Talk:Paxillus involutus

Untitled

Eddietoran 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nrc/cjc/2003/00000081/00000001/art00012;jsessionid=e4fj8top6bkfn.alice has some info on the components, but not the toxicity, of paxillus involutus. I read "somewhere" that it causes hemolysis.

bookmark

[1] - gotta run. book mark for later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 23, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly very well-written and MOS compliant, but there a few things that need to be dealt with. First off, the first sentence of the article does not, to someone unfamiliar with the subject, state the obvious well enough. Rather delving immediately in to details about how it was "...previously thought to be edible with some unusual recently-discovered poisonous properties", the first sentence should say something more obvious. Good points to make in the first sentence are things such as, "Paxillus involutus...is a mushroom in the Paxillaceae family of fungi." You could also add where it is found in the first sentence, such as "...is a mushroom in the Paxillaceae family found in...". If you're trying to make sure that notability is stated from the get-go, you might include adjectives such as "well-known", "widespread" or even "rare" etc. The other point that needs addressing is from the lead, where you say that the mushroom was accidentally introduced to some areas. How this introduction occurred is insufficiently explained: it seems that it got carried along with introduced trees, but making this a little more obvious in the applicable section would be helpful.

(ok, I've tried to tweak the lead a bit)

2. Factually accurate?: Overall, you've done a great job with verification. However, as specific numbers such as measurements should be cited directly, I have marked one sentence as needing a cite. In the second place I mark with a fact tag, you assert the opinion of "English guidebooks", apparently(so far as I can tell) without providing at least one reputable English guidebook as an in-line cite.

(ok, I've added 2 sources, both bits were from the same book) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely broad in coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair representation to all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? Obviously stable, no edit wars etc.

6. Images?: All images used are accounted for with licenses and sources.

Great work overall. If you have any questions about things I've requested above, please don't hesitate to ask.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 02:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

• Thanks for your diligent and patient work Calisber, I really appreciate it. This is definitely now GA. VanTucky 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Recent research

Wow, there's a lot of research about this mushroom. This article is definitely worth a mention. Sasata (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Add external link

Here http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22673#page/171/mode/1up is a book where it is cited as edible.

add it if you know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.84.109 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC the goal? hell yeah...

Okay, I did a preliminary web of Science search a few months ago and got taken aback by the huge number of esoteric/technical articles, but I think we can sift through them ok. Cut and paste time? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Agree there's lots of literature, but most of it is low-relevance for here. I'll try and add a little every day and we'll get there eventually. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, I guess working down the article, the first thing is taxonomy, so filling out taxonomic history, alternate names, subspecies and species split, and current controversies and doubts about the taxon.....later tonight will try to look for the latest on all this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell - 583 hits on "Paxillus involutus" on Web of Science - many agricultural. I'll post and chase some interesting ones: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Title: STRUCTURE STUDIES OF THE METABOLITES OF PAXILLUS INVOLUTUS Author(s): Mikolajczyk L, Antkowiak WZ Source: HETEROCYCLES Volume: 79 Pages: 423-426 Published: APR 1 2009 Times Cited: 3

I can't get fulltext of these but it is about the isolation of two compounds that are/might be dyes..? Maybe a tad esoteric..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Title: Paxillus involutus Forms an Ectomycorrhizal Symbiosis and Enhances Survival of PtCOMT-modified Betula pendula in vitro Author(s): Tiimonen H, Aronen T, Laakso T, et al. Source: SILVAE GENETICA Volume: 57 Issue: 4-5 Pages: 235-242 Published: 2008 Times Cited: 1

Interesting but possibly a little specialised - it is showing it is beneficial to genetically modified trees. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Title: Determination of Pleurotus ostreatus, Pleurotus pulmonarius and Paxillus involutus toxicity over Artemia salina Author(s): Nieto IJ, Salama AM, Catano JE, et al. Source: REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE MICOLOGIA Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Pages: 186-187 Published: SEP 30 2008 Times Cited: 0

Wow, they fed P. involutus extract to sea monkeys?! We must find a way to use this, it sounds..erm...just out there... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Title: Multiple gene genealogies and species recognition in the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus Author(s): Hedh J, Samson P, Erland S, et al. Source: MYCOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume: 112 Pages: 965-975 Part: Part 8 Published: AUG 2008 Times Cited: 8

 Done Sasata (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(from the above study - to check)

Hahn C, Agerer R, 1999. Studium zum Paxillus involutus Formenkreis. Nova Hedwigia 69: 241–310

Jarosch M, Bresinsky A, 1999. Speciation and phylogenetic distances within Paxillus s. str. (basidiomycetes, Boletales). Plant Biology 1: 701–706

 Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Le Que´re´ A, Astrup EK, Rajashekar B, Schu¨ tzendu¨ bel A, Canba¨ ck B, Johansson T, Tunlid A, 2006. Screening for rapidly evolving genes in the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus using cDNA microarrays. Molecular Ecology 15: 535–550

Just had a look at this one - bloody hell it is dry....not sure whether it is too specialised...nothing applicable to lay reader (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(but linking study notes caveats with assumptions of those studies - so double check back after reading)

Title: Variation in host specificity and gene content in strains from genetically isolated lineages of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus s. lat. Author(s): Hedh J, Johansson T, Tunlid A Source: MYCORRHIZA Volume: 19 Issue: 8 Pages: 549-558 Published: OCT 2009 Times Cited: 2

 Done Sasata (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Title: Selected elements of poison pax Paxillus involutus Author(s): Falandysz J, Kunito T, Kubota R, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART A-TOXIC/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Volume: 42 Issue: 8 Pages: 1161-1168 Published: 2007 Times Cited: 15

Title: Mercury and its bioconcentration factors in Poison Pax (Paxillus involutus) from various sites in Poland Author(s): Falandysz J, Brzostowski A Source: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART A-TOXIC/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Volume: 42 Issue: 8 Pages: 1095-1100 Published: 2007 Times Cited: 14

Looked through first 150 250, which goes to 2003 and added one more on pollution tolerance...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• One last one to add I think --> here Gets mentioned here In essence, need to add about effect of symbiosis on bacterial population. Gotta run now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

got first in now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Review articles about this topic here, here, and here; all mention P. involutus. Sasata (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ack, I'm getting an "access restricted" at those three pages. Will cut and paste dois..computer's a bit slow, but review #2 only mentions in the ref. Will check others later today. I think this is the last topic to cover and then we're good to go maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, am reading fulltext of this one - Paxillus only comes up in ref 86...which then does not appear in body of text (weird..) - still another ref to check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• this one focusses on Laccaria laccata and the results for P. involutus appear equivocal (??) but mentions another interesting paper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

got other paper of that one and added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• this only mentions paxillus involutus in the references list, and it is a thesis in french - and it is used for a note on Hebeloma crustuliniforme instead. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay - have added what I could find on bacteria - the Review articles don't mention Paxillus, but they may be good for a covering sentence or so. Let me know what you think. I think we've otherwise covered everything content-wise and are ready to roll....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we're close enough for an FAC. I think the article does a good job of surveying the literature and presenting it in digest form; if anyone wants extra material added we can examine on a case-by-case basis. Let's read through the Toxicity section again and see if we can tweak it a bit to address JM's concern about it being technical. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ready to roll then?

Anything need to be done before FAC? I am having trouble locating the original articles which discuss its presence in Chile, but have a biologist's web page in the interim. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have another look soon; I'd like to trawl through Google Books, and my own library again to see if I've missed anything interesting. Could use a couple more pics, there's options at Mushroom Observer. Sasata (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the pine one I added last was an unexpected find - I was googling species name + Chile. I have never seen such a high proportion of really esoteric articles as I have done for this fungus. I gave up after looking through the first 250 articles on Web of Science as there were so many superspecialised ones...so finding some books which coalesce a few sources and review them might be highly prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• lead needs fattening

rejigged lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• page # for Breitenbach 1991?

damn. got that from the library ages ago. Should be easy ref to replace...Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (I might be able to fetch this tomorrow.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Marley (2010) has a chapter on the poison pax

•  Done - I can see pages 136, 137 and 140 on google books preview. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bulliard's pic of L'agaric contigu would fit great in the taxonomy section, I will upload and insert soon Sasata (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Added, now needs image placement tweaking (or even better, a longer lead!) to avoid sandwiching. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• check this

Some thoughts...

I wrote a review for the prose yesterday, but, somehow, I didn't save it. I was playing chess at the same time... Never again!

Thanks for the comments JM! You're a chessplayer too? Sasata (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about the current lead image- the crop is odd, the colours look off, the horizon is tilted... There are better ones

• Ok point taken (I was the one who put that image there). Sometime soon I'll go through all the MO offerings and make a little gallery here that we can select from. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "commonly known as the brown roll-rim or common roll-rim, or poison pax, is a common" Remove one of the "or"s? Also, repetition of "common"

• Tweaked sentence. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the Northern Hemisphere and has been accidentally" that has? It doesn't make sense as is

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "of deciduous and coniferous woods, and grassy areas in later summer and autumn." The comma use implies that the "summer and autumn" applies only to the grassy areas

• Removed comma. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "for 'peg' or 'plug' and the specific epithet involutus meaning 'inrolled' refers" Why the inverted commas?
• "and recognizing the groups' similarities with the latter group." group's, surely?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "genus Gyrodon, with the decurrent-pored mushroom G. lividus" Why mention that one species?

Not quite sure now - maybe as I thought the genus was monotypic at the time or we only had a page on that. Anyway, agree we can leave at genus level. Just remembered, the molecular study uses G. lividus in it, which is why I paused and left the species in to align with the sources. I guess we could go either way.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Lactarius turpis," L. turpis?

abbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "sequesters them" Link?

• I removed mention of sequestration; I think the sentence is sufficiently explanatory. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Lactarius plumbeus redirects to Lactarius turpis

Hmm, this seems to indicate it is a legitimate name, as does this. Will havea read at home on what we should do about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

From Milk Mushrooms of North America (2000): "Lactarius turpis has often been confused and misidentified as Lactarius necator, Lactarius plumbeus, and Lactarius sordidus, all of which Basso (1999) now recognizes as synonyms." (p. 259) Sasata (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the abstract of Noordeloos (1999) "Notulae ad Floram agaricinam neerlandicam - 35 - On the typification of Lactarius necator", Persoonia 17:291-94 says: "Lactarius necator is neotypified with a collection from Sweden that fits well with the sanctioning description. The plate of Bulliard representing the original concept of Agaricus necator, is excluded from the type diagnosis. It is demonstrated that A. plumbeus is not conspecific with A. necator, and the alternative use of the name Lactarius plumbeus (Bull.: Fr.) Gray, as recently proposed by Heilmann-Clausen et al. (1998) is rejected." Looks like there hasn't been any molecular work yet .... Sasata (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(groan) well, I guess we just use turpis until further info arises...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Several species of flies and beetles have been recorded using the fruit bodies to rear their young." Example?
• "The mushroom can be infected by the "bolete eater"—parasitic mold species Hypomyces chrysospermus.[46]" Why speech marks?

dequoted now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• You mention that the flesh of the species is "well-flavoured" when cooked in the description section, but there is no mention of that in the section on edibility
• "Flammer in 1980" Who?

• René Flammer, from an internet search it appears he's a Swiss physician who specializes in mushroom poisoning cases. I've changed 1980 to mid-1980s as the two publications he has on the subject are from 1983 and 1985. Sasata (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "as is not caused by a genuinely poisonous" I think you missed an "it"

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Shortly after these initial symptoms appear hemolysis develops signified by oliguria, anuria, hemoglobin in the urine (hemoglobinuria) and anemia." Some commas would help- one after appear, one after develops?

yup. dual commas added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "free hemoglobin" It's not clear what this term means

Normally haemoglobin exists within red blood cells and is not normally found free in the bloodstream, unless haemolysis is present. Trying to find a good place to link this to other than just hemoglobin. Hemoglobin#Degradation_in_vertebrate_animals is the best so far but particularly good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• "significant morbidity" Does that make sense in context? It's an odd phrase... Surely any morbidity is pretty significant...

au contraire, morbidity has quite an inclusive definition, I think it poisoning by this fungus has some pretty hefty sequelae and reckon the word helps emphasise that, but we can see what Sasata or the WP medicos think too. Casliber (talk · contribs)

I agree, it's a widely used expression (did a pubmed search to confirm that). Sasata (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Plasmapheresis reduces the circulating immune complexes in the blood which cause the hemolysis, removing these complexes with extracorporeal techniques such as plasmapheresis can then reduce the immune hemolysis." Semicolon?

semicoloned Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it for prose. The medical section comes across as a little technical in places, but I suppose that that is hard to avoid. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

taxobox image

Dang, none of the images jump out and say "use me" - I sort of like File:Čechratka podvinutá 1.jpg proably the most followed by File:Paxillus involutus EtgHollande 041031 063.jpg. This one File:Paxillus involutus 112874.jpg doesn't 'grab me' and I am not sure why...looked through flickr a bit. Not sure where else...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just check all the MO offerings, but there's nothing really special... have a look here for one that's pretty good. If not that, then maybe replace with File:Čechratka podvinutá 1.jpg (i.e., the way it was before I messed around with it.) Sasata (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do like the File:Čechratka podvinutá 1.jpg but something about it makes it look like it's growing on a piece of wood or something. I like the other one you found too. I'll put the Czech one back in for the time being, and I do think uploading that other one is good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

a few small comments

• I'm REALLY not crazy with having a whole paragraph essentially describing the placement of the genus and family in a species article. In particular everything after René Maires assessment almost certainly can go without any loss to this article (though the paragraph should probably be copied over to Paxillus if it has not been already).

• I tend to agree; Cas? Sasata (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Awwwww, ok. Yeah, happy to do that.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The narrow brownish yellow gills are decurrent and forked, and can be peeled easily from the flesh (as is the case with the pores of boletes)." — Is this a trait found in the Agaricales too? or is it considered a relatively good hint of not belonging there? If it is not such a hint, then it is misleading and probably does not belong in the article.
• Shouldn't the species mentioned in "taxonomy", so similar they were for decades assimilated to this species, be discussed amongst similar species?

• Good point, I will add these details ASAP. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Added. Sasata (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll probably come around to copyedit it a little. Do you think it would be problematic to characterize them as the most similar species to it? Circéus (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• They are obviously the most similar as taxonomists considered them all the same - and some forms are still undescribed. I was musing on this when thinknig about the taxobox image of a rollrim on the lawn - I started thinking, "that's not the real one if I read it correctly", but then no-one has split them as yet.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are the bacteria secreting malic or citric acid the same as those metabolising polyphenols, or a different group?

• Unknown - these are all populations - there are many bacterial fauna, most of which AFAICT undescribed. This area of study appears to still be in its infancy and many of the observations are just that with these studies lacking in making statements about causation. I have tried to stick to that here but was worried the section came over a bit patchy. One of the Review Articles states the field is a new and developing one and was tempted to put in a line stating that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The comment about Arora's forms seem completely out of place (in particular because it sound like a taxonomic finding). It feels like it belongs in the description section. At the very least not at the beginning of that paragraph!

• I've moved it to lower in the paragraph; doesn't belong in taxonomy section as it's not a formal description, just a brief mention in a popular field guide. I wouldn't be fussed if someone else decides it belongs in Description. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The mushroom can be infected by the bolete eater—parasitic mold species Hypomyces chrysospermus." — the mdash seem to created a marked ambiguity: is this just an example of such species, or the specific one that is found on P. involutus?

Circéus (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed the dash, and added a bit on what happens upon infection. It's a mould that's specific to some boletes (i.e. Boletales), but I've left out that detail (readers can go to its page for info). Sasata (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've characterized it as attacking Boletales members in general (though the article on the mould could use some clarification whether or not Boletus members are the most common target). Circéus (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From user at ip 193.6.63.109

I've removed the following comment from the references section of the article to here:

"Remark. Paxillus involutus evidently can cause a hypersensitivity reaction of the immune complex type. Yet as pharmacologist, I would not call this "autoimmune", since an antigen (foreign; exogenous) is necessary to evoke both antibody formation and the acute reaction. In autoimmune diseases, the body's own molecules behave as antigens. If you agree, you may decide the alter the text. LB"

Hamamelis (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The sources call the Paxillus hypersensitivity reaction an "autoimmune hemolytic anemia" (which our article on the subject considers synonymous with "immunohemolytic anemia" and "immune complex hemolytic anemia"). In this case, the mushroom toxins result in the formation of an autoantibody (though the specific pathophysiological mechanisms are not well known), and thus it meets the definition of "autoimmune hemolytic anemia". Our article on autoimmune disease says "Autoimmune diseases arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body". I don't see any contradiction in our usage of the term, which is, at any rate, supported by the literature. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Image switch

How about replacing one of the current images with this? It's a "Quality image" on Commons. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but which one? The one in Distribution and habitat? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I made the swap. Sasata (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paxillus involutus. 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/20050505044124/http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/botany/issues/bot-04-28-1-2/bot-28-1-2-23-0207-2.pdf to http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/botany/issues/bot-04-28-1-2/bot-28-1-2-23-0207-2.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) 18:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Navadne podvihanke (Paxillus involutus).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 9 January 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-01-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Paxillus involutus, the common roll-rim, is a fungus widely distributed across the Northern Hemisphere; it has also been unintentionally introduced to Australia, New Zealand, and South America. The brownish fruit body grows up to 6 cm (2.4 in) high. It has a funnel-shaped cap up to 12 cm (5 in) wide with a distinctive in-rolled rim and decurrent gills close to the stalk. Genetic testing suggests that the fungus may be a species complex rather than a single species. A common mushroom of deciduous and coniferous woods and grassy areas in late summer and autumn, P. involutus is symbiotic with the roots of many tree species, reducing the trees' intake of heavy metals and increasing their resistance to pathogens. Previously considered edible and eaten widely in Eastern and Central Europe, the mushroom has been found to be dangerously poisonous; in 1944, it killed the German mycologist Julius Schäffer. It can trigger the immune system to attack red blood cells with potentially fatal complications, including acute renal and respiratory failure.Photograph: Petar Milošević

Poisonous? Really?

The mushroom, called Svinushka, is a very popular dish in Russia, salted or pickled, since it goes well with vodka. Served even by restaurants. Only the originally unhealthy people develop poisoning, while the healthy people consume it their whole lives and nothing happens. Just boil the shroom a bit to diffuse the main toxin. It is even used as a test for health, and say the family of your bride my test you to be a healthy husband by making you to eat a lot of these to ensure the health of the offspring. So please don't discard this wonderful mushroom that easily! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.115.96.153 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)