Talk:Marasmius rotula

Review

• I'm going to be honest, but I really should NOT have to point out that Epicrisis is not a sanctioning work. Since the sanctioning does not affect priority in this case anyway, I removed that entirely

• Thanks. Intelligence is not always a strong point of mine (I find persistence to be equally effective :D). Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• The description does not seem to encompass the var. fuscus which is implied under "Taxonomy" to not make a good taxon.

• I mentioned it in the description, but am not completely satisfied. What to do with a "variety" described 150 years ago that hasn't been mentioned in the literature since (that I know of). I'd like to say something to that effect (per the hidden note), but that would be OR. Suggestions? Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "the radial furrows extend inward to one-third to three-quarters of the cap radius from the edge"
  • Tentatively removed this as a rather... obtuse piece of description that does not seem to be important for distinguishing the species.

• Ok. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Does the gills being "initially narrow" refers to growth or to then broadening from the top down?

• The latter; clarified. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• The dimensions might need to be revised: the photographs seem to clearly show many specimens with stems thicker than 1mm... Have you checked that all sourced dimensions are from fresh or rehydrated and not dry material?

• Sources don't typically specify this, although the species is so common I don't imagine it's hard to get fresh material. Keep in mind that these images are closeups–compare the size of the pine needles and the leaves in the lead image, for example. However, to be safe(r) I switched to a source that gives max. stem width at 1.5 mm (the largest I could find). Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• The contrast made to exemplify the variability is strange: you oppose specimen that grow on a certain substrate with those that grow at a certain time... quite apples and oranges-ish.

• Sloppy prose was the culprit, hopefully it's better now. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I cut off the mention of the species reviving under later humid conditions, especially since it's discussed in more details under "ecology"

• Fine. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• That the mushroom grows in clusters is mentioned in the lead and the similar species section... but not in the actual description!

• Oops–added. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that the criteria for distinguishing Tetrapyrgos nigripes are useful: the sizes given are squarely within variation for M. rotula, for example. Also the stem seems to be characterized as lightly tomentose to give a pruinose appearance (healy, p. 141), which is not only clearer but a far more useful criterion. Healy also gives the spore shape (star-shaped, but I'd say tetrahedral) as another one.

• True that. Used these suggestions, and added a pic for good measure. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Along the same way, it's useless to mention M. neorotula without any distinguishing factor (though I am sensitive to the problem of deciphering that Latin description, yikes!)

• I added a couple of features I could figure out without cracking open the Latin-English dictionary. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• "the growth of new basidioles (immature basidia) during periods of growth" I'm not entirely sure what this refers to... The basidiocarps never cease to produce basidioles, which can then complete maturation and discharge when the mushroom "revives"?

• Yes; it's clear to me as written, but will gladly take suggestions on how to tweak the prose. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think characterizing the species as mostly holarctic would be accurate?

Circéus (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, but I'm wary of generalizing like this unless a source has said so first. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much Circeus! I will think about these and work on them soon. Sasata (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marasmius rotula. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110716083053/http://www.fungi4schools.org/Reprints/ENGLISH_NAMES.pdf to http://www.fungi4schools.org/Reprints/ENGLISH_NAMES.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)