More unIDed fungi
G'day Cas,
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.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324
Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 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? Circeus 00:20, 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 | contribs 02:01, 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. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 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. ISSN 0078-2238.) 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. Circeus 01:02, 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)
- On Boletus
- Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My list:
Okay, here it is. I'll group stuff in topical sections. Maybe we can create a subpage on our user pages to keep our collaborative efforts and our projects. I'm thinking big here, so I'll get started. Here they are:
- Animals:
- Duck. Crab. (Check out the misc sections in Crab and Duck; they both have the sentence "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped nature, especially the sea. They placed emphasis on animals and often depicted crabs/ducks in their art". The only word changed is crab/duck, so I'm doubting the verifibility of this claim.)
- Snow Leopard. Worked on this before - needs major work.
- Griffin. Looks fine, but underneath has serious issues. Like Tom Cruise. ;)
- Toad. Comprised mainly of a list of species and not much else. It also has the same "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped animals and often depicted toads in their art..." sentence as Duck and Crab.
- Gull.
- Plants:
- Oak. Can use a good expansion.
- People:
- Samuel Duncan Parnell. Main person at head of NZ's Labour hours etc.
- Dong Zhiming. A paleontologist who could use some expansion.
- Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. A bit of a change; most of the foundation is there, so it wouldn't take much to get the article to at least GA.
- Genghis Khan. Tonnes of stuff on this guy and most of the work's already done.
- My favourite, core topics:
- Rock (geology). For something that we all live on, it's a pretty pathetic article.
- Island gigantism.
- Name. Some parts are rubbish and others have no sources.
- Habitat. Woeful condition for such a core topic.
- Wind. No sources whatsoever and many small paras.
- Practically anything from Category:Animal anatomy.
- Nail (anatomy). We all have them, but the article is made of small paras.
- Night. No sources and almost all sections are prodded as needing attention. Possibly Day needs attention as well...
- Colours - I know, but they are in dire need of cleanup...:
- Green, Red, Blue (A bit better than the rest), White, Yellow (Which has OR and sentences like: "The planet Saturn is yellowish, like a class G star"), Orange (colour), Violet, Indigo as well as any article from List of colors. Seeing as how a new colour is created every second (so I've heard) then we might have a lot of work to do. But we can get a great Featured Topic if we get a few up to scratch.
- Other stuff:
- My second fave article; Really really short articles. I'm not sure if they'll be easy to find info on, but I'm sure we'll be able to find something to expand them:
Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can either: 1) Begin working on these articles we've both suggested. 2) Press the random article button and edit whatever comes up if it's notable (A bit silly really...) or 3) Give up the whole idea. I'm leaning toward 1), but we'd need to set up a subpage on our user pages and compile a firm list of what articles we want to expand. Then we can decide if we want anyone else in on the act. Maybe Circeus would be interested? Or someone else you know. Or maybe we could occasionally enlist people to help - an expert maybe. Anyway, I'm really excited - I hate working on articles alone and if we did the old "my turn, your turn" in choosing articles, we could keep on going indefinitely. We get on pretty well as well, which can't hurt... So, whatdoyasay? Partners? Spawn Man 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great Scot man! Are you ever ever offline? I'm beginning to think you edit wikipedia whilst listening to patients "Doc, are you even listening to me??" ;) In regard to "some of those thingies look good too..." - what things? Anyway, get back to me later, as I really think we could be a great team. You've come a really long way from when I first saw your edits on t rex (Or was it Dinosaur...?) and now you've helped get more articles featured than me. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't like putting my name to DYKs that I didn't create - just a habit thing. The only one I've done it with was Janjucetus. Anyway, how about this - We both close our FAC's, Andre for me, and your future lion FAC for you. Then we meet back here and begin. We can bring Circeus in on the act during FAC time or as a general copyeditor. Anyway, I'm gonna chill out for a while. See ya later! :) Spawn Man 05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I put some extra refs in Kertesz - hopefully that helps. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed I've got 30 DYKs!
- Oh, is that all? I didn't include it because I didn't think it was important lol. I'll stick it in after dinner. You're very optimistic. I'm more a Mr. Negativity. :) Spawn Man 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay; I added notations to most of the books in the bibliography section - I'm asuming you wanted them there as that's where most of his books are. Check it out anyway, and if there's something missing, tell me. If not, I've fufilled your request. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Pablo's real legacy
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. --JayHenry 16:04, 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. Hesperian 13:43, 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. Hesperian 23:47, 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 were B. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian 00:38, 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. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 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. Circeus 22:54, 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. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Billy
Any reason not to include Peter Pan...Space Monkey Mafia...No go(FFA)...British politician sex...Palestine Terror on the Airline...homeless Vets? Yomangani 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- .....D'oh! (slaps hand on forehead) ..was lazy, it was 2 AM and felt like just gettin' it out there. I'll fix if you haven't. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm intrigued... what on earth could be the link between that eclectic bunch of topics? --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't heard about it, though I vaguely recall the song. What a pity Joel is culturally challenged and didn't think to include any cricketers in his magnum opus. Not much connected with Norwich City in there either :-( --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- With apologies to Cas, I've corrected that oversight (though it would be a push to get Norwich City in under either of those definitions, even if you push the Dodgers out. Arf.) Yomangani 10:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- ROFL XD (makes up for the dramas of bollyline on the telly anyway...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Splendid! (As Blowers would say) I've made a small tweak - hope you don't mind. Well, now I know what to do next after I'm done with Keith Miller. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Go for thy life. as some ol' biblical geezer'd say. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear...where are all the Powderfinger references? I'm sure you could stick one in there, just for me ;) Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the award. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
???
Can you make sense of this article? 120120 Kankelborg - is it an attack page or am I misunderstanding something? Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, its ok. check the link. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh lol - I thought someone was saying he was fat... :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: retrospective award
Hi Casliber you just placed a retrospective award on my talk page that I think was meant for User:Rlevse. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, well in that case thank you very much! The article's been sort-of a pain lately with a lot of new material being requested. You can take a look if you want. But thanks again! Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! István (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Stuff
Thanks for working on that bird. I did a bunch of them in June and quickly lost track of which was which (then the bot came along and sort of killed the fun of starting them).
So Gray Wolf is our largest animal mammal, eh. The cats are well represented. I suppose we still need to go back and finish Panthera.
Did we figure out who had the most FAs in '07? I suppose it was Awadewit. Marskell (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. NFI on FAs - All my 13 FAs date from 2007 though I just realised. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no. Hurricanhink went positively crazy last year. I count 18. Marskell (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello old pal
I don't suppose you'd consider a copyedit of Birmingham campaign would you? It's at FAC and I can't see past the copyedit issues for determining FA quality. The nominator is so unfailingly polite and obliging and has done so much good work that I'd really like to see the supports come flooding in before Gimmebot archives the FAC as a fail. Much obliged. <doffs hat> --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Awright then me ol' squire. I'll see what I can do...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- How gracious. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
Hi Cas, thanks for the note. It is something I've thought about from time to time, but because I'd hardly ever use the buttons it doesn't seem worth it to run through that gauntlet. Besides I've still got a few rhinos to work on... not to mention figuring out a way to earn a Flaming Joel. --JayHenry (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good thing your last on my list. This is my LAST cookie...
SSBM FAC comments
Hello. Thanks for your comments; they were really helpful. I'm just letting you know that I have responded to your comments now on the FAC, although I couldn't find some of the requested information. Thanks. Ashnard Talk 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology
Casliber, I have to apologize for my massive revert yesterday. Unrelated to this article's FAC, I hadn't slept for two days. (I sound like a politician...) I have to add this to my list of states in which one should not edit. Cranky and tired. I left a note for you on the FAC discussion for Birmingham campaign saying I incorporated many of the changes you made to a copy edit this morning, as well as altering the 2nd paragraph you suggested. I appreciate your time in working with the article, and the FA process. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Link
Hi Cas. Sheep wanted me to share a link with you. It is not at all squicky. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mick Liber is your long-lost brother! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- ??? - no, my dad...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
About lion
Hi Casliber, its me again. Please take a look at the talk page for lion and from there, we can have more discussion. Footballfan190 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have an agreement here? You are saying I should make the page say that a lion weighs 530 lbs with the Smithsonian source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan190 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, just add the word 'generally' so doesn't conflict with the one documented biggie. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Casliber/Flaming Joel-wiki
Would you mind if I used Image:Flaming-wiki.jpg for some purpose not related to Billy Joel? Gimmetrow 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, it's such a pretty image. Maybe run it by Debivort who desgined it but fine by me. What is it by the way? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- An award for surviving wikihell, more or less. Gimmetrow 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- ROFL - XD - how appropriate..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
Nice! --Royalbroil 06:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Lead is done!
Word up dude, Vamp's being reviewed! Man I love rhyming! ;) Yes, I finished the lead (See my coments on the vampire talk page) and I've put it up for FAC. I want to thank you sincerly for getting it there. You're my wing man. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. John254 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
|
