Talk:Hydnum repandum

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hydnum repandum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good topic for a GA. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review so quickly. I may try to push this one through to FAC sometime soon, so I appreciate any extra nitpicks! Sasata (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "shaped like spines rather than gills" When you link gills, you're not linking to what the structures are shaped like, you're linking to the structures themselves. How about "in the form of spines rather than gills"?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I note that both Mycobank and Index Fungorum list a number of lower-than-species taxa that you don't. I don't think every taxonomic oddity is required for GAC, but any major ones that have received any secondary coverage should be mentioned. For FAC, you'll probably want them all.

• I agree. I just worked up the "important" ones (i.e. the ones I came across in my literature review), but will make it comprehensive for the FAC. There's also another dozen or so obscure synonyms that I haven't included here, but will add for FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Molecular studies have shown that the current species concept for H. repandum may need revision as there is a poor overlap between morphological and molecular species concept." Concepts? I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think you're using "concept" in a way with which I'm unfamiliar. If you're happy with it, leave it be.

• Fixed my typo to "concepts". Does that resolve your concern? Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, I'm not concerned about this at GAC, and I realise the difficulty, but listing only North American lookalikes gives the article a slight geographical bias. (Again also with the details of NA distribution. To my European eyes, North America basically is just Canada, the US and Mexico and then a load of island nations- is there anything else on the mainland?)

• I'll work on this. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, for now, I just removed the unnecessary sentence about N.A. distribution. The lookalikes section is now balanced with two Euro and two N.American species. Sasata (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Pied-de-Mouton" - Translation?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The edibility section gets a bit how-to-y in places, which could certainly get fussed about at FAC.

• Worked on this section – how is it now? Sasata (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The very short "research" section is OK for GAC, but not great for FAC. Here's a suggestion: Move the Chernobyl stuff to the research section and the mention of the red squirrels could perhaps be moved to edibility.

• I think I can expand the research section so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. Will need a few days. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Great, but I do also worry about the Chernobyl/squirrel para. It feels a bit "and here's some more facts which don't really fit in anywhere" at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have moved those sentences as per your suggestion; research/chemistry section expansion in progress. Sasata (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Was Petersen's proposal in 1977 or 1978? Apparently some inconsistency between article text/footnote/footnote names

• 1977, now fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You cite some pretty obscure looking sources, but all seem appropriate. Generally a strong article- while it's pretty much a GA now, there are other bits which will need to be done for FAC. I'll have a delve into some of my books and see if there's anything good there. (I gave my dad a great book on edibles for Christmas a few years ago, which will definitely cover this one. Sadly, I won't have access to that for a few months!) J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Complete Guide to British Mushrooms and Toadstools. Collins. 2009. p. 300. ISBN 978007232246. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) Notes that it is similar to Theleforaceae species, but that they generally have a "tough leathery texture". Also similar to H. rufescens, but that "is smaller, with a deeper apricot or orange colour". Notes that it grows on soil or leaf litter.

• Added info from this source. Sasata (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Mabey R (2007). Food for Free. Collins. pp. 196–7. ISBN 9780007247684. Recommends removing soil from spines with a knife and removing spines of older specimens. Recommends boiling to remove bitter taste, after which simmered in milk/stock or chopped to be fried. "Serve on toast with a dash of sherry sprinkled over the top. Its firm texture makes it good for freezing (once cooked), and it can also be pickled."

Added bits from this. Sasata (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

More to come; hopefully some will be useful. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Courtecuisse R (1999). Mushrooms of Britain & Europe. Collins. ISBN 9780002200127. Notes that those under conifers have "an unpleasantly strong taste". Notes that it's monomitic.

• Mentioned the conifer/bitterness connection; could you supply a page #? Sasata (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Phillips R (1981). Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Europe. London: Pan Books. p. 241. ISBN 0-330-26441-9. Late summer to late autumn.

• Added similar seasonal info from a more recent source. Sasata (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks like this is progressing well- a little further expansion before FAC seems to be possible, but, for now, this makes a solid GA. I'm now happy to promote, but, as a note, Courtecuisse doesn't mention that that older specimens are bitter, just that those growing under conifers are poor tasting. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've amended that statement. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Amino Acid Profile

I corrected the amino acid profile, based on the reference but this was reverted with no comment by Sasata who disliked the "bulky table" and then reintroduced one of my corrections partially, and in his own format.

The table makes it easier to see the values for each amino acid. In contrast, separating them with a mixture of commas and semicolons is harder to read making it easier for errors to go overlooked.

But when dealing with data, it is very important to get the correct numbers. Read the actual study tables; don't just delete the corrections I made and revert to the old, wrong values. Do we really need an edit war here? I think you should undo your last commit and instead bring the issue on this talk page. Thank you. Xkit (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Comment moved from Talk:Hydnum repandum/GA1. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this clarify things? Sasata (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

According to table 3, H. repandum's lysine content is 4.2%; the article says 4.3%.

But intraspecies protein variability can occur for mushrooms. "Crude protein variability within a species can be seen not only in Table 2, but also in values of Table 1 reported by different laboratories…" [Kalač]. Thank you.Xkit (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

initials

The author initials in the references are not treated consistently as they should be in an FA. Spicemix (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Found in North America

I have reinstated the content which states this fungus is found in North and Central America. The following sources all state that this fungus is commonly found in North America.

Yes agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Not found in North America

Hydnum repandum does not occur in North America. Of the four references above which say that it does, all rely on outdated information. The first is current as of 2016, and cites the following evidence that Hydnum repandum occurs in North America: "However, evidence from root tips of Pinus muricata (Fig. 1, GU180269) indicated that H. repandum occurs in western North America."

Niskanen et. al. 2018 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00275514.2018.1477004) published this species as Hydnum neorepandum, citing GU180269 as one of the studied sequences. This paper also designated an epitype for Hydnum repandum, NR_164553. This sequence does not match GU180269.

The species referenced by GU180269 is now known as Hydnum washingtonianum, per http://mathenylab.utk.edu/Site/Publications_files/Swenie_Hydnum_easternNA_taxonomy.2018.pdf.

Regarding the distribution of the real H. repandum, the most recent and reliable source, Niskanen 2018 says "Ecology and distribution: In Picea abies–dominated forests mixed with Betula, Pinus, Populus, Corylus, and/ or Quercus. Also in Abies and Fagus forests. Producing basidiomata late summer to late autumn. Europe. One sequence (JQ063050) from an ectomycorrhizal root tip of Pakaraimaea dipterocarpacea in Venezuela deposited in GenBank requires further confirmation given its extralimital distribution and host plant data."

The phylogenetic tree on page 4 of Niskanen 2018 shows the true distribution of Hydnum repandum.

All available DNA evidence in Genbank agrees with Nisnanen's 2018 conclusions about the distribution of Hydnum repandum.

See also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30215579/

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We will need to review the other sources and if this is accurate, identify the mushrooms being sold in Canada as this new species. This one is a tough call, but you have convinced me. Please feel free to rework those sections of the article to reflect these new studies. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)