Talk:Multiclavula mucida
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.svg){kind=link}
The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page .
Date: 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Good articles Multiclavula mucida 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 : March 24, 2024. (Reviewed version ).
Review : March 24, 2024. (Reviewed version ).
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon 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
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
GA Review
[edit ]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Multiclavula mucida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Comments
[edit ]A fascinating and very entertainingly written article on a strange-looking lichen.
- "club lichen": I thought that was Cladonia ? But that's the trouble with vernacular names.
- Maybe you're thinking of "cup lichens"? Anyway, it made me go back and look at sources, which made me realise that "club lichen" is also used as a common name for the entire genus, so I added that fact. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- A question more than a comment: the lichen is very pale, and (I learn) the algae are clumped into globules rather than being scattered. This is reminiscent of the clumped configuration of chromatophores, which makes them seem less colourful. Is that what's happening here, that the quantity of algae is typical for lichens but the distribution is different?
- As is alluded to later, mycologists/lichenologists have historically disagreed how much of a lichen this species is, as there isn't algae in the fruiting bodies, only in the scummy thallus. But it's agreed that this algal scum needs to be there for the fungus to grow, and Masumoto identified the photobiont. So to answer your question, yes, there's an unusual distribution of photobiont in this lichen. Someday I'll make an article on borderline lichens which will further explore the edge cases of symbiotic fungal-algal relationships. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Ah, how very interesting!
- At the end of 'Habitat and distribution', the "Moreover, ..." connective doesn't work as there is no relationship between the habitat loss issue and the wide documentation. You could reorder the sentences to make it work better.
- Reworked this part. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Is "primeval forest" just a synonym of "old-growth forest"?
- Yes; I used both ways of saying it in the article prose so a reader would not be confused by the lesser known synonym used in the source title and text. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- You use the form M. mucida in 'Description' but then switch back to the full name in the later sections. Suggest we use the short form there.
- It feels a bit lumpy to start the 'Current classification' with the name of a different genus.
- Tweaked prose to address this. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- "first identified this species an extratropical lichen" -> please add "as".
- Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Is this British or American English? "Colour" or "moldy"?
Images
[edit ]- Love the 'scum lover fruiting gregariously', must try to use that somewhere!
- All the images are on Commons and have been verified to have the right licenses.
Sources
[edit ]- [4] synonyms line up, ok
- Why is [5] about Lichenomphalia velutina relevant? Doesn't verify the claims made here.
- Oops – I linked to the wrong species, now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- [7] ok
- [12] ok
- [18] ok
- [26] ok
Thanks for a very quick review. My changes are here. Esculenta (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
- Great, it's a GA. If you have a moment, it'd be much appreciated if you could pick an article from the GAN queue! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Reassessment
[edit ]- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. Silver seren C 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- I checked a random line (citations removed):
"This species is commonly found on decomposing wood, often in the presence of algae. It thrives on a wide variety of substrates, including bamboo, beech, cedar, poplar, and oak."
Poplar and oak are cited to [1] . But that paper doesn't say poplar and oak. It says Quercus and Populus trunks. While oak and poplar are in the Quercus and Populus families, they're not the only ones. For example, Quercus praeco isn't oak. I don't know anything about taxonomy though, so maybe I'm missing something. InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC) InfernoHues (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. Silver seren C 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yeah fair enough. I just wanted to spot check a random line to see if everything verified. Besides the note I made above everything checked out. I just looked at a couple more random lines right now and they check out too. I don't really see the point in delisting this. InfernoHues (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Quercus redirects to Oak, my friend. Seems like we consider it equivalent even if there may be technically some species exceptions. Seems to me that if the reference is using a general genus term like Quercus and Populus, it is just as accurate to use the more common terms of oak and poplar for our readers' sake. Silver seren C 23:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- This sentence does not seem to be backed up by the source:
"Previously considered native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe, M. mucida has been increasingly observed across most European countries and globally."
InfernoHues (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. Silver seren C 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
Thus, identification of the European taxon has been rather secure and all other distributions have been compared to it
", because the original description for M. mucida was the European taxon and not the other two. Silver seren C 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- True, that would be the range described in the sources used in the paper, the one by Petersen (1967) that is discussed in the first paragraph of the current reference's abstract. Do you want that to also be added as a source? Silver seren C 03:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't mention "Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- The north temperate zone is stated in the source because that was the range after the folding in of the other species names that were subsequently found to be the same as M. mucida (so Clavaria and Lentaria). That's why the section on M. mucida further down in the paper states "
- The source doesn't say "native to Northern Europe and the mountains of Central Europe," it says "known throughout the north temperate zone," a much bigger area. InfernoHues (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- That's...literally what that paper is about. How it was originally described in Europe, then later in Australia by other researchers under other names that were then folded into M. mucida and the paper itself is about describing them newly in Tasmania, along with the two other Multiclavula species. Perhaps the years when things were described could be added to make things more clear of when these distinctions were made (since even the reference is from 1986, so not exactly new at this point), but otherwise, the text in the article is a proper summary of its material. Silver seren C 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
References
- ^ Shiryaev, Anton (2008). "New and interesting clavarioid fungi from the hemiboreal zone of Finland" (PDF). Karstenia. 48: 29–32. doi:10.29203/ka.2008.426.