Talk:Lysurus mokusin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Smelly fella! A couple issues:

• In History, tax and phylo; segment "The species was first described by the Catholic Priest and missionary Pierre-Martial Cibot, who, writing in the Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae (New memoirs of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg) (1775), reported finding Lysurus mokusin near Peking (now Beijing). This finding represents the earliest published scientific record of a fungus from China. The basionym for the lantern stinkhorn, Phallus mokusin, was sanctioned by Christian Hendrik Persoon in his 1801 Synopsis Methodica Fungorum. In 1823, Elias Magnus Fries transferred it to the genus Lysurus in his Systema Mycologicum."

• What was Cibot's initial placement? Does 'basionym' suggest that Phallus mokusin was a transfer from Cibot's placement? Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've reworded this to hopefully make it more clear that Phallus mokusin was Cibot's original name (=basionym). Sasata (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the next paragraph; "In 1938, Y. Kobayasi reported the form L. mokusin f. sinensis, which he said differed from the main species in having a head that was more angular and conical at the top; the form sinensis was also reported in Korea in 1995. Some authors have attempted to define forms of L. mokusin as new species based on the degree of separation of the apical arms. For example, to contrast with his concept of Lysurus in which the arms were either free or slightly fused, the genus Lloydia was created by Chow in 1935 to contain species in which the tips of the arms were fused. Donald Malcolm Dring, in his monograph on the Clathraceae (a now-defunct family that formerly contained Lysurus), noted that "all degrees of union are reported in the literature, so that it would seem extremely difficult to maintain this distinction." In another instance, Lysurus brevipes, was described as a new species based on it having a short four-angled stipe with an arm at each corner; however, the type specimen no longer exists and it has not been collected since. As a result of these differing interpretations of the limits of L. mokusin, it has aquireed a lengthy list of synonyms over the years.

• Why is a form the classification below 'variety' in fungi?

• It just is :) According to our article, "A form usually designates a group with a noticeable but minor deviation." ... and now you know as much as me on the subject. The use of "form" and "variety" gets a bit messy with fungi, as these definitions for infrageneric taxonomy were written with plants in mind, and they are somewhat artificial constructs whose precise meaning and application depends on who decided to use them. I'm just reporting what the sources say. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence on Dring regarding Clathraceae; kind of confusingly distracting... may we just axe that sentence?

• Axed. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Was L. brevipes rendered a form or synonym of L. mokusin? Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking about it some more, I've axed the mention of this too, as it was a single collection from a century ago that may or may not have been the same species, and it is not mentioned as a synonym in MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

C'est tres bon! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Lysurus mokusin passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass