Talk:Polysphondylium pallidum

A fact from Polysphondylium pallidum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that individual cellular slime mould cells are of two distinct mating types?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polysphondylium pallidum.

Wikipedia

Cellular slime moulds do not have two distinct mating types

They may have more. Or fewer. The above DYK hook is wrong. It was thought by one author, in an older article, that although species of slime moulds have varying numbers of mating types, this species may have two. However, that information is in question, possibly, based on later research. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mycology

"Study of slime moulds has traditionally been undertaken by mycologists although in fact slime moulds are not closely related to fungi."

Is there a ref for this? It doesnt seem to say that is the main body of the article Victuallers (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; it's true, but doesn't need to be in this article. Sasata (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK hook is wrong.

"... that individual cellular slime mould cells are of two distinct mating types?" This sentence announces a trait for an entire group, "cellular slime moulds," then links the trait to a single species.

The hook is wrong, cellular slime mould cells are not necessarily of two distinct mating types, for example, Dictyostelium discoideum has three mating types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.141.42 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversion to include unvetted material

Note about this recent reversion. I added the information about uncertainty on mating types after a cursory reading of the article. I am not sure if I read it correctly, so I removed the material. This reversion now includes material that I think is incorrect.

However, it appears that factual accuracy in this article (see above statement about the number of mating types in cellular slime moulds) is not going to happen. This is just a warning to the reader. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]