Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi


WikiProject Fungi (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

March 2016 update

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

JL-Bot


I saw Casliber added a GA manually to the Project's page today. Are you aware that User:JL-Bot can automatically generate those lists for you? See User:JL-Bot/Project content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realized this this wouldn't have pinged User:Casliber, so here's the ping. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That made my ears burn...cool. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Recognized astronomy content - where is the JL-Bot documentation (i.e. where would I put it on this project)...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: At User:JL-Bot/Project_content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No I saw that, but where do I put one with Fungi in it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Two options I guess, one being on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi directly, wherever you want the list to appear. The other is to create a subpage (something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Recognized content) and put it there. You can then transclude that page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi wherever you want the lists to appear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok - let me think...one of the downsides is loss of formatting from (for example) the DYKs all in chronological order...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Could probably turn that into a feature request at User talk:JL-Bot. JLaTondre is pretty good at implementing them usually. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Chronological order has been setup for a while btw. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles in press?


So I found a paper that renames a couple boletes, but it's in press. It has been accepted, just not published yet. I can read the abstract and I wouldn't have access to the paper anyway. Would it be okay to cite or should I wait? Dgrootmyers (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Depends on the scenario but might be an idea to wait.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Cupreoboletus? I'd usually wait until it was indexed by either Index Fungorum or MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw the Cupreoboletus paper. I'd be wary of a monotypic genus - the genus splitting has attracted some criticism as is...so yeah, shouldn't be long for the other sources to catch up if ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not the Cupreoboletus paper, although that's pretty cool and I look forward to it coming out. It's this. It transfers Boletus tenax to Xerocomus (I think), B. projectellus and B. mirabilis to Aureoboletus, B. subglabripes to Hemileccinum and names some new Boletellus and Heimioporus species. IMO, some of the newer monotypic bolete genera are probably going to end up sunk into other genera, but Boletus sensu lato is definitely polyphyletic, so some of them are probably here to stay. Also, there are still a ton of Boletus species that haven't been sequenced so some of these monotypic genera might end up with more species in them, like Imleria did. Dgrootmyers (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously boletus is being chopped to pieces, which is good as it was one of the biggest wastebasket taxa I know. However, I do wonder, for instance about Suillellus and Rubroboletus - maybe they'd hjave been better as one genus with two subgenera but whatever...main thing is that the clades now have concrete names, which makes classification alot easier.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Identification of some lichens


Dear colleagues,
couldn't you help with identification of these lichens from mountains of Crimea:

I suppose that 1 and 2 are Evernia and 3 and 4 are Xanthoria, but is it possible to identify them reliably? Stas (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you are probably right about the genera, many lichens are notoriously difficult to identify to species, even with the specimen in front in you, and reagents and id books besides you (does it sound like I'm speaking from experience?) You might have better luck at Mushroom Observer, as there are a few lichen aficionados that contribute there. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Exserohilum


Exserohilum

Anyone want to develop this page together? Give it a proper landing page?

Yihengsong (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Student guidebook for fungus articles


Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including plants and fungi. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this Lepiota felina?


Is this Lepiota felina?

May I ask, are the fungi in the picture really Lepiota felina, as the title and the description of the file on Commons suggest? I am confused since I cannot see any ring.

Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question


The Fructose Lichen: it never specifies if it is to be confused with the fructose we eat. Is it the fructose we eat? I am so confused.  Preceding unsigned comment added by DryBananaHippieHat (talkcontribs) 05:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No. "Fruticose" lichens are lichens that are free-standing and branched. "Fructose" is a sugar. Dgrootmyers (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article and FAC


I just wanted to stop by to introduce Corinne; she'll continue to help out at TFA and will be focusing for now on WP:PLANTS, WP:MAMMALS and WP:FUNGI. She'll also be helping out with prose reviews at FAC, and I'm available to answer questions about FAC or TFA any time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

this is good news as biology articles often move slowly at FAC....@Corinne: you are most wlecome to look at Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

High quality fungi images from Flickr


I've started transferring some nice fungi images to Commons from Flickr; they can be found at commons:Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (Fungi). If anyone can help with categories and descriptions, that would be very much appreciated. I'll be adding more images as I find new photosets on Flickr. INeverCry 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Inkcaps, Ink-caps


I observe that Inkcap is a page listing articles on various fungi so called, in three genera; while Ink-cap is a redirect to Coprinus, an article which explains that most former members of that genus have been reclassified. It might be best to merge the two. Maproom (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant ink cap, rather than ink-cap? I've redirected the former as you suggested, and created the latter as a redirect to inkcap. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Issue when updating a proven fact about Morchella diminutiva having an association with Asimina triloba


As far as I have seen and most notably by the citizens of Missouri , Illinois , Indiana , Ohio , Kentucky , and other states. It is without a doubt that Morchella diminutiva has an affinity for locations underneath clonal stands of Asimina triloba. When pointing this out the information was promptly deleted by Sasata. I'm concerned there is an attempt to conceal a real fact. A more recognized enthusiast, Chris Matherly agrees with this observation made by many citizens of the eastern sections of the United States. The territorial ranges for M. diminutiva and Asimina triloba are parallel and coincide. It is important to note that M. diminutiva occurs where A. triloba is the understory.  Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidHorse (talkcontribs) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source when adding information to articles. Sasata (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion


Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

vauthors vs. authors citation style


I seem to be at an impasse with Sasata. Despite explaining the problem, they are continuing to ignore consensus without providing an explanation. So, in the absence of any forthcoming information, I'm here to ask if there is any desire for WP:FUNGI to prefer a citation style which destroys author COinS metadata, in favor of Sasata's use of |authors= to force a terminal period at the end of the author list:

Last FM, Last FM. (2001). Title. (year included)
Last FM, Last FM. Title. (year excluded)

or to maintain the citation's metadata by using |vauthors= (when the name-formatting allows), which the citation then renders without a terminal author-period when a year is given:

Last FM, Last FM (2001). Title. (year included)
Last FM, Last FM. Title. (year excluded)

Literally the only difference is the extra period, which comes at the expense of the disposal of the author/editor metadata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Additional advantages of |vauthors= is that it is compatible with the auxiliary parameters |display-authors= and |author-linkn= and contains error checking to insure that the authors are displayed consistently, whereas |authors= does not.
  • The use of trailing periods after the author list is part of the Vancouver system where it makes grammatical sense since this period separates authors from the title. The combination of {{cite journal}} with |authors= or |vauthors= follows neither the Vancouver system nor the default WP:CS1 style, but is a hybrid. In {{cite journal}}, the date is parenthetically placed after the authors and hence sentence does not end until after the date, and hence it makes sense to place the period after the date. Placing a period before and after the date is redundant. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I personally have no preference. Frustrating as using the drop down box forces me to use "first= | last=" all the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is always the Wikipedia template filling tool. Not quite as convenient, but it does output |vauthors= instead of |first= / |last=. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no visual preference. As long as the citations can be easily followed, I'm not much bothered by where the punctuation is. As such, I'd prefer the style that maintains the metadata since that seems to be the most useful. (As far as ease of use, I generally put in the pmid or doi then hit the "Citations" button and let CitationBot do my dirty work for me. If he can't figure out the reference, I use |author1, |author2... since |last1, |first1... is maddeningly slow. If this is creating problems down the line, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know!).Ajpolino (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: why can't we make the vauthors= have a period like Sasata says is needed? (I am not experienced with these things) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I asked the same question at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Author-list period option for vauthors? before coming here. My suggestion was for an optional citation parameter (akin to |postscript=.) that produces this extra period, if there's a good reason to show it. However, all the citation templates are currently consistent, and not by lack of discussion, so all author & editor parameters' functionality across all templates would have to be changed. This needs a much broader and lengthy discussion to build consensus, which would probably be hard to establish, I assume, given the current argument for the extra period (that is, no argument, only personal preference).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf) 

Largest fungal fruit bodies


I've just come across this article by a relatively new user. It is potentially a useful list, but currently is not as strong as it could be. I've put a little work into it, but I think there's more to be done; if anyone has a few minutes to spare, you could probably do worse than having a look at this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Red Links on the Red List


Over half of the species the IUCN has on their red list are red links. The full list is here:

The list is only short though; there's only 17 red links. Anyone looking to start some new articles on species of fungi? —Pengo 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that - need to reconcile with current or old names as many might have articles. Will check now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
agree this is a little sad, almost as much as the scant number of funal taxa that make it to IUCN at all. Also Pleurotus nebrodensis needs to be detangled from Pleurotus nebrodensis ssp. nebrodensis as only the latter is IUCN listed. Nessie (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Noooooooooo!!!


Our champion mycophile! Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a sad day. What prompted @Sasata:'s retirement? Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed this. It is indeed sad. I have left him a quick note on his talk page; others may want to as well. I know he has been less active partly because wrist/joint problems made contributing difficult, but he may have been put off by ongoing arguments about citation styles. I was recently involved in an unrelated argument on a similar topic and can attest to the frustration felt. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I recall a similar situation in 2012 when RJHall retired. Several bird wikiproject editors retired after the capitization debate in 2014 reached a head. I dunno. Wikipedia is a funny thing. I recently realised I'd been editing here for ten years. I can't imagine stopping...but then again the idea of editing for a lifetime is pretty weird too. I suspect it's multifactorial but I can see Sasata was pretty unhappy about the formatting of references. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
RJHall's retirement (which I wasn't even aware of until now) seems eerily similar to Sasata's. My only interaction with Sasata was over the |authors=-trailing-period citation style issue. I've tried to be as open as I could, and providing ample opportunity for accommodation via discussion, which unfortunately never happened, probably (at least in part, I now know) due to physical ailments. This undoubtedly caused frustration on both sides of the argument, though I had no idea it was so great.
It's easy to see how prolific he was. I was (and am) amazed by all the articles authored and contributed to by him as I poke(d) around, and I do wish he returns on his own accord and in better spirits. I would only hope that more editors, especially subject matter experts, espoused EauOo's Wikipedia philosophy (which I came across just now randomly while looking at RJHall's last contributions) whether it be gnome vs. gnome, or anyone vs. anyone.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with a new page


Hi everyone, I was seeing if I could have a few sets of eyes on Harposporium anguillulae. This is a page I'm trying to re-write, as the topic seems notable, however this area is not my forte. Specifically I'd like to start with the taxobox on the page and go from there. Any insight you could share would be great. Again thanks! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: The easiest thing to do in most cases is to just copy paste the taxobox from another species in the same genus and change the relevant details. If there are no other articles on species in the same genus (as is the case here), copy paste the taxobox from the genus and add details. You can also copy appropriate stub sorting templates and taxonomic categories from an article on another species or the genus. There's a fairly odd situation in play with H. anguillulae; the appropriate scientific name might be Podocrella harposporifera. See Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph for an explanation of this situation. Plantdrew (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cedar Leaf Blight


I've added new content and further improved the page on the folair fungus Didymascella thujina (Cedar leaf blight) . I would like to add it as link(?) to the WikiProject Fungi. How is this done??  Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkope (talkcontribs) 16:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Hkope (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Hkope August 31, 2016

Hi there, thanks for the message; it's great to see a leaf blight article getting some attention. The article is already listed as falling under the scope of WikiProject Fungi- see the template on the article talk page. I'm on my lunch right now, so no time for anything but a quick look; I've made some quick initial tweaks to the article and I'll aim to find some more time for a proper look this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations


This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ID question


Can anyone help me with an ID for this mushroom? It was growing in closed canopy forest on Lake Michigan sand dunes. I don't have the first clue about fungus ID. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Damn, possibly a species of Boletellus but I'd only be guessing...need to think about how to key it out...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A bolete would definitely be my guess, but beyond that it's hard to say; the cap seems to be smooth as does the stipe, so I would have thought not Boletellus. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
To me it looks like what is now Hortiboletus rubellus (formerly Boletus rubellus or Xerocomus rubellus). Strobilomyces (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship


Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages


Greetings WikiProject Fungi Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Identification question


May you please help me identifying these bracket fungi?--Nikos Andronikos (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My guess for the left-hand one is Fomitopsis pinicola. Strobilomyces (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list


My list of missing topics about fungi is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)fungi

Hanns Kreisel


Can anyone access reliable sources about Hanns Kreisel having passed away very recently? German WP's article de:Hanns Kreisel gives 18 January 2017 as his date of death, but without sources (the only source added since that date was written earlier ). Online, I only found pilzforum.de where, on 19 January, a contributor reports it. That won't do as a reference. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion


The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.


T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated


Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Taxonomy templates updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed podetium merge


Comments welcomed at Talk:Thallus#Merge - April 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move


You are all invited to give a piece of your mind at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum#Requested move 4 May 2017. Thank you for your contributions!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report


We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Fungi.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Fungi, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Question from a WP:FUNGI newbie


I'm relatively new to this project (having recently fallen headlong into the lichen trap) and have just nominated my first fungi article for GA. Do I need to add that to the appropriate section on the project page, or is there a bot that does that automatically? It's Physcia caesia, in case anybody feels inspired! Many thanks to Plantdrew for giving me some initial suggestions... MeegsC (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Great to see! There's no bot that will add the article to the WikiProject page, but I'm not sure how many people watch the page anyway. Fungi articles are often picked up very quickly, so I suspect you won't have to wait long! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

New set of major edits to articles on microfungi proposed for wiki edu project


For the past several years I have taught a 4th year undergraduate course in medical and veterinary mycology at the University of Toronto. Each year I have assigned my students to work on articles on biomedically important microfungi. To date we created or revised nearly 100 articles. This year I am proposing the following taxa for us to work on. We won't get to all of these, but I'm hoping to do at least 28 or so. This list is based in part on the existing stub articles on microfungi that receive substantial page views in addition to a few taxa that I think urgently need an article. I invite anyone in this group who might be interested to review our articles to visit the wiki edu course page.

Medmyco (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Outline of Ascomycota - 2007


The Myconet article "Outline of Ascomycota – 2007" is cited in 2,700+ articles, nearly always as:

Lumbsch TH, Huhndorf SM. (December 2007). "Outline of Ascomycota 2007". Myconet. Chicago, USA: The Field Museum, Department of Botany. 13: 1–58. Archived from the original on 2009-03-18. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

This citation appears to contain a few errors and missing parameters; however, in light of the number of articles affected, I am seeking consensus on two points before making any large-scale changse.

1. What should be the final wikicode of the citation?

I propose:

{{cite journal |date=31 December 2007 |editor1-last=Lumbsch |editor1-first=H. Thorsten |editor2-last=Huhndorf |editor2-first=Sabine M. |title=Outline of Ascomycota - 2007 |url=http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/myconet/outline.asp |access-date=25 December 2017 |journal=[[Myconet]] |publisher=[[The Field Museum]], Department of Botany |location=Chicago |volume=13 |pages=158 |issn=1403-1418 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090318003134/http://www.fieldmuseum.org/myconet/outline.asp |archive-date=18 March 2009 |dead-url=no}}

which produces:

Lumbsch, H. Thorsten; Huhndorf, Sabine M., eds. (31 December 2007). "Outline of Ascomycota - 2007". Myconet. Chicago: The Field Museum, Department of Botany. 13: 1–58. ISSN 1403-1418. Archived from the original on 18 March 2009. Retrieved 25 December 2017. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The new wikicode:

  • Expands the first names of the editors, and corrects Lumbsch's name—it is "H. Thorsten" or "H. T.", not "TH".
  • Identifies Lumbsch and Huhndorf as editors, consistent with the linked source ("(eds.)").
  • Links Myconet and The Field Museum.
  • Adds the ISSN.
  • Corrects the parameter |dead-url=yes to |dead-url=no.
2. Should the citation be hardcoded within each article, or created as a template and transcluded?

The former is generally preferred for citations but the latter allows future updates to be made at a single location, without touching 2,700+ articles for every change.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like most of these were added by Sasata who has since retired. I support the change and the creation of a template. My only suggestion is to drop the access date as unnecessary, as the cited content itself is static and the archive url is there in case the website changes. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Marasmiellus candidus


Hi, I am revising the files uploaded for Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I have noticed these that I don't have a specific category for this files. Currently, in commons:Category:Marasmiellus there are three images of Marasmiellus candidus. Before I create the category, I just double check if this names are standard. Can I proceed?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Be careful. There are two species ( ) that have been referred to as Marasmiellus candidus. The name can only "legally" be used for Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer; the other is properly Hemimycena candida (Bres.) Singer. I think the photos are correctly identified, but I'm not positive (I'm better at the rules of taxonomy than I am at mushroom ID). I'm not quite sure where the name and authority Marasmiellus candidus (Bolton) Singer comes from, but there is a Agaricus candidus Bolton listed as a synonym of Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer. Plantdrew (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Well the only way i can be careful is doing nothing Plantdrew... it's not my field... The current categorization is not bad, although with three files a category could be better, but considering is only a little step, there is no point from my side to "force" it. From a practical point of view, I'll just create other categories somewhere else where I have no doubt. of course, if people here agree on a very simple clear task, i am available! Thank you BTW.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. The 3 photos all show Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer, which grows on twigs. Apparently Hemimycena candida (Bres.) Singer (which is the current name of the other one) grows on comfrey and has decurrent gills. I made a category for Marasmiellus candidus and moved the photos to it. I hope that is OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Great, Strobilomyces.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page


Chemical defense links to saprophytic, which is a DAB page. Could one of you experts help solve the problem? I wouldn't want to guess the answer. Narky Blert (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

List of poisonous fungus species


Hi everyone. I noticed that this article has no lead section. It also has no description of what a "suspicious mushroom species" is. Can you help with this? Thanks, Loooke (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Prothallus


Wiki's current prothallus article says nothing about the lichen definition. In lichens, it's the area along the edge of a crustose thallus that contains no algae. It's typically a different color than the rest of the thallus, and can be important for distinguishing between similar species. I'm a bit loathe to add this to the current article, which is about a completely different subject, but I'm unsure where to link to otherwise. Any suggestions? MeegsC (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I say add it. There are a number of these terms used in 'lower taxa' that have slightly different meanings in each kingdom. just because ferns firsted it doesn't mean we should forget fungi. Plus Prothallium could easily be adjusted with just a few sentences in the opening and a new section on lichens. And then if it means something in phycology or whatever we're ready. Nessie (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS


There was a disagreement at ERRORS today (maybe it's resolved to everyone's satisfaction, maybe it isn't) about the Main Page blurb on Today's Featured Article, Paxillus involutus. It's got 2 more hours on the Main Page so this is a little late to be discussing it, but any further thoughts are welcome. Pinging Casliber, who was one of the nominators of the article at FAC. He's been keeping an eye on it, and he responded at ERRORS. Cas's position seems to be the right one to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sex


Please see the latest discussion at Talk:Sex, which proposes to restrict the scope of the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Amanita Smithiana.


subj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_smithiana Obviously, word smithiana is russian word smetana (сметана) which means sour cream. And it looks exactly like that. Smetana https://www.google.com/search?q=сметана . In Russia this fungi is called "Smitannyy muhomor", where is smetana = sour cream, muh = fly, mor = mortal. Which means fungy that kills flys. Often people use it choped into water for flys to drink and be neutralized. It is funny that this gungi is named so in honor of Alexander Smith, as user Plantdrew said. Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.230.171 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Corneroporus subcitrinus v. Boletopsis subcitrina


I would like to bring attention to this article's talk page, as there seems to be some confusion regarding the currency of Corneroporus. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. 110.33.163.172 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Ypna (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Assistance: Lecanora tartarea & Scottish Highland Dyes


The article Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands mentions Lecanora tartarea twice, but the article on 'Lecanora' makes no mention of it.

  • BTW - The text in Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands appears to have been copied more or less verbatim from Dwelly's entry dath, then formatted for Wiki.
  • The plant is mentioned in Edward Dwelly's Dictionary, Am Faclair Beag, online under
  • Please also see the Wiki article on "Orcein" in the subsection called Cudbear. The article mentions lichens, but not which lichens. (Except for Roccella tinctoria.)
  • Apparently Lecanora tartarea is also mentioned in Brewster, Sir David (1832). Lichen. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 10 May 2014.

I would add Lecanora tartarea to the list of species in the article on Lecanora, but after a cursory look at EoL & searching for synonyms, I suspect that it has either been overlooked in both EoL and Wikipedia, has been reclassified\renamed, or both.

From these articles, it looks as if Lecanora tartarea or this class of "Orchil lichens"\"orchella weeds" were once economically important, and I am very interested in finding out more about them. If possible, I would love for someone to help me identify this lichen or group of lichens, but sadly, lichens are outside of my area of expertise. Even a pointer to a name would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thanks in advance.

Kibi78704 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to the MycoBank listing for the species Lecanora tartarea. As a lichen newbie who's just starting to write some lichen articles, I can tell you that there are a lot of missing lichen articles! ;) MeegsC (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And I see it on the EoL list of Lecanora species, (though no species account has yet been written) so I think it's fine to add it. MeegsC (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description


Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject


The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    The Transhumanist   07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?


Please have a look at the new discussion at the Tree of Life project page as to whether we should change over from the manual {{taxobox}} to the automatic taxobox system. The comments so far are overwhelmingly in favour of recommending the automatic system. As I understand it this would apply to all taxa in the English Wikipedia.

Wikiproject Fungi is rather quiet, but I think we should document the implications for fungi here. If the recommendation is agreed and if there are no comments here, I may start to change some mushrooms over to the automatic system. I believe that in the past some attempt was made to use the automatic templates, but they were not popular (I don't really know why not).

The proposal is that the classification information will be held in template pages and one criticism will surely be that we should be more ambitious and hold that information in Wikidata. But doubtless that would lead to lots of extra problems (see this discussion).

For me the main problem is that just one classification has to be chosen at every level and there is no scope to express alternative possibilities (with the manual system one can mention different possibilities such as "Omphalotaceae or Marasmiaceae"). But the Wikipedia article names and text use a mixture of older and newer names. I think we need a rule to say how the taxon names in the taxoboxes should be chosen, without implying that this classification is necessarily right and the other ones wrong. The most practical rule would be "use the current names and classification tree in Species Fungorum". Unfortunately the genus names are changing very rapidly, but I do not see a real alternative. Of course older names should also be mentioned in the text and in redirect pages and Wikipedia will never be completely up to date - but it would be useful to have an agreement as to what we are aiming for.

I would be interested in all comments. Strobilomyces (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See also this 2014 discussion. Improvements have been made to the automatic system since that time. Strobilomyces (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Strobilomyces: for posting this. As you can see from the most recent stats WP Fungi has one of the lowest adoption rates for the Automated Taxobox System. I know there are some members of this project who are opposed to the new system and actively revert any changes back to manual taxoboxes. I hope that their concerns can be addressed here. I definitely support the automatic taxoboxes, even though they are not perfect and some sliver of articles do need manual boxes (like those using {{paraphyletic group}}, which has no automatic version). The vast majority would benefit from the change, and I think having us go through articles and putting another set of eyes on them for general fixes benefits the project.--Nessie (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
One issue, which may need to be a separate discussion, is that we have not been very consistent with teleomorph, anamorph and holomorphs, and as these now are all officially synonyms, we will need to sort all these genera out as many of the taxonomy templates used by the automated system will be |sameas= the accepted name.--Nessie (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to record here this deleted discussion, where User:Polyporales argues against the automatic system. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Nidulariaceae page still lists several genera of fungi that are now classified as belonging to the family Agaricaceae, in their own articles and elsewhere. Should this be rectified? Bacchae35 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - go for it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 set of major edits to articles on microfungi proposed for wiki edu project


For the past 5 years I have taught a 4th year undergraduate course in medical and veterinary mycology at the University of Toronto. Each year I have assigned my students to work on articles on biomedically important microfungi. To date we created or revised over 100 articles on microfungi. This year I am proposing the following taxa for us to work on. We won't get to all of these, but I'm hoping to do at least 28 or so. This list is based in part on the existing stub articles on microfungi that receive substantial page views in addition to a few taxa that I think urgently need an article. I invite anyone in this group who might be interested to review our articles to visit the wiki edu course page.

Medmyco (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Katarua


Hello editors of this project. I'm a Wikipedia new pages reviewer and I recently moved an editor's newly created article to draft space (see link). I've done some copy on the article as it was written by an ESL editor. What I really need is for an expert on fungus to confirm that the article doesn't exist elsewhere under a different name. The author previously wrote that they are "Astraeus_hygrometricus", however the description is very different as are the photos, so perhaps this is a different strain which merits an independent article. If this is indeed worthy of an independent article please let me know and I will fast track it to main space and take it off the the much beleaguered articles for creation list. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Fungi 'described in' decadal categories submitted to CfD


@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Category:Fungi described in the 1750s, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mycomorphbox-missing updated to populate


I gussied up the template Template:Mycomorphbox-missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Now it populates Category:Missing mycomorphbox so we can track this and improve articles with {{Mycomorphbox}}es. --Nessie (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks


Hi, I've come across this article Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks on New Page Patrol, and looking for expert opinion on whether it constitutes OR, or is a valid article, or should be redirected to Mycorrhiza? Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Blumeria/Erysiphe graminis f.sp. confusion


I would like to bring attention to the apparent taxonomic confusion regarding Blumeria graminis (syn. Erysiphe graminis), Erysiphe graminis f.sp. tritici, and Erysiphe graminis f. sp. avenae. Ypna (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source on the synonymy? It's not cited in the articles. I'm assuming that's what you want to discuss here. If Erysiphe graminis is indeed a synonym for Blumeria graminis and is current with the 'one fungus one name' policy then I see no problem moving the formae specialis articles. --Nessie (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Stub "Fusidium" needs expanding


Fusidium, an important fungus used in the production of Fusidic acid, needs expanding. This bacterio-static compound is becoming more important in light of increasing MRSA infections and interest in the cultivation of the fungus its self is likely to grow. I can contribute whatever a google search on the subject will yield, but if anyone can supply verified reliable sources here it would be greatly appreciated. If an expert wants to just take it on directly and let me put my feet up, that would also be good. many thanks. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on new classification scheme


Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates


Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta


Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Audiodude: does this bot just update the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi#Article assessment? --Nessie (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@NessieVL: Basically yes. In fact, the new bot is just gathering the data for the table, while the old bot will continue generating the wikicode for the actual table and applying the update. Hope this helps. audiodude (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Phaeolepiota aurea


The current page on this taxon states: "Various cook books recommend the golden bootleg for its fine taste. Later studies have shown that the fruit body contains unacceptable amounts of both cadmium and cyanide compounds. Therefore, the mushroom is no longer considered edible. Cooking reduces the concentration of the cyanide compounds preset, which might be the reason Phaeolepiota aurea was considered edible in the past.[2]"

The reference given is a broken link to a WordPress blog. I have been searching for days, and cannot find any reference to cyanide or cadmium in Phaeolepiota, other than on sites that simply repeat what Wikipedia says, sometimes with the same broken link as a reference. A number of legitimate toxicology sites (e.g., the University of Adelaide's clinical toxicology site) note Phaeolepiota that has a tendency to cause GI upset. None mention cyanide.

A valid reference for the presence of "unacceptable amounts of both cadmium and cyanide compounds" in Phaeolepiota should be supplied, or the claim should be removed. Struvite (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The archived link cited in the article has three references you can check out. Also google scholar searches for "Phaeolepiota" cyanide has ten results and "Phaeolepiota" cadmium shows 17 results. Between those you'll likely find an answer. I would wager that the cadmium relates to how contaminated the soil is, though. --Nessie (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Does an unpublished analysis on a page that is no longer active count as a valid reference? None of the other references support the claim. Struvite (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article referred to was apparently published; if you search via Google Scholar, there are at least 3 citations of Stijve, T.; Andrey, D.; Goessler, W. (2002), "Phaeolepiota aurea:  A beautiful and mysterious mushroom", Mushroom, the Journal of Wild Mushrooming (77): 33−35. However, if you look at the journal's web page here, it doesn't seem to be a refereed scientific journal, so it doesn't meet the threshold for a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Candida blankii


Our favorite yeast? Probably not. But no pretense of compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen () 18:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates to Template:WikiProject Fungi


I added a few things to {{WikiProject Fungi}}. These parameters or similar ones existed in {{WikiProject Plants}} so I thought they could be of use here.

  1. You can now add |mycologist=yes to note that an article is about a mycologist, and add it to Category:WikiProject Fungi mycologist articles (114). Not a lot in there now, so tag them if you see them.
  2. |needs-mycomorphbox=yes will note it needs a {{Mycomorphbox}}, adding it to Category:Missing mycomorphbox (194). This can also be done with {{Mycomorphbox-missing}}.
  3. |needs-taxobox=yes is for articles on taxa that lack taxoboxes adds to Category:Missing taxobox (0). Another option is to use {{Missing-taxobox}}

Lmk if you have any questions or issues or whatnot. --Nessie (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!


"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly many references to oomycetes as fungi scattered about


Just posting that per Talk:Saprolegniales#is_it_a_fungus_??? i have found that we describe oomycetes as fungi in some places and not others. it seems the correct answer is that theyre not, but it may be extremely difficult to clean this up as there is no way to automate it. i am not promising to make any substantial improvements, but i will at least clean up things i come across from casual browsing. Soap 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Great plan. I try to do that too. There does not seem to be a huge amount of oomycete articles (see Category:Water moulds (18) and subcats), so it's not impossible.--Nessie (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sarcodon-Hydnellum correction required


Larsson et al. 2019 just combined several Sarcodon species into Hydnellum. This will require some overhauling. Ypna (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Ypna (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hemiamyloidity


Hi, Draft:Hemiamyloidity just was translated from deWP. Can you speed up the review process? Is any of you active in the review team? TIA --h-stt !? 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@H-stt: looks already approved. You might want to work on the lede though, that's a big run-on sentence full of jargon. --Nessie (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Paul Stamets


I have opened a new RfC at Talk:Paul_Stamets#RfC_about_description_of_Paul_Stamets_in_the_lede, where input would be helpful. The question is whether the term 'mycologist' should describe Stamets.Dialectric (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment about etymology of Dendrochytrium.


I have opened an rfc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dendrochytridium#Request_for_Comment_about_etymology_of_Dendrochytrium TelosCricket (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Saproamanita thiersii or Amanita thiersii


The article Saproamanita thiersii can't seem to make up its mind whether the species is Saproamanita thiersii or Amanita thiersii. If no decision can be made here, it should be delisted as a GA. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

According to Species Fungorum and Mycobank, the current name is Saproamanita thiersii (on the Mycobank page it is necessary to scroll down to the "current name" line to see the status). Both Species Fungorum and Mycobank are authoritative sources on this subject. Although the constant name changes which occur in mycology can be burdensome, I think that Wikipedia should follow these references. Note that it is still legitimate to use the older name, Amanita thiersii, if wished when referring to the species, but both names should be given in the article and I think that the page title should be the Species Fungorum current name (Saproamanita thiersii), and the Amanita thiersii page should just be a redirect. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As if we didn't have enough to do ...


This represents a CRISPR breakthrough, which might lead to an abundance of new fungiculture species. This particular link is to a biotech newsletter that focuses on medicine, but "Companies may license the technology non-exclusively for research and manufacturing, including for agriculture". Advances that can take 5 years to make it through human clinical trials can sometimes have immediate effects on agriculture and fungiculture (because it's a bigger deal if a human dies than if a mushroom dies :). I don't have a Wikipedia link for us yet (apart from David R. Liu), but I'll keep an eye out. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool


Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest


After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions about images used in Hapalopilus nidulans


In the Hapalopilus nidulans article, File:Xanthoporia radiata G6 (8).jpg and File:Xanthoporia radiata G6 (6).jpg are used, though they are identified in the image names as Xanthoporia radiata (for which we don't seem to have any article). Are these two names for the same fungus? Mycobank doesn't seem to think so. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing this out, Xanthoporia radiata is definitely very different from Hapalopilus rutilans and those photos are wrong. I tried to clean it up a bit in Wikipedias and Commons at least. I tried to delete or replace links to the bad photos where used and got new photos from Mushroom Observer. Also the species of the wrong photos wanted clean-up; Xanthoporia is a new name and the old names Mensularia radiata and Inonotus radiatus have also been used in Wikimedia projects for the same fungus. The main Commons name was M. radiata and I merged the pages together under X. radiata (with redirects), so that is OK. But in Wikidata the situation is not so good - it is right that multiple items can exist for the different names, but the synonymy should be indicated. I will try to look into it sometime. Strobilomyces (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

224 fungus species just added to IUCN redlist


Looks like we have some work to do. IUCN released its 2019-3 version, and went from 56 listings to 280 fungus species. I updated List of fungi by conservation status, but all those 280 articles need updates now. A good number of them are redlinks, sadly, and could use articles written. However, we need to atleast get the conservation status updated on existing articles. Who can lend a hand? --Nessie (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tar Spot on Corn


FYI: Draft:Tar Spot on Corn has been marked as promising, but probably needs someone with topic knowledge to look at it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Genus Harzia


We need an article (at least a stub) for the genus Harzia, of which Harzia acremonioides is the type species. Some information about the genus is in the species article. The genus should be documented. The family and the species are. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have created the stub. It should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Scedosporium prolificans needs to be redirected to L. Prolificans


See my edits to the S. Prolificans page.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.riviello (talkcontribs) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

15,000 photos of plants, plant diseases, and plant pests now in the public domain


I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thanks for this. I can't tell you how many of Scot's excellent photos I have uploaded to commons and gotten deleted over the years. Hopefully they can stay now. --awkwafaba (📥) 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Would appreciate some help with Morchella tridentina


Hi there, just wanted to mention that one of the older GAs promoted in 2013, Morchella frustrata, was recently moved by Sumanuil to Morchella tridentina because of subsequent research in 2014 and 2015 finding that M. frustrata (2012) was identical with M. tridentina (1892). As a result, the article is all out of whack because the original article was written with M. frustrata in mind. Would appreciate someone with some mycology know-how to help fix this Sasata GA. bibliomaniac15 21:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I reworked it, see the talk page. Strobilomyces (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mold


There was are recent move discussion wheremold was moved to Mold (fungus) with this move discussion about fungal mold (or relevant historical usage) wasn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has been relisted, and more eyes would be helpful from this project on establishing if/what primary topic exists with the biological terminology. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

IP comment


Moved here from main page TelosCricket (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody make one for those species where parboiling is required or recommended for ediblity? 80.220.253.193 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fy


I left a message at User_talk:Northamerica1000#List_of_meat_substitutes, but I will leave one here too. I just created Nature's Fynd and was wondering if you might be interested in creating an article for what is variously called fy, Fusarium Spp, Fusarium str. yellowstonensis or Fusarium yellowstonensis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Map of countries with published national fungal Red Lists


Hello,

I am an user of the French Wikipedia. I requested there a map (here: File:Carte mondiale liste champignons menaces lychen.svg) showing countries with published (official or not) fungal Red Lists, based on the data of this Kew Royal Botanical Gardens report . Feel free to use it if you find it meaningful !

Cheers, --Tricholome (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki links on merged fungus genus


In 2015, Casliber merged the genus Sphaerotheca (fungus) to Podosphaera. However, French and Swedish Wikipedias still have both. Can this project assist with updates over there, so that the Wikidata ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q46109 , https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7207067 ) can be merged? – Fayenatic London 22:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: rather a late reply! The Wikidata items should not be merged. They are not instances of taxon, as they appear to claim, but of taxon name. See User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues if you're interested in how Wikidata and language wikis interact and why there are problems with inter-wiki links. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will bookmark that essay. I don't yet understand why you oppose merging Wikidata items for different names for the same referent. Perhaps I just need to read it more carefully. It seems to me that merging Wikidata has the desired result, as the alternative name is then "taken" and cannot be used for a separate Wikidata item. Is your point that this would only be acceptable if there was consensus in each Wikipedia to merge the separate pages which other Wikipedias perceive as the same topic?
My view has been that it is acceptable to merge Wikidata, and to manually add wiki links if there is a "possible duplicate topic" Wikipedia page that is then left with no Wikidata item. – Fayenatic London 12:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: the two Wikidata items represent taxon names which have different identifiers in many databases. You can't merge them because it would produce duplicate values for the identifiers. For example, GBIF has ID=2578043 for Podosphaera Kunze and ID=2577931 for Sphaerotheca Lév.. Index Fungorum has ID=4283 for Podosphaera Kunze and ID=5124 for Sphaerotheca Lév.. These databases have IDs for names, not taxa. The names are conceptually different, regardless of whether a taxonomist considers them to refer to the same taxon.
Ideally the Wikidata item for the synonym Sphaerotheca Lév. would be added to the taxonbar – and I did try this, but the Wikidata item is currently confused between Sphaerotheca Lév. and Sphaerotheca Desv. The latter is a rejected name in favour of the former; they are different names and have different IDs in Index Fungorum, for example, so there should be two separate Wikidata items for them. I've asked an experienced taxonomy editor at Wikidata to sort this out. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
As a somewhat extreme example, look at the taxonbar for Cephalomanes atrovirens: each of the 14 synonymous names has its own Wikidata item holding its different IDs in databases. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. I think I had underestimated the goals of Wikidata. I thought the point of Wikidata was a service to Wikimedia projects (Wikipedias, Commons, etc), to link them to each other, and optionally to external databases. However, you seem to be telling me that Wikidata also exists to facilitate links from external databases into Wikimedia projects, and that is why Wikidata must have separate records for each taxon name, even if those taxon names are merged/redirected within Wikipedia etc. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: if you look at the Wikidata main page it says "Wikidata also provides support to many other sites and services beyond just Wikimedia projects!", so it makes clear that its goals are wider. It nowhere claims to be a service to other projects, only to store their "structured data". However, (to repeat myself) unless and until it models taxa as well as taxon names, it can't properly represent different wikis' articles about taxa.
Redirects are an interesting case. There was a discussion at Wikidata about allowing items to have links to redirects in wikis, and it seems to have gained support, but it hasn't been implemented. You can add a synonym redirect in the English Wikipedia to the corresponding Wikidata item, but you have to employ a three-step process: remove the #REDIRECT from the redirect; add it to Wikidata; restore the #REDIRECT. If you try to add it directly, at present Wikidata will instead follow the redirect link to the article, which usually leads to an error message saying the article is already linked to another Wikidata item. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, Peter. I had spotted the last hint already, and have left some pages with Wikidata links after redirecting them, when they can't be merged in other linked projects. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Speciesbox support for ranks between species and genus


At present, {{Speciesbox}} allows only one rank, subgenus, to be directly specified (i.e. not via a taxonomy template). All other such ranks need a taxonomy template to work with {{Speciesbox}}. Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Ranks between species and genus for a request for comment relating to this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Book of public domain fungi images


I'm not much of a fungus person myself, so I can't say much about this, but it looks like a collection of fungi images around England by M. F. Lewis from c.1860 was recently digitised and is now available on the Internet Archive (physically from the Biodiversity Heritage Library). Volume 1, Volume 3, Supplement. They're hand-drawn images labeled with scientific names (though it's in cursive), and I'm not sure how much overlap there is with stuff that already has images (though additional images is probably useful). In any case, hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can find a use for these. --Pokechu22 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mycobank


Hello. In Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons there are many URL links to Mycobank; these currently do not work. On the Mycobank FAQ page it says "We have implemented a few webservices in the past that are currently disabled because they needed to be improved and secured. We expect to release them again before the end of 2020. Sorry for the inconvenience." If one follows one of the links, the system very slowly tries to find the link using the Wayback Machine, which may or may not be successful. I suppose we should leave these links and hope that they will start working again in 2021. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The link in the {{taxonbar}} works (it gets the link via Wikidata). So I think the template can be changed to use the following: https://www.mycobank.org/page/Name%20details%20page/field/Mycobank%20%23/119601. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems to work so I've updated the template. Revert and let me know if there are any issues. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jts1882: Thanks a lot for looking at this. Ah, I see now that after it stopped working, user:Pigsonthewing changed Template:Mycobank to use the wayback machine on enwiki and Commons. But I want to use it on commons, rather than enwiki. Please could you make the your change again there? I would probably break the whole system if I tried to do it myself. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 Done The template is different. The change works for the examples in the documentation. Let me know if there are issues. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jts1882: Great, the Mycobank template works now and it is much better than using the Wayback machine (which was doubtless a good idea in theory). Thanks a lot. There is another less important point: the template commons:Template:Fungorum species also contains a link to Mycobank, but that currently just points at the general search page, not the specific page of the given taxon. The id. number in Mycobank is always the same as that of Index Fungorum. Example page: c:Category:Inocybe insignis. If you have spare time, would it be possible to change the Fungorum species Mycobank link to be the same as in the Mycobank template? Strobilomyces (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that, too. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fungicide needs a lot of work


I came across this a few weeks back. Fungi isn't really my thing, but it seems like it would be an important topic, except the article is really bad.

We've got undue weight to "natural" fungicides while other more commonly used ones are basically ignored. The natural list is also badly sourced. Some are well sourced, others are little better than "some gardener thinks they work, and now we've put it on a website, so that makes it true". I'm also not sure if its appropriate to list substances that have been shown to have some fungicidal properties, but aren't in any serious use.

The intro feels like it was once good, but people have added little things here and there, dropping the quality down.

The upside is the resistances section seems good to me (not an expert though).

I've cross posted this on WikiProject Agriculture too Kylesenior (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Botrytis articles


I have declined Draft:Botrytis Blight as duplicating information in articles on the genus and the various species. However, it appears to me that the drafts and articles need a review and a possible reorganization, so that there should be a single article on the blight (ignoble rot), which can be caused by different species of Botrytis (as well as the existing separate article on noble rot, which is a peculiar side effect). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature


What is the appropriate way to refer to a species of Russula?

The lead text for the article on Russula firmula formerly read:

"Russula firmula is a type of fungus..."

which I changed to

"Russula firmula is a species of mushroom..."

user:Quisqualis amended it to "species of mushroom-producing fungus," but we can't reach a consensus the best wording.

To me, "mushroom" seems sufficient based on current usage, and more comprehensible to lay readers, but I am by no means an expert. user:Quisqualis also had some good points on why they prefer "mushroom-producing fungus." (@Quisqualis:)

Here is the talk page with the discussion up to now.

Input appreciated. - Fredlesaltique (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just been writing something about the fungi of Sutton Park, West Midlands for a lay audience, so I've been thinking about this. At least in British English, "mushroom" seems to me to have several overlapping meanings, all of which I've found in books:
1: A "macroscopic" fruiting body of a fungus, whether the traditional mushroom shape or not, typically terrestrial.
2: A collective term for "mushrooms" and "toadstools", i.e. fruiting bodies that have the traditional mushroom/toadstool shape.
3: A "mushroom" as opposed to a "toadstool", i.e. a fruiting body with the traditional mushroom shape that is edible or at least not poisonous.
4–6: A fungus that produces fruiting bodies conforming to 1–3 above.
I suspect that a lay person in the UK would call Russula firmula a "toadstool", with a slightly more accurate description being "a toadstool-producing fungus". If you use #2 above as the definition of "mushroom", then "a mushroom-producing fungus" avoids the problem of understanding the imprecise difference between "mushrooms" and "toadstools". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that Fredlesaltique informs me that most other species of Russula are described as "mushrooms" in their leads, and I would guess that other fruitbody-producing fungi may be in similar disarray, is there any point to developing style standards for the leads of mushroom articles?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't work on fungi articles much, but I do think there is value in having a style standard.
This issue is somewhat similar to that which arises in plant articles like Apple or Cucumber. In the first, following common usage, a distinction is made, pretty consistently, between the fruit ("apple") and the plant ("apple tree"). In the second, although there is a distinction in some places between the fruit ("cucumber fruit") and the plant ("cucumber"), it's not consistent, resulting in some ambiguity or at least vagueness. (For example, in " cucumbers may have a mild melon aroma", "cucumbers" presumably refers to the fruit only, not the plant.)
I suspect that lay readers won't care, but the scientist in me would prefer to see a clear distinction between the fungus as a whole and its fruiting body, so I would vote for "mushroom-producing fungus" and using "mushroom" to refer to the fruiting body only. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser


Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkey Tail Mushroom / Trametes versicolor


I am requesting additional editor's input on discussion and recent edits to Trametes_versicolor. Please see edit history and talk page. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Bessie B. Kanouse


I have just put up a biography of this mycologist. It might be good for someone who knows more about fungi than I do to read through it. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merges into Amyloid (mycology)


Talk:Amyloid (mycology) Peter G Werner (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Malassezia has an RFC


Malassezia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

You may participate in any of the following

AXONOV (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that this is still relevant. AXONOV (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Golden Halo Mushroom


Good Afternoon, I'm curious to see if I can request help creating a page regarding the rare strain "Golden Halo" discovered by Steven W in 2012. It's the only golden spored psilocybe addictedpeachAddictedpeach (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Surely a section at the species article Psilocybe cubensis is enough? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry it is not a cubensis the color of the external mushroom is solid gold and the spores are golden and sometimes white which cubensis does not have either golden or white spore prints we have the pictures to show if needed so its a psilocybe as they turn blue and are very active mushrooms with psilocybe there is photographs of the fruiting body in the wild and the spore prints collected and photos on the web showing the date of the first photos of the golden prints it produces they don't look like any psilocybe cubensis i've ever seen . if the shoe fits in cubensis I would put it under that category but the pictures tell a different story. AddictedpeachAddictedpeach (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Addictedpeach: personal observations and photos aren't reliable sources. You need a reliable source stating that this is a different species of Psilocybe. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

like the person who found it the mycologist of 27 years steven w ? he documented the find and posted the pictures on his website and facebook years ago . You cant just send samples of even cubensis to anyone yet you have a verified listing for them so who is considered reliable source besides the mycologist who found them who has 27 years experience in the field ? there is tons of chatter also going back to 2015 on the shroomery of people saying its a one like no other . there is an article on here about Pf and his find or his tek so what needs to be done to get this published its a new species that if im not correct is named by the founder and has been verified but tons of post on the shroomery about Golden Halo . he is allowed to call it what he wants as it has zero of the usual cubensis characteristics that is listed on your site for cubensis. according to Wikipedia cubensis has purple black spores and is a pale yellow color this is not at all like them so for a new species of a psylocybe mushroom who can verify it beyond the person who has the only samples in spore form and the photographs of the find from the fruiting body to the spore print . addictedpeach 2601:19B:C400:8C40:89FE:151C:D972:6F09 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless he's published his findings in a reliable source (i.e. a peer-reviewed journal), it doesn't matter what he's found and photographed. Self-published websites and Facebook don't count as reliable sources. Sorry! MeegsC (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Also several sources are clear that there are many strains of this species in cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

funny the stuff at the shroomery is not the pure golden halo that is a cross strain in cultivation. if it can go into the cubensis category can we at least show he was the finder of the dam thing after all he found it and has the oldest known photos of it documented? he is the only one with the golden print to prove its golden the shroomery stuff or what others grow as golden halo are just brown prints not pure golden he has the only pictures showing it in 2012 here https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=462773803769069&set=ecnf.100001093616739 that was the first ever published photo in the world of Golden Halo ever.. 2012 can we put it in the cube strain category as his find ? there is no such person considered a reliable source in the mushroom community he is older then the rest and a sample of the spores had been sent to be photographed by alan rockefeller but alan tried to take the sample and fruit it we have the emails proving he received it but he never gave the results because he instead tried to steal the strain and fruit it and keep the find for himself .so can we place this on the cubensis list and get on with our lives and give the guy who found them credit for finding it in 2012 or do we have to file a formal complain with wiki about being black balled here ? 2601:19B:C400:8C40:E44D:C72:F97F:A475 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL. Complain away! Wikipedia's rules say that things must be cited to reliable sources. Why doesn't Steven W publish his results in a scientific journal? Once he's done that, we will be very happy to write an article about it. There are a number of journals he could chose from. Where does he live? I tried to find "his website", but putting his name and psilocybe doesn't bring up a single hit on Google. MeegsC (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So the PF Tek that is posted on your site Wikipedia I just double checked the so called "reliable sources" and they consists of a personal PF website, the Shroomery, and some website called "Fungifun.org". Golden Halo is talked about on the Shroomery and also the personel website GoldenHaloMushroomSporeCompany.net and also Reddit, Instagram...the list goes on. Please advise the distinction as of why the PF Tek is listed with no "reliable sources" as you say but what I have listed isn't acceptable? 2601:19B:C400:8C40:E44D:C72:F97F:A475 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Addictedpeach So which is the peer reviewed journal for PF Tek...is it the Shroomery? or is FungiFun.org...I'm not sure I've heard of them? Are they a peer reviewed journal? What is acceptable for one person should be acceptable for all or it's not fair. Addictedpeach (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Addictedpeach

What are you talking about? I just looked at the Psilocybe mushrooms article. LOTS of reliable sources: books, journal articles, etc. Not a "personal website" in sight. MeegsC (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Look up PF Tek on wikipedia....PF TEK...you say that wikipedia only publishes with reliable sources...as a comparision the entry for PF Tek relies on the "shroomery and something called FungiFun.org as sources. This is an example of proof of an entry without peer reviewed journals or reliable sources mentioned. The rules were not applied to the PF TEK entry in Wikipedia. Another question then If a story about Steve W and his find were to be published in Heedy Vermont Magazine or Plant Media Project would this be a "reliable" enough source for entry? Addictedpeach2601:19B:C400:8C40:E44D:C72:F97F:A475 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay - let's have a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I see. Lots of informal commentary. Needs some sources. Might be time to buff the species article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tagged PF Tek as unreferenced and moved the external link. Unless someone wants to work on the article it should be deleted or perhaps moved to draft space.
On the Golden Halo, the only semi-coherent source I could find has it as a variety of cubensis, although without anything that meets the standard of a reliable source. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Question on Antrodia cinnamomea


Is the Antrodia cinnamomea a type of Antrodia cinnanomea, are they the same, or one is mispelled? I was searching for Niu-Chang mushrooms and found this wiki page and a research paper .
Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marasama: Index Fungorum has no entries for the spelling cinnanomea, but many for the spelling cinnamomea, so cinnanomea is just a mis-spelling of cinnamomea. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Peter, thank you for the reply. Marasama (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)