Talk:Psilocybe naematoliformis

Format

I changed the format to conform to the accepted format for mushroom descriptions (see here, under the heading "Standardization of descriptions"). Essentially, prose is preferred in Wikipedia. Another problem (with the format/description prior to my edit) is that many of the terms used are too technical/unintelligible to all but those who know the topic already, so I tried to make the article more accessible for the average reader. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another, much more serious problem, is that the text (in the form before my edit) was lifted directly from the document "A Compilation of All Described Species in the Section Neocaledonicae (Guzmán)", which states clearly on the front page "Not intended for distribution. Contains copyrighted material." This stuff needs to be stated in your own words, or quotation marks are needed around the copied text, with an inline citation. Are there other Psilocybe pages with the same problem? Sasata (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, although i don't agree. Jamming a technical description into one paragraph is not nearly as clear or concise, visually, its a mess. My description was not exactly like Guzmans, i thought i dumbed it down enough for wiki, much more research is needed on this species, and that is why we do provide references. When i write a description i use all available info, its not my fault if its accurate. Also, i thought the idea was to highlight technical words. Why is there a need to dumb down a great learning system? I think you do a great job here Sasata. I guess my time here is over, its been real, but i'm on to bigger and better things. Au Revoir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorsoul (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, your rewrite "The gills are adnate in attachment to the stem, and notched at the point of attachment (sinuate)." this is a contradictory statement, it should read "adnate to sinuate" as both describe the point of attachment.

The gill attachment cannot be adnate and sinuate at the same time, the words are meant to be in juxtaposition with each other to show contrast. Also "fading to blackish" is inaccurate, things usually get lighter when they fade. Adio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorsoul (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text about the gill attachment. Thanks. Regarding the "fading to blackish", that's from your (and Guzman's) original text; but I've reworded throughout to "distance" it more from the original. Sasata (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well even Guzman makes mistakes, it wouldnt be the first time, "blackish in age" or perhaps "blackish when dry" would be more accurate, i just recently created this page so its was very much a work in progress, all of the pages ive created are works in progress, i took pride in updating them as new info became available. There is no rule, thats says the fungi articles are to be in prose form, this is just something a few of you have decided on. I think it sucks. Some of the descriptions Ive written here at wiki are better than any published versions you'll find, ive sorted and combined all available info from over 100 years, Ive spent hundreds of hours compiling and sorting through this technical info. The problem with re-wording technical terms is that it looks very amateurish to use seven words to equal one, and its still isnt accurate. For example, "adnate to sinuate" implies a range of attachment unlike "adnate or sinuate" which implies one or the other, there is a reason certain words and juxtapositions are used in mycology, there is really no need to dumb them down, your only doing a disservice to others by tainting an otherwise accurate description.. But whatever, i can still take all my work with me, edit till your heart is content. Combined with last weeks problem i had trying to add accurate info to the Amanita muscaria article, ive finally had enough of this stupid shit. Warriorsoul (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph form for mushroom descriptions is no good, I much prefer the way it was before. It looks really messy and its hard to read. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi so we can (re)establish a consensus on this issue then? If you have a look at the current fungi FA's, you'll see the descriptions are all in prose format. In fact, this is the case for every single species (i.e., other than fungi) FA I've checked; I'm assuming the FA's represent the standard we should be comparing to. Hope to hear your opinions there. Sasata (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple more things, "The gills are adnate in attachment to the stem, or may be notched at the point of attachment (sinuate)." emarginate should be used to refer to gills that are notched (suddenly become much shallower as if a piece of gill has been removed) just before attaching to the stem whereas sinuate gills curve back down the stem before attachment. Floccose - (plants) having tufts of short soft woolly hairs. Floccose — (fungi) having a cottony appearance. I have never seen the term "for with tufts of soft woolly hairs" used in a mycology description. There is no copyright protection on scientific terms, feel free to go ahead and use the word floccose. I would change it myself, but i didn't come here to get into a pissing contest or have my hard work erased by an amateur. There are other inaccurate things related to your edit i could go on about..but i digress. Instead of making sweeping changes to an article why not attempt to discuss your concerns before hand? A few of you here, come across as the end all be all in scientific knowledge, but we know that's really not the case now, is it? I attempted to create a debate on the Amanita muscaria page also, but it seems when i bring up real points, the ones cutting my work up, just ignore me, i see this tactic for what it is. Enjoy your power trip. Warriorsoul (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the description to improve accuracy as you see fit. I've ordered the original (1979) Guzman paper to see how he wrote his original description, but it won't get here for a couple of weeks (I suspect it won't be much different from Guzman 2008, but it will be good for confirmation). I plan on making "sweeping changes" to many of the Psilocybin species articles, to change the description format to prose and increase consistency among all fungi articles; please add to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi to voice your opinion about this. No apologies about changing copyvio text without prior discussion, I'll continue doing this as I find it for any articles, not just fungi-related ones. I make no pretensions about being an expert, just trying to improve the fungi coverage on Wikipedia, and am happy to have any inaccuracies I've introduced fixed. It's great to have an expert like yourself contributing, and I hope you continue to do so. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Psilocybe banderillensis

According to Alonso, who has viewed the type collection of Psilocybe naematoliformis, it is actually Psilocybe banderillensis.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 01:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)