Talk:Harrya chromapes
Harrya chromapes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 9, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from Harrya chromapes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Points of Interest[edit]
- Opening Paragraph
- The evidence for erecting a new genera included morphological features, which were confirmed by the molecular evidence.
- In fact, molecular evidence that was inconclusive existed before this study, I believe it was in Manfred's thesis and a 2000 paper, "28S rDNA sequence data and chemotaxonomical analyses on the generic concept of Leccinum (Boletales)".
- I do not believe the "scabers" are true scabers, that is, formed in the same manner as the true scaber of Leccinum and Leccinellum. I'll check later though cause I cannot remember for sure
- Taxonomy
- We now know that the spore print color range that was previously associated with Tylopilus is no limited to Tylopilus
- Similar Species
- The yellow foot seems to me to be the only constant feauture. I have collected specimens that lacked the scabers and/or lacked any pink tones. No matter what, even after a good rain, I have always seen the yellow foot. Though sometimes I did have to cut the mushroom open a bit to find it.
- Not sure if it is appropriate, but I think, as do some others, there may be two lineages: one for conifers and one for oaks
- Fun Fact
All the MEN specimens in the paper were collected less than 10 miles from the type locality. All I have time for right nowM.E.Nuhn (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Harrya chromapes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I worry that jumping straight into taxonomic controversies in the lead will be off-putting to non-mycologist readers.
- Are Ceriomyces and Krombholzia still in use? If so, redlinks would be useful; if not, mentioning as much, if possible, would be a helpful addition.
- "Harria" I assume this is a typing error?
- "and does not stain blue when it is bruised or injured" Worth mentioning that this is a useful identifying characteristic for boletes? There are lots of colours that it doesn't stain!
- "The tubes are depressed around the top of the stipe and are almost free from attachment." Do you mean the individual tubes are depressed, or the hymenium is depressed? This sentence is difficult to follow.
- "layer of tangle hyphae" Do you mean tangled, or is "tangle hyphae" a term I'm unfamiliar with?
- "although it shares a similar yellow stipe base." I don't think it can share a similar yellow base- it either has a similar yellow base, or shares a yellow base.
- "Sciophila, and Mydaea" - species of the genera
- There's nothing about the edibility of the species in the main article- at least a line or two would be good.
- The formatting on the Singer 1947 note is throwing me a little. Same with "Martínez-Carrera D, Curvetto N, Sobal P, Morales P, Mora VM".
Images are great (shame the lead doesn't have the red on the stipe, but nevermind) and the sources seem completely appropriate. I'm sure I'll be able to promote once the above issues are resolved. (I made a couple of small edits.) J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)