Welcome!

Hello, Strobilomyces, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Anilocra 14:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

hi Stro,

compliments for the good work you did on Coprinus. TeunSpaans 11:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. TeunSpaans 20:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, thanks for the help at Dictyophora indusiata...should I move this to the current Latin name? I read recently that there are two different new Latin names for this mushroom: one with external net and one without. Strangely enough, I just found some (dried) in a Chinese grocery store yesterday and made some soup out of them. They have a very strange and somewhat unpleasant smell but Chinese people seem to like it. Badagnani 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You obviously have some great Phallales where you live! Apparently P. (or D.) indusiatus(a) exists in Europe too, but I have never seen one. The problem of conflicting fungi names is very difficult for Wikipedia; I don't know whether it would be good to copy the page to Phallus indusiatus and make the Dictyophora page a redirect, when Dictyophora is probably a better-known name. I wrote something about this issue at the talk page for category Fungi in Commons, but nobody has commented.

Without its net I believe it is very close to Phallus impudicus/hadriani; perhaps that is why it is classified as Phallus. "indusiatus" definitely means that it has an indusium (= hanging net). The taste probably distinguishes it - P. impudicus eggs are supposed to be edible and I have talked to people who have tried (but failed) to eat them, the problem being that they are too hard (not that they are too revolting).

Strobilomyces 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expert assistance, as always! Dozens, if not hundreds of websites (including Webster's dictionary) [1] list shiitake as Agaricaceae, though...I wonder how that confusion happened. Or was there a recategorization? Anyway, whatever the authority is it should be also changed on Shiitake, where I've just added a taxobox. Badagnani 18:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It is general practice not to include an article or image in two category when one of them is a subcategory of the other. The category Fungi on commons it to large to be practical. If images can be included in more than one category in the same hierarchy, it is no longer clear where to look for an image on a particular species: an image can be in 1 or more of several places, so when looking for an image to illustrate a wikipedia article I have to look both at the Fungi category, as on the subcategory of the family. It's very inconvenient. Eugene van der Pijll 17:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've made a page for Pleurotus eryngii and wonder if you could take a look to check it? Thanks, Badagnani 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made an article for Torula; not sure why it didn't exist before. From my research, it's the processed food ingredient called "torula yeast." As usual with fungi, there's some confusion over the species name, which has changed over time, and also whether it's a yeast or a fungus. Your expert assistance would be great. Badagnani 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused over the name; all the possibilities are in Index Fungorum but none is preferred, and the taxonomy below Ascomycota is also uncertain. But ITIS gives Candida, agreeing with you. It certainly seems to be a yeast (and a fungus). I added Torula utilis as a synonym, since this is the origin of the English term.

Strobilomyces 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just made an article about a mold, Monascus purpureus; could you check it? Badagnani 21:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. I don't know much about molds. Strobilomyces 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Index Fungorum was the "be all and end all" of fungi. Is it incorrect about the classification of Monascus? Badagnani 19:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you put in the original article, IF says that Monascus belongs to its own family, Monascaceae (described in 1894), but says that it is uncertain which order that family belongs to. The NCBI classification is complete and uses names which are actually in Wikipedia. But I see now that Monascaceae is in Wikispecies and seems well-established, also in ITIS (web site not working at present). So probably it should be Monascaceae, not Elaphomycetaceae, and the Order should be Eurotiales. The fact that there are many different systems makes things very difficult.Strobilomyces 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you check the taxobox at Lingzhi? I've just added it but am not sure everything is right. Thanks, Badagnani 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this today:

If you have anything you can contribute to the general "Fungus" article, please do. All the best. Peter G Werner 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help with the new mushroom page I've made: Hericium erinaceus? Thanks, Badagnani 19:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, concernant cette histoire de catégories, j'avoue que je ne me suis pas basé sur des règles approuvées, et que effectivement après réflexion, la recherche d'images par simple taxonomie n'est pas chose aisée. D'un autre côté, je n'ai rien vu qui déconseille ce mode de catégorisation non plus.

Cependant les placer dans cette catégorie me semble relever de la double catégorisation. De plus, à mon avis, la catégorie Fungi ne doit pas devenir un bazar à liens non plus (il y a d'ailleurs déjà du ménage à faire avec toutes les photos) ; je ne sais pas combien il y a de pages sur les champignons en tout, mais cela deviendra vite illisible au fur et à mesure des ajouts. Il faudrait peut-être trouver une autre catégorie dédiée au classement par espèces, encore que ça va aussi devenir le carnaphaüm rapidement, mais faute de mieux... La recherche par genre (relativement fixe) ne pourrait-elle pas suffir ?

Enfin, si tu préfères que je (re)mette les pages dans la catégorie Fungi, je peux m'en ocupper. Mais vu que le problème est général à tous les médias concernant la biologie, il faudrait peut-être demander l'avis à l'ensemble de la communauté sur cette affaire. Je n'ai pas trouvé de discussions à ce propos, mais je ne doute pas qu'il y en ait déjà eu (elles doivent être enfouies au plus profond de WP :).

À suivre ? Pmx 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have put 2 subjects for discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi talk page concerning common names and species lists for discussion in order to get some consensus and then they can go on the guidelines on the project page. cheers Cas Liber 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a concerted attempt at an FA. Link here......Fungi Collaboration

(hope I got all the templates right...) cheers Cas Liber 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 6 months ago, we discussed creating the article ascocarp. Related to this, there's been a bunch of low-level and scattered discussion as to what to do with the articles fruiting body, sporocarp, basidiocarp, and ascocarp. I have a comprehensive plan for these articles at Talk:Sporocarp. Have a look at this proposal and weigh in on it if you have an opinion. Peter G Werner 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this specially for you, I hope you like it!

Jplm 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Oui, c'est très bien. Ben, quand je l'ai choisi je pensais que 'Strobilomyces' était un nom obscur, mais avec Wikipédia ça n'existe plus. Maintenant je peux améliorer la version anglaise. Strobilomyces 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just created an article Mastigomycotines with the text "Does anyone know what another name for this might be??". I quickly found out that this should redirect to Mastigomycotina, but that doesn't exist either. And neither do the three classes mentioned at Mastigomycotina at answers.com, otherwise I would have put together a quick stub. And the classification given at fungi at answers.com looks quite different from ours at Fungus, so I have absolutely no idea where to place that. Since you seem to know something about fungi, could you patch this hole in the encyclopedia, please? Lupo 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry I have not answered before, I have not had much time for Wikipedia lately. The 3 classes within Mastigomycotina (Chytridiomycetes, Hyphochitridiomycetes, and Oomycetes) did actually have pages in Wikipedia under various names. The main problem is that Chytridiomycetes are still considered Fungi, but the other two are now considered Protists, in a completely different kingdom. And they are sometimes classes and sometimes elevated to being phyla themselves. So the group Mastigomycotina is obsolete and it is difficult to fit any explanation of it into Wikipedia - but I think it is still important to mention it, as people using older references still need an explanation. This page gives a good account of older and newer systems. It is completely normal in mycology (and I suppose in the study of protists) that there are lots of systems of classification, which use lots of different names for the same thing. Strobilomyces 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I've put together a very brief stub. Lupo 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

I used two of your excellent photographs for my little page fr:Pseudoclitocybe. Would you by any chance have something on hand to illustrate fr:Melanoleuca and fr:Catathelasma?

Thank you in advance,

Jean-Pierre (fr:Utilisateur:Jplm)

Hello, I added a photo to fr:Melanoleuca (but I don't know what species it is). I don't know Catathelasma.Strobilomyces 16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ; they sure look like melanoleuca all right but I couldn't tell which species either - I would say grammopodia, but I will not write it.

As for catathelasma, it is mainly known for catathelasma imperiale (ex - agaricus imp.), but I have never met any.

Thank you again,

fr:Utilisateur:Jplm

I've incorporated your material onto the above new page to expand for a DYK nomination, so feel free to edit/expand etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debivort, could you say why you think that this picture is of a Marasmius? Do you know a particular Marasmius species which looks similar? Regards, Strobilomyces (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it keyed out for me. Do you think it something else? I'm not averse to reassigning it if you have a compelling alternative. Cheers, de Bivort 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have any alternative suggestion. Thank you for your answer. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marasmius alliaceus, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chlorociboria aeruginascens, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chroogomphus rutilus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fr.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake which I have now corrected. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Lepista flaccida a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Paralepista flaccida. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.

Sorry about the templated warning, but it covers the issues more eloquently than me. I saw you also added information to Clitocybe amoenolens regarding its current placement in Paralepistopsis. I've moved the article to Paralepistopsis amoenolens, but there's no reason you shouldn't have been able to do it yourself. Please take a minute to find the move button so you don't need to do cut-and-paste moves in the future (or leave species at an outdated binomial). And thanks for your work. Plantdrew (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your comments. Sorry, I have been unavailable for a few days and still do not have much time. I will check my previous changes. Another problem is that Wikidata also involves other language proijects and I don't think that everybody accepts the name changes. I will try to investigate. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikidata is tricky since they try to put all interwiki links on a single item, even when the different languages don't agree on what's a synonym and what's an accepted name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gymnopus peronatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friesia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Léon Louis Rolland, Strobilomyces!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I really enjoyed reading this article. Would have made a great WP:DYK. (I've added wikilinks to the new fungal taxa Rolland described.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to rework Morchella tridentina! bibliomaniac15 18:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as with some other species too, you are wrong with your claim that Amanita aspera is identical to Amanita franchetti. Neither Index Fungorum nor MycoBank see it that way. So, for example, your modification Lactarius theiogalus would be the same as Lactarius tabidus is absolutely wrong and should be changed. It would make sense if you matched your preferred interpretations with the facts. All the best.-- Sacha47 (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2020 (CEST)

Hello. I assume that your comments refer to this talk page where I said that Amanita aspera was a synonym of Amanita franchetii ("identical" is your word, not mine).

I don't know why you think that Index Fungorum disagrees with my claim; on the contrary it supports it fully. The history of the name Amanita aspera can be seen conveniently by going to the search page, setting "search by" to "Epithet", and searching for "aspera".

The name Amanita aspera was first defined in 1800 by Persoon to mean what is now called Echinoderma asperum. It is a very bad name for something which we now know to be like a Lepiota, not like an Amanita in the current sense, but he did name it like that. See also the Species Fungorum page for Amanita aspera (Pers.) Pers.

But after that authors started to use the name Amanita aspera, without very close attention to Persoon's definition, for something which actually was an Amanita, and which must have been similar to what is now Amanita franchetii. Index Fungorum also has a page for this mistaken use, showing it as a synonym of A. franchetii. On this page the text "sensu auct. mult." is given in place of an author citation, meaning "in the (bad) sense of multiple authors".

But then someone discovered that Persoon's definition applied to the species Echinoderma asperum not an Amanita and so by the nomenclatural rules, the new usage was invalid. There must have been a consensus that the first valid definition of the mushroom they had been calling A. aspera was A. franchetii (Boud.) Fayod, which was defined in 1889. I have a translation of Moser dating to 1978 which mentions A. aspera as a species and a Bon of 1987 which says A. aspera is a synonym of A. franchetii, so I think that the discovery of the error must have been made between those dates. Thereafter no mycologist could ever again use A. aspera in a publication as a current name, and I don't believe you can find a reference to a reputable work after that time which does so. Also Courtecuisse (1994) and Funga Nordica (2012) give A. aspera is a synonym of A. franchetii. I can give detailed references if you wish. Also Mycobank is consistent with this story and only gives the original meaning of Persoon as E. asperum.

The only valid sense of the combination Amanita aspera is to mean Echinoderma asperum. But while that is nomenclaturally valid, it would be completely misleading and perverse to use it. Unfortunately old names do occasionally become unusable due to such errors of conflict with the original definition and I think something similar happened with the name Lactarius theiogalus, but there the name was used in different senses (for chrysorrheus, hepaticus and tabidus). But that is a whole different subject which is at least equally complicated.

My claim is that Amanita aspera is a synonym of Amanita franchetti in the sense that it was (invalidly) used for many years. This synonymy is well documented, especially in Index Fungorum. Nobody who used the term recently would have been using it in the true sense of an Echinoderma. I think my interpretation matches the references and the facts. Can you provide any evidence that my account is wrong or that Amanita aspera as an Amanita is a real species with a valid definition, or that it is different from Amanita franchetti? What further evidence would you require to show that my version of the story is right? Strobilomyces (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can read, and the facts look like this: Your Amanita aspera = Amanita franchetti? is declared in Index Fungorum Amanita aspera = Echinoderma asperum [2], while for Mycobank, Amanita aspera = Lepiota aspera (!)[3]. Furthermore, Amanita franchetti is, according to Index Fungorum, the current name for some variations,[4], as well as you can see in MycoBank[5].-- Sacha47 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (CEST)

You seem to be contradicting me, but I don't understand where you say I am wrong. The references which you give above are good and they back up what I say. On the Amanita regalis talk page you gave your references, which are 1. Bruno Cetto: „Der große Pilzführer”, vol. 2, Editura BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, München, Berna, Viena 1980, p. 18-19, ISBN 3-405-12081-0; and 2. Marcel Bon: „Pareys Buch der Pilze”, Editura Kosmos, Halberstadt 2012, p. 296, ISBN 978-3-440-13447-4. I answered there and I will copy most of my answer here.

The only valid use of the name Amanita aspera is for species Echinoderma asperum, which is the same as Lepiota aspera, but that makes no sense as it is quite a different mushroom, not an Amanita in the modern meaning of the word. In the last 100 years or so, any serious use of the term Amanita aspera must have been invalidly of an actual Amanita, in fact the species which is now called Amanita franchetti, and that must be the sense in which it is used in your references. Index Fungorum has a page for this wrong use of the name, as I explained at length on my talk page.

1980 was around the time that the error in the use of A. aspera was discovered (I indicated 1978 - 1987 in my previous comment), so it is no surprise that Cetto is still using that meaning. I have Marcel Bon: "The Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and North-western Europe", Hodder & Stoughton, Domino Books Ltd., St. Helier, Jersey, ISBN: 0-340-39935-X, 1987, which says on page 296 that A. aspera is a synonym of A. franchetii. I think that 2012 is not the relevant date for your second reference, "Pareys Buch der Pilze" goes back to 1988 and I think that the text must date from that time if it gives A. aspera as a current name (and Bon must have written the text even earlier). In your two references A. aspera must have been used in the sense of what is now called A. franchetii.

Anyway, what I say is right and amply backed up by Index Fungorum and other sources. The name Amanita aspera should not be used any more and the only reason that it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia projects is to explain this historical confusion. Strobilomyces (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you could not convince me. You did not really answer to my objections regarding the terms of the two most important nomenclature committees, probably because you have no convincing evidence. Well, I will stick to the taxon the species is called in Romania, among other by Dr. Ing. Ioana Tudor.-- Sacha47 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2020 (CEST)

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cyanolichen you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: OK, I thought it would be enough to just give the reference, but I'll do something like your change next time. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm a researcher for the Wikilambda project. Last month we held a naming contest and I'm following up with those who voted to see if you might be willing to provide some feedback to help guide the project.

This would be a 45 minute conversation about your past experience with other Wikimedia projects and thoughts about the future of this new initiative. I'm hoping to gather a wide range of perspectives so I'd be interested in your opinion regardless of whether you plan to have further involvement.

As a way of saying thanks, the research team is offering a $35 gift card (in your local currency) for participation. We could chat by phone or through a webpage for audio conferencing.

If you're interested just pick a time slot from this calendar link:
https://calendly.com/wikilambda/voter

Hope to hear from you soon!

// jeff (design researcher) (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Chlorociboria aeruginosa is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]