 source. Richard Avery (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Dictionary of the Fungi claims 11 species, but unfortunately, they don't actually list what they are. I got the list from the Catalogue of Life, which lists 11, and also added L. nigritella (the species in the taxobox image), because according to MycoBank it's valid (and it would be odd to have it in the taxobox but not in the species list). The names listed in ref 1 includes obsolete synonyms and invalid names, so it can't be used (by itself) as a species list. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, got that. Thanks Sasata. Best to you. Richard Avery (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lichinella. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090318003134/http://www.fieldmuseum.org/myconet/outline.asp to http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/myconet/outline.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)