Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2016 update

[edit]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Largest fungal fruit bodies' cleanup

[edit]

This article is In need of cleanup of its poorly sourced and inaccurate content by now blocked user User:Treeenthusiast.

Fungal Names

[edit]

For whatever reason, Wikipedia was lacking an article on this internationally recognized registry of fungal names, which is (along with Index Fungorum and MycoBank) one of the three official fungal nomenclatural repositories authorized by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi. Now rectified. Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Lactarius subflammeus

[edit]

Lactarius subflammeus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mycomorphbox proposed renaming

[edit]

Please see this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a second pair of eyes on a sandbox draft article

[edit]

I am more of a plant person and would appreciate feedback on an article I'm drafting on Caliciopsis arceuthobii, an ascomycete that parasitizes dwarf mistletoes. Any help or edits would be appreciated, especially because I am not too familiar with the morphological descriptors. HolyEgg (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Which source for current accepted taxonomy?

[edit]

Hello fungi lovers,

I noticed there is no English article on the brown felt blight and would like to translate it from German. I noticed there's a taxonomic discrepancy between the German article Schwarzer Schneeschimmel and Herpotrichia. The first uses the name Herpotrichia juniperi; the second says this is a former name of Herpotrichia pinetorum. Mycobank seems to side with German wikipedia. Is this an acknowledged source? I come from Wikiproject Gastropods so I don't know much about your turf.

Thanks for the help! Barbalalaika 🐌 19:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barbalalaika, Index Fungorum [1] and Mycobank should both be good sources for fungal nomenclature. MossOnALogTalk 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add, it looks like Index Fungorum also agrees that H. pinetorum is the current name [2] MossOnALogTalk 19:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems like Index Fungorum and Mycobank don't agree. I gather you prefer Index Fungorum? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, I'm realizing now that Mycobank seems to disagree with Index Fungorum. Mycobank lists H. juniperi as current but Index Fungorum lists pinetorum as the current name. I think a bit more digging might be necessary to figure out (though with the state of fungal taxonomy, there might not be a consensus at the moment). Maybe some others can chime in. MossOnALogTalk 20:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the third option, Fungal Names, says H. pinetorum is the current name, so two of three sources agree with that name [3]. I don't personally trust one over the other in particular, so makes sense to go with whichever name 2 sources agree on. MossOnALogTalk 20:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if this is trailing a bit off topic, but you've given me the idea that it would be a great resource to have a single page that compiles all the different valid sources for taxonomy/nomenclature across all the organism Wikiprojects. MossOnALogTalk 20:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha no problem. That would be very helpful! Barbalalaika 🐌 20:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I wasn't the first to think of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxonomic_resources MossOnALogTalk 20:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Taxonomic resources page was split off from the main WikiProject Tree of Life page fairly recently (2023), but it is quite outdated.
Plant classification once followed The Plant List, but now follows Plants of the World Online. Neither is mentioned on the taxonomic resources page, because it hadn't been updated since before The Plant List existed (it launched in 2010).
The taxonomic resources page also suggests following ITIS for reptiles; that is apparently based on this discussion from 2006 (with some other discussion reaffirming it not long after), but in practice reptile classification has mostly followed The Reptile Database for many years now. Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbalalaika:, there has never been a discussion that led to a consensus to follow a particular source for current taxonomy of fungi. I think Ascomycota were largely set up following Outline of Ascomycota from 2007 (but may have been inconsistently updated since then). In some fungal groups Wikipedia might be following Index Fungorum, in others it might be following Mycobank (IF and Mycobank often disagree) or even some other source.
Wijayawardene et al.'s publication "Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa" from 2020 has been mentioned positively on this talk page before, but I am not aware of any concerted effort to make Wikipedia's taxonomy conform to it. There have been multiple updates to "Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa", and there is a website for it, https://www.outlineoffungi.org/. The publications have hundreds of coauthors, which is a good sign.
I would be inclined to follow https://www.outlineoffungi.org/ if we are having a discussion about a particular source to follow for current taxonomy of fungi, but I am certainly open to considering other sources (I haven't delved deeply enough into the literature to be able to say that any particular disagreements between e.g. IF and Mycobank shows that one of them is less up-to-date (or to put it another way, is being more more conservative in adopting controversial proposals). Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really fascinating! I'm not sure if I understood https://www.outlineoffungi.org/ correctly, but it seems it stops at the genus level? When I click the Herpotrichia entry, I'm led to Index Fungorum. Would be one more reason to settle for Herpotrichia pinetorum here, but I want to make sure I understood it correctly. Barbalalaika 🐌 22:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I was trying to answer the general question about a source for current accepted taxonomy, not the specific question about H. pinetorum vs. H. juniperi. Outline of Fungi doesn't go down to the species level.
Index Fungorum apparently has an error in attributing Laestadia juniperi solely to Sacc. Both IF and Mycobank give the authorship of Sphaeria juniperi as Duby, but Mycobank has the authorship of L. juniperi as (Duby) Sacc. So I think one issue with IF's treatment is that it isn't connecting juniperi in Sphaeria and Laestadia as being homotypic synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of the Fungi

[edit]

This (formerly) authoritative work is probably the most-cited ink-on-paper text in this WikiProject, but it did not have an article. This has now been rectified. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi&oldid=1327370900"