Talk:Amanita gemmata

Amanita gemmata 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
November 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Sources

Hi! What means "(Beutler & Der Marderosian 1981; Chilton & Ott 1976)"? I think it's too inaccurate. --Danny (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means the authors of the particular name. Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and intend to start within the next two days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll be ready and waiting to tackle your comments. Sasata (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

My first impression is of a well written, well laid out article. As always there are some nit-picks:

"The fruit body is yellow in colour. The cap is a dull to golden shade of yellow," - Doesn't this say the same thing twice?

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... thick, slightly thick at the base." - Too many "thicks".

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... characterized by white warts" - I'm surprised these are called "warts". I thought they were the fragmentary remains of the burst veil but I expect you are correct.

Yes, the fragmentary veil remnants are known as warts. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... spores are mainly ellipsoid in shape" - What shape are they when they are not ellipsoid?

Reworded. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But deaths are rare and occur in severe cases." - I think this could be better phrased.

Changed now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"clade within Amanita with its close relatives the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria), A. farinosa and A. roseitincta." - Why is the fly agaric named in full but the two other species abbreviated?

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The mushroom is commonly known as the "gemmed Amanita", the "jonquil Amanita",[10] the "jeweled death cap",[11] or the "European gemmed Amanita"." - This is four common names while the lead includes just three?

I don't think the "European gemmed Amanita" has widespread acceptance as a common name, so didn't want to give it prominence in the lead, but also didn't want to not mention it in the article as it's on the website of a highly respected Amanita authority. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... combined analyses of nLU-DNA and mtSSU-DNA sequences" - This caption does not agree with the DNA elements mentioned in the text.

I think it does now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in "Description" has no references.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The surface of the thin-walled spores is smooth, and they contain one to several small oil droplets" - Part singular part plural.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "hyphae" is wikilinked. My previous understanding was that it was part of the "mycelium", buried in the substrate. You are giving it a different meaning so I expect I am wrong.

A hypha is a generic fungal cell, so it is both the unit cell element of the underground mycelium you're thinking of, as well as of the fruit body. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The hyphae of the cap cuticle is filamentous, interwoven, and radially arranged." - Part singular part plural.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink "Russulales"

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Oleiferous hyphae are common in Russulales species" - This seems a curious statement, Amanitas not being Russulales.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" According to mycologists Pierre Neville and Serge Poumarat, the mushroom species A. amici, from the Mediterranean region, is similar but has a greater size. But the measurements of the cap and stem widths have been found equal to A. g. f. amici. For this reason A. g. f. amici is considered a synonym of A. gemmata." - These three sentences are a bit disjointed and unclear.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Neville and Poumarat further state the true reason of the name A. gemmata still existing" - This could be rephrased.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... but has clamps unlike A. gemmata." - What are "clamps" in this context?

Linked. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Other differences are slightly small spores and different structure of volval remnants on the cap." - another awkwardly worded sentence.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...can be due to the presence of muscimol and ibonetic acid, which was found to be in lower concentrations in a study." - What precisely is in lower concentrations?

Removed the second part, sourced to an old study. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Symptoms were similar to that caused by ingestion of Amanita phalloides, including acute gastroenteritis and acute hepatitis." - "those" rather than "that".

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Death due to poisoning is rare, and only in severe cases- which first results in coma, convulsions and finally death." - This sentence is unsatisfactory in several ways. Perhaps it should be split.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"manzanita" - Should this be capitalized like the trees?

Probably. Capitalization of common names is inconsistent among tree articles, but I get the general impression that they are to be capitalized (not sure why though). Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen them being capitalized anywhere, though. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there is some inconsistency in whether you use "A. gemmata" or "Amanita gemmata" and how you deal with the other species of Amanita.

I've standardized to abbreviated form in all instances after the full name is given in each section. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for these helpful comments; I've made a few responses above, and dealt with the others I didn't explicitly reply to. Let us know if there's anything else you can think of to improve the article. Sasata (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been much for me to do as Sasata has resolved all the issues, my thanks. Anyway, I am going to help with the comments as much as I can. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

"The stem is pale yellow, ... and slightly thicker at the base." - This is not what is stated in the description section.

Now aligned. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... they even seem as though they might easily slide off the wet cap surface with no more than gravity to encourage them." - More poetic than encyclopedic?

Removed. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The cap is typically 2.5–12 cm (0.98–4.7 in)" - I don't think you need 2 decimal points in this conversion.

Agree, fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... to leave a flimsy, skirt-like, easily-lost ring on the stem. At the base of the stem is a flimsy ..." - Too many "flimsies" here.

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sphaerocysts (inflated cells common in Russulales species)" - I'm still puzzled about this. Are you trying to say that sphaerocysts are common in Russulales but rare amongst Agaricales?

Yes I was, but I've just left this out, as I couldn't find a source to say this explicitly. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"According to mycologists Pierre Neville and Serge Poumarat, the Mediterranean species A. amici is similar in appearance to A. gemmata but has a greater size. According to Tulloss, their measurements of cap and stem dimensions of A. gemmata f. amici fall within the range expected for A. gemmata, and for this reason, they should be considered conspecific." - This is the first mention of "A. gemmata f. amici". Does the word "their" and "they" that I have bolded refer to the same people/things? I think not.

Hopefully clarified. Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It grows in summer and fall (fall and winter in California)." - I would have thought that this fungus would grow during most of the year but only send up fruiting bodies in the seasons mentioned.

Switched "grows" with "fruits". Sasata (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

I am now satisfied that the article is well written and complies with the MOS. The article seems well-sourced and the citations are consistent with each other. The images are relevant to the subject matter and have appropriate licences. I see no sign of original research. The article is stable and has been edited over several months collaboratively by the two nominators. I believe it fulfils the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review, much appreciated! Sasata (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stirps

Until Nov. 1st 2012, the Taxonomy & Phylogeny section contained the sentence "Tulloss places the species in a stirps (an informal ranking above species level) with A. russuloides and A. viscidolutea.", which is correct. Then "above" was changed to "below" with the comment "strips is below species level", and now the sentence does not make sense. The stirps is here evidently a group of related species within the genus including A. gemmata, A. russuloides and A. viscidolutea, and so it is above the species level. Web site [1], associated with Tuloss, makes it clear that the stirpes are groups of species (though other Amanita species are put in them, not gemmata). In mycology a stirps is normally above species level, though I don't say the term can never be used to mean a group below species level. I hope it is OK if I correct this error. Strobilomyces (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]