This article 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
taxobox: small font for authorities; link Quelet; I like to include year of publication (also for the binomial authority; years in parentheses is the correct ICBN format, I've been told) and put in order by year
I had no idea what a pip is and had to look it up… how about changing to seed? Does apple really need to be linked?
I included the link on the offchance someone didn't know what a pip was; I guess it must be a British English term. Changed to seed.
J Milburn (
talk)
01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Arne Aronsen's site is an excellent resource for European Mycenas, check out his page on this species
here. There's more info that could be added, like its conservation status in Norway, more microscopic details, and its infrageneric classification
Oh, hello... I've expanded the article with it somewhat, but I would rather not depend on it for all the grisly details of the description, as it is a self-published source.
J Milburn (
talk)
01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The article for Mycena oortiana Hora, Trans. Br. mycol. Soc. 43(2): 452 (1960) is available
here; that article also gives reference to a description by Pearson in an earlier volume of the same journal, available
here (I was very happy when the BMS made available older copies of their journal at Cyberliber last year... used to have to go to the library to get those)
Saccardo put a Latin description of the mushroom in his 1905 Sylloge Fungorum XVII, which is available
here. I can't read Latin, but I get the feeling that the species was named after a "G. Arcangeli" (who I'm guessing is
Giovanni Arcangeli) and maybe he made the original collection? Maybe Ucucha could confirm?
I've noted that it's a possibility is was named after him, based on the fact he collected it. If you feel this constitutes original research, I'll remove it.
J Milburn (
talk)
16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think it's self-evident that this is the case, although it's not possible with the sources we have to confirm this 100%. I'm ok with leaving this like it as it is unlikely to be contested. If someone does challenge it later, it will be easy to alter the wording to remove the inference that one is based on the other (i.e. just mention that Arcangeli made the first collection and let the reader make the inference on their own).
Sasata (
talk)
18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If you look
here, you could probably just about piece together a citation to the protologue; it gives the title, page range, author of article (Barsali—not Bresadola) and some Googling would probably reveal what Bull. Soc. Bot. Ital. is short for. Also, note the mention of Pisa where the original collection was made, this would fit with Giovanni Arcangeli, who was director of the
Botanical Garden of Pisa.