Talk:Hymenogastraceae

Classification

If Alnicola, Flammula , Hebeloma, Phaeocollybia, and Psilocybe have been shown to lie within the Hymenogastraceae (based on molecular research published several years ago now), why are they not listed as such on Index Fungorum and MycoBank? Should we not wait for a formal transfer to this family before listing them as such here? Sasata (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Because Index Fungorum and MycoBank are not up to date with the literature. Various Deconica species are still listed as Psilocybe species on Index Fungorum, and the transfer of those species to Deconica was formal (see http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2010/00000059/00000001/art00029). Why use an outdated secondary source? Dgrootmyers (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

At what point do we make the distinction between Index Fungorum and MycoBank not being up to date, and the proposed taxonomical change simply not accepted by these authorities? What can we use as reliable source for the above genera being in the Hymenogastraceae? Matheny et al. (2006), which this article currently cites, is insufficient; they only included two species of Psilocybe in their cladistic analysis (fig. 1) (neither of which was the type species), and, more importantly, did not draw any conclusions as to familial placement in the text of the article. The second citation (Norvell 2010) does not even mention the family Hymenogastraceae. Where are the firm sources to support this taxonomic opinion? Sasata (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Index Fungorum is definitely not up to date with Deconica being split. However, you make a good point about the possibility that the transfer of Psilocybe might just not have been recognized. I think whoever added the second source just added it to back Psilocybe sensu lato being split into Psilocybe and Deconica. Matheny et al. (2006) was published before the proposal to conserve P. semilanceata as the type species. It did include D. montana, which was then the type species. P. cyanescens is also pretty well known, and Moncalvo et al. (2002) found P. stuntzii to be closely related to P. semilanceata. However, Moncalvo et al. (2002) found weak support for their "psychedelia" clade being closer to Stropharia than Deconica. Interestingly, they also found "Psilocybe" subcoprophila to be closer to Phaeogalera stagnina than to Deconica or Psilocybe, and because of this proposed including Kuehneromyces, Phaeogalera and Hypholoma udum (now in Bogbodia) in their Psilocybe (Deconica). Borovička et al. (2011) found P. semilanceata to be within Psilocybe and closer to other members of Hymenogastraceae, other than Flammula alnicola, which was found to be closer to D. pseudobullacea and the rest of Strophariaceae sensu stricto. They also found Weraroa novae-zelandiae to be in Psilocybe ("psychedelia"). Borovička et al. (2014) found P. semilanceata firmly within Psilocybe, but didn't include any Deconica species as outgroups. It would have made sense to follow Moncalvo et al.' (2002)'s proposal and to transfer "psychedelia" to Weraroa, but unfortunately P. semilanceata was conserved as the type. I also don't know if anyone followed up on "p." subcoprophila. Ramirez-Cruz et al. (2013) found somewhat similar results to Matheny et al. (2006) with 28 species of Psilocybe in their cladogram but they also didn't include P. semilanceata. They also found Flammula, Alnicola and Hebeloma to be within Strophariaceae sensu stricto and weak support for Gymnopilus being in Hymenogastraceae. Some unpublished cladistic analyses I've seen have also found Panaeolus to be in Hymenogastraceae. Importantly, I overlooked this quote from Matheny et al. (2006): "Indeed Bayesian analyses of datasets II and III significantly support...the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. Although not illustrated in our trees, the type of Hymenogaster (H. builliardii) is nested within the Hymenogastraceae clade (Peintner et al 2001). A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae (Gulden et al 2005)". They actually proposed uniting Hymnegastraceae and Strophariaceae sensu stricto. Hymneogastraceae is still a valid clade, but it's either within Strophariaceae or synonymous with it depending on how it's defined. I was wrong and overzealous with the automatic taxoboxes and changing Stophariaceae to Hymenogastraceae. I'll add some of this information to this page, revert my edits and stick to more useful edits. Sorry about that. Fungal taxonomy is too much of a mess to try to tackle here. Dgrootmyers (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hymenogastraceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170605/http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/Reprints%20PDFs/Mathenyetal_Agaricales_2006.pdf to http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/Reprints%20PDFs/Mathenyetal_Agaricales_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hymenogastraceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052937/http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/downloads2%20syllabi%20proposals%20etc/Anamika.pdf to http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/downloads2%20syllabi%20proposals%20etc/Anamika.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)