Talk:Imleria badia

Comments

Formerly Xerocomus? More like, formerly Boletus. Someone please change the data to Xerocomus badius. It's what's accepted nowadays worldwide.

Not according to here, which passes as a pretty good attempt at consensus. Cas Liber 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Claiming this one now. Definitely a species which deserves a decent article. Review to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• A link to common name in the lead probably wouldn't go amiss.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Often considered a poor relation of the Cep (Boletus edulis), it is nevertheless highly regarded by some authors such as Antonio Carluccio." May be unclear that edibility is being talked about here.

rewritten to clarify it's about eating it Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Viscipellis and Ixocomus by Lucien Quélet in 1886 and 1888,[4] respectively;" Why the comma?

the Quélet ref was slotted after the comma to get it close to the name. I've removed the comma which was there to hold the ref, and I think we need to get one for the first name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Added a ref for Quélet 1886. Sasata (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1931, Edouard-Jean Gilbert reclassified it the genus Xerocomus," Odd phrase

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "(as Xerocomus var. limatulus)" Should be "(as Xerocomus badius var. limatulus)", presumably?

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• How do we distinguish the glaber variety? Where's it found?

finding material is insanely elusive, however I just noticed the book that describes it is in my uni library, so will fetch to add most likely on Tuesday. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have the book in front on me ... will add soon. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sasata (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The Bay Bolete is common in coniferous" Common name? Capitalisation?

lower cased Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• The insect point in the description would probably be better suited to the ecology section.

moved Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Some slightly pickier points. I'm happy to promote without these being dealt with.

• The maggot point in the lead feels a little incongruous

maggot infestation is a really common problem when picking boletes - so the fact that this one is relatively maggot free is quite notable (remember we can't cultivate them so all boletes that are eaten are picked in the wild.....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Singer paragraph is a little difficult to follow
• Why mention the French common name?

I thought it was interesting to highlight how broad the association with the word "bay" was. My french mushroom book harps on about it the most.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• What do the names of the varieties mean?

• Added etymolgies for two of them. Based on a net search, I think limatulus means "somewhat polished", but cannot find a reliable source for this. Do you have anything Cas? Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

got limatulus Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Images and sources seem fine. Generally, very strong, and absolutely ready for GA status. A quick question- if this is mycorrhizal, how come it can grow on stumps? J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The roots of nearby trees can penetrate the decaying wood of stumps, allowing mycorrhizal fungi to grow there and creating the illusion that they are growing as saprotrophs. Will try to remember where I read this, and add it as a source. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the hyphae of a fungi grow throughout the soil and objects in/on the soil. Growing out of a stump or off of a dead log means little without further knowledge. I have found many mycorrhizal species growing in odd places.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. If you're aiming for FA, and I don't see any reason that this wouldn't be possible, the prose still feels a little choppy in places. I'd recommend either getting an outside editor to have a hack at it or coming back to it in a few months. We're also missing some information on certain varieties-

• The distribution/morphology of var. limatulus is missing.
• Both MycoBank and Index Fungorum list the following names as legitimate, but they are not mentioned in this article-
  • Xerocomus badius f. labyrinthicus
  • Xerocomus badius f. vaccinus
  • Boletus badius var. calceolus
  • Boletus badius var. glutinosus
  • Boletus badius var. nummularius

I guess that getting hold of the literature for this may be something of a slog, but I do think they belong in the article if it's going to hit featured status- one possibility would be a table of forms and varieties, listing authors, distributions and distinctive morphology. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks JM, that was a helpful review. I agree about the inclusion of the forms/varieties as important for FA status (and also that it will be a slog...). I have a Italian bolete book that discusses some of this, but will have to feed it through Google translate and see if I can understand what comes out the other end. Sasata (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

agreed/good points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS issues

WP:MEDRS is clear about the use of secondary sources to establish the notability of any medically relevant claim: "When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight." Consider this statement from the article: "In laboratory experiments, extracts of Boletus badius fruit bodies have been shown to have significant antioxidative properties in vitro." Why is this worth inclusion in the article? What secondary sources show that the in vitro antioxidative properties of Boletus badius are notable? The same applies to the two claims in the last sentence of the same paragraph. It's disingenuous to include preliminary, in vitro information and not expect some readers to conclude that it would be good for their health to eat this fungus. At the very least it should be stated that there is no reliable evidence of health benefits. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I replaced a primary with a secondary source for the antioxidant properties, and removed the 2010 Scottish study that found antimicrobial activity. I kept the in vitro antitumor activity, as it was already cited to a secondary source. Sasata (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm still not entirely convinced the article meets WP:MEDRS standards (which an FA should), I'm not a "hawk" on MEDRS issues, and it's certainly better sourced now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Imleria

The taxonomists have decided to name this species Imleria badia. Sasata (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow - now is it monotypic.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not anymore!. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

 Not done: no edit is requested --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)