Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cortinarius violaceus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2016 [1].

Cortinarius violaceus[edit]

Nominator(s) J Milburn (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn and I have buffed this one intermittently over the years. I reckon it's as complete as possibly can be and we've even had some input from a world expert on the fungus :)) Anyway, take a look, we'll answer queries pretty pronto and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley I am completely ignorant about fungi, but here goes.

  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships with various tree species, C. violaceus is found predominantly in conifer forests in North America and deciduous forests in Europe.". You say below that it also forms mycorrhizal relationships with other plant species such as bracken. I think it would be helpful to say here that it is not wholly dependent on trees.
  • I assume from what you say that C. violaceus is wholly dependent on its symbiotic relationship with plant roots and cannot survive without it. If so, I think you should spell this out.
    • I would strongly assume that this is the case, but some fungal species can grow under various conditions. I don't have a source either way. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other populations once identified as C. violaceus or close to that species have now been described variously as C. palatinus, C. neotropicus, C. altissimus, C. kioloensis and C. hallowellensis." I find the word "variously" confusing here. It could mean that the same species are variously described by different names, but I assume you mean they are different species. I would leave out the word "variously".
  • "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I find this sentence incomprehensible, no doubt due to my ignorance of the subject. Why is a starting date needed at all, and how could Fries sanction the names of species which were not discovered until after his death?
    • Sanctioned name and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants may provide some clarity. The starting date (it is my understanding) more-or-less corresponds to the beginning of more formalised study of fungi (and the same kind of thing exists with animals). There's no need for Fries to sanction names after his death; names only need to be sanctioned if the formal description came before the starting date. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I think I understand what you mean. The general rule is that names are sanctioned by the first describer, and for any species described by Linnaeus that is him, but mycologists initially ignored him and only counted descriptions from 1821 on. I was confused by you saying that the rule applies to all species, not just the ones known at the time. It would be clear if you changed "which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." to "which meant the name of any species described by Fries required his sanction (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no, Sanctioning was done by Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon). So what happened was that Fries selected and used a name by an earlier author and this was signified by the ":Fr". But finally in the 1980s this whole situation was overhauled and the official starting date set at Linnaeus/1758 like other organisms. I was/am tempted to leave this whole sanctioning thing out but lots of older textbooks and articles still have the notation in it, so thought it was worth noting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: for all organisms, the official name is the earliest legitimate name, so which one came first is really important to establish. Now naturalists have been naming things for centuries and many organisms have a host of early scientific names that predate Linnaean taxonomy. But Linnaeus was set for plants and animals as he established binomial names. Fungi were set later (Fries/1821) but then recalibrated to Linnaeus anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I see I misunderstood "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I thought you were making a general statement that names of fungi required Fries's sanction (and was confused how this could apply to fungi discovered later). If you changed to "the name Cortinarius violaceus required" I think it would be clearer. Does "L" stand for Latin? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "L." stands for "Linnaeus", who first described the fungus. All naturalists have a specific name that is used as an authority after the binomial name of the organism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fact that these species diverged relatively recently indicates that some form of dispersal must have taken place across large bodies of water." Has there been any discussion of the means of dispersal? Presumably the spores could easily have been transported by migrating birds.
    • I do not have access to this source, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source article is actually online here. It states that long-distace dispersal was originally thought to be unlikely for ectomycorrhizal fungi due to geographic and climate barriers and lack of host plant at the destination. However, the timing of the spread of C. violaceus and relatives (as well as other species), suggests that this dispersal is actually not uncommon - the dispersals are often "founder events" where a small sample makes it to a remote location and spreads. Article doesn't say much more than that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • "developed a symbiotic relationship with pines, as well as multiple flowering plants;" You do not mention flowering plants as symbionts below.
    • Flowering plant has a technical meaning, according to which (say) oaks are flowering plants, even if you won't find them in a florist's. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These species are differentiated due to the latter population's rounder spores." And by their preference for pines or deciduous trees?
  • "Fruit bodies of C. v. hercynicus are less robust than those of the nominate subspecies." This implies that C. v. hercynicus is a valid sub-species, which you suggest elsewhere is controversial.
    • Yes; this is tricky as there are at least three possible explanations for what's going on with the "subspecies". I've reworded. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with mosses of the genera Hylocomium and Pleurozium, and, in moister areas, big shaggy-moss (Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus), as well as the buttercup-family shrub Hepatica nobilis" Is it known whether C. violaceus has a symbiotic relationship with these species?
    • I do not have access to that source at the moment, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These species are not mentioned as symbionts of C. violaceus. As the article discusses hosts extensively, I suspect it isn't known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not cover nutrition, if that is the right word for a fungus. The article on Ectomycorrhiza states that the fungus assists the plant in getting access to water and nutrients and receives carbohydrates in return. Does this apply to C. violaceus?
    • Yes- I'd imagine that this species's relationship is fairly typical of mycorrhizal fungi, and I've not seen any sources suggesting otherwise. I'd be inclined to think that we don't need to spell out the whole nutritive process for the same reason that we don't need the full details of the digestive system in each mammal species's article (unless it's unusual). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a brief comment would be helpful, such as "C. violaceus has a similar nutritive system to other mycorrhizal fungi with x and y", and a link to an article with a fuller explanation - if there is a source for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, all sources talking about the mushroom assume the reader is familiar with the general ecology of mycorrhizal fungi, and hence do not describe the mechanics. I could get a source unrelated to this particular species that talks of ectomycorrhizal relationships and maybe put it in a footnote or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite this source] for a statement that C. violaceus is a mycorrhizal fungus, which obtains carbon from plant roots and supplies them with mineral nutrients from the soil. I would put this in the main text rather than a footnote, although this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If different populations have preferences for different trees and there is no genetic difference between them, then that implies a cultural preference, which I assume would be extraordinary for fungi. Do biologists who think C. violaceus is a single species deny that some prefer pines and some deciduous trees, or do they have an explanation for the different preferences?
    • It could be that they don't have different preferences at all; that any particular C. violaceus organism could with either kind of tree: "Emma Harrower and colleagues, on limited molecular testing, found no genetic or ecological difference between the two taxa." I note, too, that people who disagree about classification here might disagree about the best explanation of the data or they may have differing ideas about "species" (see, for instance, lumpers and splitters) or both. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Harrower concedes the testing was limited and did not conclusively sink hercynicus as a taxon just yet. Genetic testing is more complicated than it looks.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I assume the dispute is between those who think that hercynicus is a separate taxon with a different ecology, and those who think that there is one taxon and ecology. No one thinks that there is one genetically identical species with different cultural symbiont preferences in different populations? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a certain extent; there is inevitable variation within species (for an extreme example, compare a pug to an wolfhound), so it could be that there are some organisms in the the species which prefer pine and some which prefer hardwoods. These separate groups within the species could be delineated as subspecies, varieties, forms or some other sub-specific grouping, but, alternatively, they could just be thrown together as the same species (depending on both the data available and the views of the scientists in question), so there are a range of possibilities; the "there is only one" and "there are two completely separate species" are at either end of that range. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: My reading is that the two forms have been accepted for decades if not centuries on the basis of ecological and some morphological differences. Limited genetic testing has thrown that wide open but the latter researcher (Harrower) is cautious in dismissing the two forms though states that at the moment the testing is looking to show no distinctness. I find that alot of scientists are cautious and conservative in either splitting or lumping taxa until the data is pretty firm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article and I learned a lot, but I found some points puzzling, no doubt due to my ignorance. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking a look; I've made a start on your comments and will be back shortly. Cas may also offer comments in the mean time/subsequently. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right then, here now...Some stuff looks obvious to me but I miss that it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just two points outstanding. I have replied above on nutrients and you have not replied to my comment on the starting date of fungal taxonomy. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok added now - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FunkMonk[edit]

  • This article was in good shape after my GA review, so I cannot find anything to add other than: "Cortinarius violaceus extract demonstrate" Should it be demonstrates? Extract is singular? FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verb tweaked..and thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
Copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hence, the name no longer requires the ratification of Fries's authority": Someone who died before 1900 can't give his authority today, so this needs some sort of rewording. Also, I'm probably going to trim the bit about the colon unless it has special significance.
the colon is important as it is the postscript for the name. Fries might be dead but his authority was required until 1987. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. If someone said "You'll need the ratification of Casliber's authority for that at FAR through at least 2100", what would such a statement possibly mean? On the colon: I'm dubious, because it isn't the postscript any longer; defunct orthography generally isn't a burning interest at FAC. But you'd know better than me. - Dank (push to talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon) are/were the only two mycologists to offically Sanction names and get the colon treatment. I'd describe Shakespeare's plays in the present tense and he's been dead alot longer.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The implication seems to be that they needed a dead man's approval for something. I'm sure it means something else, but I don't know what, and I bet the readers won't know either. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the primary appeal ... are their appearance.": First: "the appeal is". Second: this seems to me to be phrased in the form of an opinion. If you want to keep this wording, it would probably be best to attribute it in the lead, just as it is in the text.
I get where you're coming from - there is clear consensus they are pretty boring to eat and pretty colourful to look at so am in two minds about attributing it to arora only. Need to think about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Lots of things would work for me, including "Though they are edible, the appearance of these mushrooms is more distinctive than their taste". - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm never happy with the first sentence of mushroom articles. It's not your fault (or mine I hope) ... the problem is that, for some readers, this is an article about a mushroom, and for others it's an article about a fungus that produces a mushroom. I'd prefer something that makes sense to either POV, something like: "Cortinarius violaceus is a fungus with a mushroom commonly known as the violet webcap or violet cort. Native across the Northern Hemisphere, ...".
I agree this is frustrating on how people viwe and describe fungi. Will try to play with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works, as long as we don't take too long to mention "fungus". - Dank (push to talk)
Ok, how is this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A thing of beauty. I've got that saved as a go-by for future mushroom TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stem": This word doesn't seem out of place to me, since you read the same word on any can of mushrooms, so I won't change it. But if I remember right, it seems imprecise to Sasata and some others. If the issue comes up, "stalk" seems to work for everyone.
Personally I am happy using stem, stipe or stalk - have changed to stalk in intro and introduce the more exact "stipe" in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "sporting gills with an adnate connection to the stem": I'm going to have a talk at WT:FAC sometime soon about my preference for leads that make more of an effort not to leave non-experts in the dust. I get that "adnate" is an important classifier for mushrooms, but couldn't we either leave it out of the lead, or give an approximate description of the shape? Something like: "... adnate (right-angle) connection ..."
How about this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships": "Symbiotic with tree roots" would be so much easier for the typical reader, especially the typical Main Page reader.
part done - have left mycorrhizal in parentheses there as an important concept Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately cited except as follows:
    "Gottingen, Sweden" Likely not.
    "Stockholm" given that you require countries of greater prominence to have countries named, the errant Sweden might be moved here.
  • That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
gosh! wonder how that happened? fixed now. thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

The article seems impressive. A few niggles:

  • "C. kioloensis" is mentioned in the lead but not in the body of the text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "German botanist Otto Kuntze", but other people mentioned in the Taxonomy section could also have descriptors.
added a bunch. Am stumped as to how to describe Persoon though...I think most folks have avoided that as his nationality can't be done in one descriptor... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Molecular investigation of webcaps" - What are webcaps?
The genus - I added this. is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group ... originated in Australasia and began diverging" - diverging from what?
a common ancestor. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hercynian Forest" - I think you should mention where this forest is.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smaller spores and mushrooms" - I would prefer "fruiting bodies".
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what are the phylogenetic relationships of this species?
Its closest relatives are the species listed in the section at the bottom. I forgot to mention that so added now. Does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 to 12 centimetres (2 1⁄4 to 4 3⁄4 in) tall - I'm not too keen on this conversion. If one of the metric numbers is twice the other, so should the imperial equivalent be.
is now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4 centimetres (1 1⁄2 in)". At the beginning of the paragraph, you had 3.5 cm being equivalent to 1 1⁄2 inches. Why not simply use decimal conversions?
here's the thing. I don't use imperial units as I am in Oz, but some folks that do recommended fractions rather than decimal places for them at one FAC some time ago. Works ok most of the time but the three digits in question here defy the template....will do a bit later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no pleasing everyone. Here in the UK, we started going metric ages ago but never got around to completing the process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have dispensed with convert template and found fraction markup so have rejigged so two cms don't make same in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. violaceus mushrooms contain around 100 times more iron than those of most other fungi." - Fruiting bodies again? I prefer to use "mushrooms" more specifically as the white things one buys in the supermarket or gathers in pasture, using fungi and their fruiting bodies for other types. Perhaps I am wrong.
No clear cut answers here - I'd use "mushroom" for accessibility and is technically accurate in lay terms. If you walked though the forest and saw one, wouldn't you call it a "purple mushroom"? Not hugely fussed though.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call them fungus, and in the UK, people speak of going on "fungus forays" in autumn. I'm not hugely fussed either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. Something strange seems to have happened to the diameter of the cap! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My brain went to sleep - was looking at wrong value when detemplatising that bit. Now fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am happy with the alterations and improvements made to the article and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cortinarius_violaceus/archive1&oldid=1136098328"