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

The December issue is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Please let me know if this is not the place to ask this question. I am asking here because it is specialized to our subject area, not a general Wikipedia/editing question. I have also been looking around the useful information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life to see if there's a style guide or similar that might spell this out, but haven't found that yet.

To narrow it down, I am going to use Cystofilobasidium macerans as a specific example.

The question is:

When naming the authority for who established the name of a given fungi species, if there is a history of the species being established under one phylogeny, then moved in order, genus and family, then moved in genus again, the name and date that should be listed as the authority in the Taxoboxes is:

• whoever published the first time - as in Rhodotorula macerans (1956 Fred.)
• whoever published the most recent taxonomic change - as in Cystofilobasidium macerans 2009 Sampaio (abbreviated Samp. so far as I can tell)

I assumed it would be the first option, that the moment the organism has a specific name, that is the moment it is established and the person and date should come from that publication.

However, when looking at IndexFungorum and MycoBank for Cystofilobasidium macerans, both seem to list "Samp. 2009", despite, in IndexFungorum's case, noting that it has an older synonym. What's up with that? Is it somehow a mistake? Or related to the 2011 folding in of teleomorphs and anamorphs? A product of me misreading these sources?

A follow up question is:

When trying to identify who should be cited, is it considered original research to observe who is the last author on the paper establishing a genus or species (etc) ourselves? Or should we wait until IndexFungorum or MycoBank or a similar source have themselves identified which individual name should be used as the authority? My working assumption is yes, we should wait until it is stated. And if we find those sources appear to be wrong, we should alert those repositories with the evidence we think we have and remedy it that way.

As you might suspect, my example isn't arbitrary. I am working on a draft for Cystofilobasidium macerans and ran into these questions while trying to figure out who to list, and how to format it. MariahKRogers (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This depends on the code (zoology v Botany) and fungi use the botanical code, which is normally Genus species (original combination author) revision author. You can see an example at Mycobank: Cystofilobasidium bisporidii (Fell, I.L.Hunter & Tallman) Oberw. & Bandoni. So I'd expect your example to be Cystofilobasidium macerans (1956 Fred.) Samp., but for some reason the sources all seem to give Cystofilobasidium macerans Samp. (Mycobank, Index Fungorum, Wikispecies). It could be a mistake replicated in the different sources or there may be a technical explanation that is beyond me.

As for your question on determining the author, it's best to wait for a secondary source. However for a new species, I don't think it original research to use the whole author list as the authority, although sometimes the naming authority includes only a subset of the authors, which usually should be stated somewhere in the article. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the resources and answer on both questions. The format of including both makes sense, and on reflection I have seen that format before and had not known or thought about what it signified.

I will write to IndexFungorum and MycoBank about Cystofilobasidium macerans (1956 Fred.) Samp. versus Cystofilobasidium macerans Samp. 2009 and then if there is a technical explanation, can report back, and if it should be changed and they correct it, then I can fix it on WikiSpecies, wherever else it appears, and in my draft. MariahKRogers (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain giving Sampaio as the authority stems from the 2011 one fungus, one name changes (which I don't understand very well). Sampaio's paper was published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology which is a journal I expect to be extremely rigorous about technicalities in nomenclature.

In the paper, the authority is explicitly given as "Sampaio". IPNI has the abbreviation "J.P.Samp." You can not assume that the last author nor the full author list should be credited as the authority. Frequently you will find that authorities for new species names are explicitly given within the body of the paper establishing that name.

MycoBank has a record for Rhodotorula macerans. Not having that as a synonym of Cystofilobasidium macerans appears to be an error on their part (perhaps they rely on algorithm to match authority strings in cases of recombinations; such an algorithm would fail in this case).

Synonyms should be listed in the taxobox, with the authorities associated with those synonyms. Cystofilobasidium macerans should have Rhodotorula macerans Frederiksen and Cryptococcus macerans (Frederiksen) Phaff & Fell listed as synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That fits with what I heard back from Index Fungorum, I think.

"For many decades the names of the various (typically two but sometimes more) morphs of the same species were separated but now they are united. This means that names published as new combination based on an anamorph name and a teleomorph genus (or vice versa) were not permitted … but now they are, the result of which is that many author citations (not ‘authority’) are now corrected. However, names published as new species with a cited taxonomic synonym cannot be corrected."

And this source - https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.004390-0 underlines how the Rhodotorula macerans that became Cryptococcus macerans was the anamorph, specifically. "Anamorphic stage: Cryptococcus macerans (Frederiksen) Phaff & Fell."

Paul, in replying, continued,

"The correct form for the author Debra E. Frederickson is ‘Freder.’. The author ‘Fred.’ Is https://www.ipni.org/a/12141-1." -- Paul (from Index Fungorum)"

He is discussing Freder. vs Fred. as I asked for some clarity on that as well because I.F. has it as Freder. while https://biotanz.landcareresearch.co.nz/scientific-names/1cb1b82a-36b9-11d5-9548-00d0592d548c and a couple other places seem to list it as P.S. Fred. or Fred.

That now doesn't matter too much to the C. macerans article project, considering we will be listing the authority as J.P. Samp. 2009, but this still slightly confuses me because in: Frederiksen, P.S. 1956: A new Rhodotorula species , Rhodotorula macerans sp. n., isolated from field-retted flax straw. Friesia 5(3-5): 234-239 ... P.S. Frederiksen doesn't strike me as the same person as Debra E. Frederickson. But I could be wrong, and I am still trying to get back to the resource I had found before for looking up these abbreviations.

In any case going back to the name itself, and what we're learning from it, it sounds like the key factor in it being treated as a totally new name is that it combined parts of both telemorphic and anamorphic names. So, in cases where the merger was purely keeping one or the other, the longer list of names going back would still be there.

Does anyone know if when he said "many author citations (not 'authority') are now corrected" -- is that indicating the term authority for this is inaccurate, or out of date, and they're calling it author citations? Or am I misreading him? This aspect of mycology/taxonomy is largely new to me but I want to become fully literate in it. MariahKRogers (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the last author question. So, we should look to who is actually being named by the paper itself as the authority/citation and ideally see what Index Fungorum and MycoBank do with it. MariahKRogers (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Author citation" is the term defined in the ICNafp (the ICZN calls the equivalent concept just "author"). I guess I'm used to thinking of "authority" since that is the parameter used in Wikipedia taxoboxes (and since the codes use different terms, I'm not going to worry about the taxobox parameter). But technically "author citation" is the correct term.

Your correspondent has mixed up Frederiksen and Frederickson. IPNI doesn't have a record for P.S. Frederiksen. IPNI is less comprehensive for mycologists than botanists (I suspect Sampaio might not even be aware that IPNI has assigned him an abbreviation).

"Many author citations are now corrected": I guess is referring to changes per one fungus, one name, but it might also pertain to standardizing authority citations to use IPNI abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about "author citation" vs "author" vs "authority", also for noticing Frederiksen vs Frederickson... I typed those out multiple times and didn't see it. Evidently as you say my correspondent with Index Fungorum hasn't either. Easy mistake to make; I'll report it while thanking him for responding. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The January issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I have taken on the listed challenge of updating the Gassicurtia article with the new species the newsletter says are now recognized by Index Fungorum.

The newsletter links: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/?taxonKey=4MB5 ... the Cataologue of Life... so I also added that page for each species on there as a source for all the species.

But also the newsletter makes reference to the Index Fungorum as the source we are meant to reference.

So I also used the following from Index Fungorum,

• http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp + searching "Gassicurtia"

And cited IndexFungorum as being as of January 2024...

The added species are

1. Gassicurtia azorica (2020), <- on IF & CoL

2. Gassicurtia lignatilis (1837), <- on IF but not CoL

3. Gassicurtia lopesiana (2021), <- on IF & CoL

4. Gassicurtia pruinosa (2021), <- on IF & CoL

5. Gassicurtia silacea (1834) <- on IF but not CoL

So that adds 5. I think at some point someone added 1 without updating the # of species, because the Gassicurtia article said as of January 2023 IF had 30 sp., I add 5, but currently from a list matching this one IF says Gassicurtia has 36 sp.

Let me know if in your opinion or anyone else's in the lichen taskforce has corrections/feedback for how I added these + edited the page. MariahKRogers (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if this is the wrong place for this topic, new to wikipedia, but ongoing fungi and iNat enthusiast.

I am most interested in identification of fungi and have been adding descriptions, distinguishing features, and similar species since that is what helps me the most when I am learning a new fungus. I have just started adding, so far I've added brief excerpts on Amanita Brunnescens, Hypoxylon fragiforme, Rhizomarasmius pyrrhocephalus, Peroneutypa scoparia, Diatrype virescens, Rosellinia subiculata, Stereum lobatum, and Trametes gibbosa. I did these specifically because I have been collecting ID information and more on many different species on a google sheet as I have been learning them, and realized I could store that info for the public here on Wikipedia.

I am reaching out on this talk page because I know that I will eventually fizzle out on this, so I want to make it more fun / social by finding others with a similar goal in mind. A small task force to go through these articles would be cool. I am based in NorthEast US so I have been doing species I am familiar with in that area, but would love to learn from people in different areas.

Some loose themes I try to keep in mind while writing to keep things consistent:

- Explain uncommon words with link and parentheses if possible. Makes it easier for newcomers. Mycological word barf can easily dissuade otherwise eager individuals.

- Including distinguishing features and similar species, so that a reader can actually identify the fungus.

- General consolidation of information. One of my biggest frustrations in learning mycology is how hard it is to find simple information, especially for fungi with not much literature. I might find a description on one blog, pictures on another, microscopy on a research paper, and similar species on another blog. One place, Wikipedia!

Let me know if this makes sense and if you are interested in targeting genera / certain articles. Thank you.

Emrosie (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there!

While I am not currently focused on creating new articles for fungi that don't have ones yet, I am interested in expanding fungal stubs, as I can definitely relate to the frustration of finding simple literature on different species, and there is a huge list of fungi articles with only 1 sentence, on Wikipedia. Let me know if this would fit into the taskforce. Зэгс ус (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

100%, the one liners are almost the same as the articles not existing.

I saw your page with what you are trying to expand / work on. Would you like to chat through slack / discord? Can figure out an efficient and fun way to approach this Emrosie (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. What is your discord tag? Зэгс ус (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

emrosei Emrosie (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There's some (lengthy) advice about writing articles about plants at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template, most of which is generally applicable to fungi as well. Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Medicinal fungi#Requested move 31 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)