Fungarium ...
... is no longer an unsatisfactory redirect to herbarium. Esculenta (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Difference between Plasmopara helianthi f. helianthi / Plasmopara helianthI / Plasmopara halstedii?
(see: Talk:Plasmopara_helianthi_f._helianthi#Difference_between_Plasmopara_helianthi_f._helianthi_&_Plasmopara_helianthi_&_Plasmopara_halstedii?)
---
(I'm not a subject matter expert)
Plasmopara_helianthi
Are they the same thing? Is "f.helianthi" a redundant taxon?
I was left with this question even after reading the "Data sheet on Plasmopara halstedii" at the bottom of this page (https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/PLASHA/documents) by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
---
Any insight from WP:Fungi?
Thanks!
~ NANDtrocity (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's confusing. Mycobank recognises Plasmopara_helianthi and three forms (helianthi, patens, perennis). Index Fungorum places P.helianthi and forms patens and perennis in synonymy with Plasmopara_halstedii (confirmed in Species Fungorum), but not Plasmopara_helianthi f. helianthi, which seems very strange. The taxonomic note in the EPPO datasheet suggests that there is some question about the form described by Novotel'nova (1966), which could be why it wasn't synonymised by Index Fungorum and Species Fungorum. If it was valid would it just be as Plasmopara_helianthi (as the other forms are synonymised with P. haldstedii) or would it need a new species name? — Jts1882 | talk 18:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Dothistroma septosporum: Concerns
The article seems to be written largely about the disease, Dothistroma/red band needle blight (DNB) and not about D. septosporum. Furthermore, several sources D. septosporum and D. pini seem to mention that both are causal agents of DNB. However, the article lacks a mention of D. pini. I wonder as to what action should be taken or whether I've mistook something as an outsider with no experience in mycology. Hope I wa clear. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC).
- As a bit of context, @EnIRtpf09b responded to my reward board request for improving the D. septosporum article. We're unsure if DNB should get its own article or if it's fine to discuss it under its most notorious agent. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Recent edits to various fungi articles
Hello! I was directed here from the Teahouse, and I think this may be the place I need. In reviewing recent changes earlier, I came across a TA making questionable edits to various articles, including several fungi articles. I don't know nearly enough about fungi or how articles about them are typically structured on Wikipedia, so I could only evaluate the edits so much. What concerned me the most was that in some instances, the TA was adding information about edibility without citing any sources or trying to explain what support they had for making the edits. The TA is blocked now and all of their edits have been reverted, but some of the article histories had identical edits from another TA, and some of those are still current.
Would it be possible for editors with this project to review the edits of the other TA and either support them or remove them appropriately? Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 04:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- (Just wanted to update and say that both of the TA accounts in question have been blocked and their edits reverted, so reviewing affected pages may no longer be necessary at the moment.) Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 23:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
New Taxonomic Classification For The Genus Gymnopilus +
Gymnopilus, usually pronounced gym-nop-ih-lus, had previously been placed into the families Agaricaceae, Cortinariaceae, Strophariaceae, and Hymenogastraceae at different times. It has also been referred to as a clade called Gymnopilae. There is also a plural form rarely utilized for this genus called Gymnopoli. In April, 2026, it's taxonomic position changed again, moving it into the family Galerinaceae. Please see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13081892/ ~2026-29847-68 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for this. This paper has much larger implications than just Gymnopilus, but for a number of other taxa in the Agaricales. In terms of my own opinions on fungal taxonomy, this publication seems to continue the trend of excessive splitting that characterizes so much taxonomic work (my own bias is, in situations where the actual phylogenetics don't demand reclassification, to maintain nomenclatural continuity). But that's neither here nor there. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)