Talk:Multiclavula mucida

Multiclavula mucida has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 24, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Multiclavula mucida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A fascinating and very entertainingly written article on a strange-looking lichen.

"club lichen": I thought that was Cladonia? But that's the trouble with vernacular names.

Maybe you're thinking of "cup lichens"? Anyway, it made me go back and look at sources, which made me realise that "club lichen" is also used as a common name for the entire genus, so I added that fact. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question more than a comment: the lichen is very pale, and (I learn) the algae are clumped into globules rather than being scattered. This is reminiscent of the clumped configuration of chromatophores, which makes them seem less colourful. Is that what's happening here, that the quantity of algae is typical for lichens but the distribution is different?

As is alluded to later, mycologists/lichenologists have historically disagreed how much of a lichen this species is, as there isn't algae in the fruiting bodies, only in the scummy thallus. But it's agreed that this algal scum needs to be there for the fungus to grow, and Masumoto identified the photobiont. So to answer your question, yes, there's an unusual distribution of photobiont in this lichen. Someday I'll make an article on borderline lichens which will further explore the edge cases of symbiotic fungal-algal relationships. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how very interesting!

At the end of 'Habitat and distribution', the "Moreover, ..." connective doesn't work as there is no relationship between the habitat loss issue and the wide documentation. You could reorder the sentences to make it work better.

Reworked this part. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "primeval forest" just a synonym of "old-growth forest"?

Yes; I used both ways of saying it in the article prose so a reader would not be confused by the lesser known synonym used in the source title and text. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You use the form M. mucida in 'Description' but then switch back to the full name in the later sections. Suggest we use the short form there.

Done (if not starting paragrah/sentences). Esculenta (talk)

It feels a bit lumpy to start the 'Current classification' with the name of a different genus.

Tweaked prose to address this. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"first identified this species an extratropical lichen" -> please add "as".

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this British or American English? "Colour" or "moldy"?

British, fixed. Esculenta (talk)

Images

Love the 'scum lover fruiting gregariously', must try to use that somewhere!

All the images are on Commons and have been verified to have the right licenses.

Sources

[4] synonyms line up, ok

Why is [5] about Lichenomphalia velutina relevant? Doesn't verify the claims made here.

Oops – I linked to the wrong species, now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[7] ok

[12] ok

[18] ok

[26] ok

Thanks for a very quick review. My changes are here. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it's a GA. If you have a moment, it'd be much appreciated if you could pick an article from the GAN queue! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.