Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hey! I've unblocked ] after he requested unblocking, claiming it was his roommate. As you blocked him with the reason "vandal only account" I checked the contribs (dating back to 2005) and all except the ones in February are fine. I've got him on my watchlist just in case, ] (]) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
Your edit about free range hippos stirred my deepest, darkest desire on Misplaced Pages -- to create the page Pablo Escobar's hippos. Have you ever read about this? A hippo critical situation, LA Times. I'd never create the page... the deletionists would go bonkers! But I can dream, oh yes! PS I think you're right on the white rhinos. Wait until the article takes better shape, but no reason to turn the subspecies into redirects so early in the process. And Asiatic Lion shows that a subspecies article can definitely have merit. I've been a bit distracted lately from the beasties. --JayHenry16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
B. victoriae
Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they wereB. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ndashes
HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I see the problem with AmRob, not sure that we can do anything more than you have done. While Song Thrush is at FAC, there are a couple of possibilities for the next. One is Chough, but I've also tarted up Aerodramus a bit. do you think it's a runner? I'd like to get a genus through FA Jimfbleak (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hödekin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yup, I'm gonna spell check it, read it, run it through AWB and then big it up for GA ;-) Got my back, Mr.Mushroom? :-D Scarian20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Dobbing him in
Personally, I am holding out for seeing his name on a certain list in November. Of course, if the other comes to pass first, then I'll reconsider. ;) Risker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(
Hehe, 1 yr admin anniversary is in late October.....what's in November......aaah, arbcom elections.... (?) ] (] · ]) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh how very bright of you. I see it pays to have started watchlisting the talk pages of a better class of editor - so much more enlightened. Risker (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Careful, you're feeding my natural narcissism..(unless you mean his talk page). :) ] (] · ]) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I followed you both home from someone else's talk page, but it is all good. Not to get all stalkerish or anything - I just figure it's a good way to be exposed to the more positive aspects of the encyclopedia. You know, the writing and all... Risker (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's funny how you can tell who's looking at whose contributions by edits to certain articles popping up here and there...and following odd threads of conversations etc. ] (] · ]) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
RAD
Many fervent thanks Cas, for your erudite and positive contribution. I hope the mushrooms haven't suffered. Fainites15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Update
Hey there, see you had a good crack at A. muscaria and it's looking good, both seem close, think I'll have a go at Gyromitra esculenta today. See you there? Cheers Mr Bungle | talk23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The rearrange looks much better, that section was getting a bit crowded. I sort of left the variation/preparation bits alone (might come back to the article again in the future and see if I can add a few refs).
Hi. I'll look at the links you posted to me. I thought you might be interested in these threads where I've explained a concern of mine that is part of why I believe some things should be deleted. The talk is fairly spread about and you'll have to read some of the stuff linked to for it to hold together.
I get the idea. Yes that is a valid point. Were it me, I would ensure on correct naming of low profile articles (say, a TV episode) with a parenthetic epithet so as not to muck up or occupy possible important article or disambiguations. ] (] · ]) 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: This would be the most valid reason for merging I have seen thus far and I am surprised more prominence was not made of it earlier though I must admit I can't keep up with the sheer volume of dialogue - life's too short....] (] · ]) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a problem project wide and is a fundamental interaction between anyone can edit and discussion is encourage. It is, of course, also due to the "anyones" not having anything like a project wide view of things; they care about Buffy or whatever niche they are obsessed with. See here for a D&D example. This is one thing when the subject is notable (rather is kept around) but is gets quite messy when, for whatever reason, things go. Care to take-on the clean-up of old article under One For the Money? Needs that admin bit to split the histories. Cheers, Jack Merridew09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
I've got a file of notes on the folklore of fairy rings. My computer's been acting up and will be sent to the doctor tomorrow, but I should be able to start editing the fairy ring article in the next week, two weeks tops. I've found tons of stuff on Celtic superstitions and folklore, and a bit on other regions. Hopefully with a bit more searching we can fill in some of the superstitions from other parts of the world. It's a fascinating subject! — Dulcem (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to your FAC comments recommending the addition of more info about the "Canyonero" and discussion of it in secondary news sources, I have searched multiple news archives and databases and added some more information with new citations to the Cultural references section. Unfortunately after searching through these various databases I was unable to find any secondary sources that mentioned which specific Ford commercial was being parodied - so it is possible that this comment made in the DVD commentary for the episode really does just mean that Ford commercials in general from that time period were being parodied, and not a specific commercial. I hope I have done enough to respond to your FAC comments, and perhaps to change your sentiment at the FAC page? If not, please let me know. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Cas, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Gotta love natural cruft, there are 30 000 species of daisy in the world, which is alot but dwarfed by the 300 000 species of beetle. I made some stubs which are now on my watchlist, but I am knackered and need to sleep now...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Consider the view that the human footprint on this planet, which includes cutting all the trees that go into all those D&D magazines and sourcebooks, is what's destroying the habitat of those daisies and beetles, not to mention the worms.
“
When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if the Earth could say, in a voice floating up perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, “It is done.” People didn't like it here. —Kurt Vonnegut
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Oh, and when you're ready do an FA (any FA) I'd be honoured to assist you in any way I can. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[Do we still need more bureaucrats?
Thanks for chiming in at WT:RFA with such a typically level-headed contribution. --Dweller (talk) My RfB
If you look on here, you'll see my "working" list, of Arabians (and a whole bunch else) that I think should be done. User:Ealdgyth I pulled them from Carpenter's Arabian Legends book. Ealdgyth | Talk04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Friends of ours left Texas to go work for Simeon Stud down in Oz land. I had a grandson of Ibn Halima at one point, but sold him a while back. Right now, I'm not buying ANY more stallions, sticking to mares. Love the Halima's though, sweet horses. Ealdgyth | Talk04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just looked (first look) and noticed that it was invoking {{Contains Indic text}} which had an issue which I've just fixed. I try and take a meta-view; this fix cleans-up an issue in several hundred articles. There's table near me at the moment, made of a single piece of teak; it's a about a meter wide, more than 2 long, and 15cm thick. It's going fast. Cheers, Jack Merridew13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I've unblocked Kingoftonga86 after he requested unblocking, claiming it was his roommate. As you blocked him with the reason "vandal only account" I checked the contribs (dating back to 2005) and all except the ones in February are fine. I've got him on my watchlist just in case, Poeloq (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
