Fungi Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 17 April 2020. Further details are available here.

Educational assignment

Hello! I am a final-year Life Sciences undergraduate at Imperial College London and I will be editing this article as part of my Science Communication module. I will post my main aims for this page here, and will try to update you as much as possible with my ideas. Please do not hesitate to give me any type of suggestions or possible critiques. Thank you! Lenapcrd (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The main objectives I have in mind for this page are:

To revise what has already been written and add newly discovered information to the existing sections (especially for the medicinal potential and the life cycle)
To write the: 1- Systematics section, 2- Natural products section, 3- Distribution section, 4- Host adaptations section (and maybe include the parasite adaptations as well)
To explain concepts such as the "extended phenotype"

Lenapcrd (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to post an update about the changes I made to the article: I wrote the whole Systematics, Morphology (including the schematic representation), Natural Products (including the schematic representation), Parasite adaptation and Host adaptation sections. I also re-wrote and added information to the Geographic distribution section. I added the sub-section "Polyketides" and completed missing information and/or explanations to the rest of the Medicinal potential section. Finally, I revised the introduction and did not find that it required any major changes; and i added a few information in the Life Cycle section which was already very complete. Lenapcrd (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is an extended phenotype?

This article talks about "extended phenotype" in two key places, but never once defines, cites or links to whatever an "extended phenotype" is? Wayne Hardman (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe

I noticed a redlink in the lede ¶:

O. unilateralis manipulates the behavioral patterns of an infected ant, affecting the Camponotui tribe.

That seems to have been an error for Camponotini, possibly by misreading handwriting. I haven't been able to check the (paywalled) reference (note 3), but the abstract says

We examined life cycle of Ophiocordyceps unilateralis sensu lato attacking Polyrhachis and Camponotus ants.

Polyrhachis and Camponotus are two genera within the tribe Camponotini, according to the latter page's infobox. Accordingly, I've changed the meaningless Camponotui to Camponotini. --Thnidu (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systematics source, and call for attention

The following sort of accurate, near up-to-date systematics material needs to find its way into the article, to replace the oddly phrased and essentially inaccurate sentence that appears regarding Cordyceps and Ophiocordyceps (with regard to the expression sensu lato, s.l. (vs. sensu stricto, s.s.).

"Classification. Up until recently the majority of hypocrealean arthropod pathogenic (AP) fungi were classified in the genus Cordyceps in the family Clavicipitaceae (Spatafora & Blackwell 1993). This classification was based on the characters of cylindrical asci with thickened ascus apices and filiform ascospores that often disarticulate into part-spores. Cordyceps was characterized and distinguished from other genera of the family by its production of superficial to completely immersed perithecia on stipitate and often clavate to capitate stromata and its ecology as a pathogen of arthropods and of truffles in the genus Elaphomyces (Kobayasi 1941; Mains 1957, 1958). Recent phylogenetic studies with 5 to 7 genes rejected the monophyly of both Cordyceps and Clavicipitaceae, however, and supported three clavicipitaceous clades that have been classified as three monophyletic families: Clavicipitaceae s.s., Cordycipitaceae and Ophiocordycipitaceae (Sung et al 2007a, 2007b; Spatafora et al 2007). Cordyceps sensu lato was divided into four genera (e.g., Cordyceps s. s., Elaphocordyceps, Metacordyceps and Ophiocordyceps) based on this phylogeny (Sung et al 2007b). The characters most consistent with the phylogeny were texture, pigmentation and morphology of stromata and not presentation of perithecia and ascospore morphology as traditionally emphasized in Cordyceps taxonomy. The current phylogenetic classification of hypocrealean AP fungi is as follows:
Clavicipitaceae: Conoideocrella, Hypocrella, Metacordyceps, Moelleriella, Orbiocrella, Regiocrella, Samuelsia, Shimizuomyces, Villosiclava

Cordycipitaceae: Ascopolyporus, Cordyceps, Hyperdermium, Torrubiella

Ophiocordycipitaceae: Cordyceps s.l., Elaphocordyceps, Ophiocordyceps".
[See [1], and references therein.]

I will write it soon, if no one else does (because the natural products section is in desperate need of rewriting, but cannot until the confusion about Cordyceps and Ophiocordyceps is made clear (as it is in this nice summary of the status of Clavicipitaceae systematics). Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need a list of the species within this classification.

This is not a single species, what with the sensu lato stuff and all, and I am writing a report and REALLY need a list of discovered species within this classification along with what makes each one different from the others. I cannot find anything even close to that anywhere else on the internet. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.40.79 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lingo

This article could be very interesting, but is bogged down with scientific lingo. 2601:249:602:1EF3:F8E2:BB46:BC:7522 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "Life Cycle" and "Natural Products"

Other than the Natural Products paragraph being slightly more detailed, the differences between the two are small. I feel that having both in this article is inefficient. I don't want to delete an entire section in the case that I am missing something though. --Joseff Ribble (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of entire ant colonies

Can anyone provide me with empirical works that document O. unilateralis's destruction of entire ant colonies? A previous editor provided two citations for the statement that it has been known to destroy entire colonies but neither of those citations actually stated this so I removed them. This is a claim that I have seen repeated on several websites across the Internet. The only scientific journal article I could find that asserts this is Lavery et. al. (2021). However, this paper was written by undergraduate students and none of the references they cite for this claim actually make an assertion that is anything like theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezahaulcoyotl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nezahaulcoyotl no 2A02:8071:B686:1CA0:7C67:D2EF:FEB4:6E67 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]