Talk:Parmotrema perlatum

Stone Flower Mixup

Kalpasi is a lichen used as a spice, not a flower. Looks like it's been confused with Didymocarpus Pedicellatus because of the similar common names. I've seen Kalpasi called 'black stone flower' and 'stone flower'. While D. Pedicellatus gets called 'stone flower'. The botanical name for Kalpasi appears to be Parmelia Perlata

Sorry I lack the wiki skills to fix this up in the article(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.69.168 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Now fixed, I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Well what a taxonomic history this species has had.

• This is only a summary! Many more boring taxonomic details were left out, to spare the reader. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Have the common names all been invented since 1990, as it appears? Perhaps a date or two would be helpful here.

• I wasn't able to find much else to add about this. Most of my personal lichen sources have been printed since 1990, so I'm guilty of common name recentism. I did add a bit about another historical name, "pearly parmelia". Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Why is the phylogeny based on spacer sequences? Has only a limited range of markers has been studied to date?

• For fungi, ITS sequences are most readily available when using genbank data in phylogenetic studies. "Borrowing" genbank sequence data makes one's phylogenetic study more global and thorough without the added cost of collecting and sequencing samples. ITS sequences aren't perfect for phylogenetic analysis, but they do a reasonable job in most cases. But of course, multi-gene studies are most robust. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• 'Photobiont' talks repeatedly about "prolonged periods" of photo-oxidative stress, and the second paragraph actually goes close to that topic as well.

• I've tightened the presentation in this section. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've made some very small copy-edits in 'Habitat and distribution'.

• Good, thanks. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• The Uses section is terrific: informative and genuinely illuminating.

• That's the effect I was going for! Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• It might be as well to say that Mount Lawu is a volcano...

• Done, and linked too. Esculenta (talk)

Images

• All images are on Commons and appear to be plausibly licensed.

• The soredia photo is amazing.

• The pic of P. crinitum has a smaller species in the centre?

• Looks like the "weed" lichen (Parmelia sulcata). Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• [38] author1 is Paoli, Luca.

• Fixed, thanks. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot-checks I tried all passed.

Summary

• This is a fine article and there's little that needs to be said here about it. I have only the smallest and most marginal of questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! My changes are these. Esculenta (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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.