Talk:Pholiota nubigena

Pholiota nubigena 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: October 9, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Pholiota nubigena appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Nivatogastrium nubigenum is commonly known as the bubblegum fungus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great pictures; what a weird species.

"The genus Nivatogastrium was circumscribed by American mycologists Rolf Singer and Alexander H. Smith in 1959, who set N. nubigenum as the type and only species." Perhaps worth mentioning that there are now other species?

It's mentioned in similar species that there are other Nivatogastrium species, I think this should suffice. Will eventually add more details to the genus article. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudoparaphyses (long hair-like cells that grow down from the roof of locules, and often end up connecting the roof and the floor of the locule) are abundant in the gleba; they measure about 16 by 12.5 µm" It strikes me odd that something almost as thick as it is long would be described as "hair-like"; are they perhaps hair-like when linked together (so, rather than "hair-like cells", they are "cells producing a hair like structure")?

Yeah, good point. I adapted the definition from another species where the pseudoparaphyses have a different morphology. Have removed the adjectives "long hair-like". Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snowbank fungi?

Added. Iainstein (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you know what you're doing, but is California Fungi definitely a solid source?

It's respected in the mycological community as a great source of info for Californian fungi. I think it's good enough for GA, but I'd try to replace it for FA. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't provide a publishing location for the Laws book.

Added. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some nice tidbits about the fungus here.

I added a bit about squirrels eating the mushroom. The other bits are probably better located at the genus article (also on the to-do list). Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JM! Sasata (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good for GA status. Happy to promote now. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]