Talk:List of Tricholomataceae genera

Misplaced?

• Pseudolasiobolus says it's in Podoscyphaceae.
• Status of the following need investigation (there are probably a few more unclear ones):
  • Pleurotopsis
  • Phaeotellus
  • Omphalia
  • Rhodocyphella

Circéus (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pub. abbr.

For publication abbreviations I'm regularizing them to those in the Harvard Index (IPNI is down right now, but both sites use the same AFAIK). Circéus (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FLC prep

How do we want to handle citing the distributions? Cite to every specific page in the Dictionary, or a blanket citation at the beginning ("Unless otherwise indicated, all location information was obtained from the entries in the Dictionary of the Fungi")? Sasata (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we are generally citing the Dict. for the generic placements themselves (with maybe a sourced intro paragraph discussing differences), that would probably be appropriate. I'd put such notices between the "Genera" header and the table.

I haven't done a full Dictionary search on this list, as I have for Marasmiaceae, hence the limited amount of notes regarding monophily, placement, legitimacy and validity compared to the other list at this moment. Does the Dict. define what it means by "Widespread"? Does that mean "worldwide" or just "common"? I suspect we'll want to check up sources to better figure out many distrib. anyway... And to know whether a genus should be "approx." or more accurate 20+. But maybe that's just me being mildly obsessed with accuracy. Circéus (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

From the "users guide":

For each accepted genus estimates are given for the number of species and its geographical distribution. Where possible these data are based on recent revisions or the personal knowledge of specialists, but in the majority of cases they have not been updates in the absence of such authorities. In the case of larger genera particularly, we have not revised species numbers upwards even though many may have been described since the last edition ... This policy is adopted as critical reassessments in such genera usually result in reductions in species numbers. The distributions given are approximate, especially for genera not critically revised in recent years, and should be regarded as indicative rather than comprehensive. Whenever possible users should verify the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

So how should we approach this? Maybe dump a list of genera here, and cross them off one by one as we go through the list and update both the articles and this page? This will take a while (especially since I tend to get distracted with other things here), but there's no time limit, many articles will improve as a result, and I suspect Rolf Singer will nod his silent approval from the heavenly mycelium in the sky. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So basically they don't specify what they mean by "widespread?" dang. As to the specific refs, why not? I mean, we're already running in the 60+ refs anyway. Maybe some cutoff would be okay, though.E.g. the dict. can probably be trusted for most genera since 1990, maybe 1980, and most monotypic genera since, say, 1950? Circéus (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if we're just setting ourselves up for a lot of unnecessary work. Since this is an overview article, isn't it okay to summarize the distribution and # of taxa, and leave readers who want more detailed information to consult the genus articles themselves? To take an example of the most developed Tricholomataceae genus article, Dendrocollybia, is it really so bad that the list article says "widespread", while the genus article says that, but also specifies North America and Europe? When I say "unnecessary work" I mean with respect to this article, obviously at some time the genus articles need to be expanded, but is it necessary to do that before this can become a FL? Sasata (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding distributions, I respectfully disagree. I have usually translated "widespread" as "worldwide" for the Marasmiaceae genera, but here this is clearly incorrect: "worldwide" is a completely different thing from "Northern Hemisphere", and even "widespread" seems far too unspecific to me. We can probably afford to leave the genus numbers underspecified, tough, and update them as genera articles are updated (or depending on the FLC crowd reaction). Admittedly that second part is influenced by a very frustrating search for a source to give for a species count in Arrhenia (cf. Kaya & al., Turk. J. Bot. 32:419-420, 2008; Redhead, Can. J. Bot. 62:865–892, 1984; Redhead & al., Mycotaxon 83:19-57, 2002). Circéus (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I beginning to get the feeling they (the Dictionary writers) deliberately left the generic distributions vague, as it would be too much effort to get it precise (considering 9000+ genera). Maybe our new plan should be to work on all the genus pages, and come back here in a few weeks/months when that's done (if you're up for something like that)? Sasata (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I agree this is the way to go (i.e. the hard work way with more research). For example, I checked to see what the Dict said about the distribution of Chorioactis, well-known for its disjunct distribution in Texas and Japan; the Dic only gives USA. Weak. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

Per the discussion above, for this article to progress on the path to Featured List, all the distribution info in Trich genera articles should be updated with a literature search. This list is to help me update progress as I go along. Sasata (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aeruginospora
• Amparoina
• Archaeomarasmius -  Done
• Arrhenia
• Arthromyces
• Arthrosporella -  Done
• Asproinocybe
• Austroclitocybe - Raithelhuber actually moved a few other species into it according to MB, but they don't seem to have stuck, or are too obscure.  Done
• Austroomphaliaster
• Callistodermatium - reports of a 2nd species the Greater Antilles in 2001, but doesn't seem to have been officially name or reported, so  Done
• Callistosporium
• Cantharellopsis -  Done
• Cantharellula
• Catathelasma
• Caulorhiza -  Done no evidence of the 3 species being found anywhere other than the USA
• Cellypha
• Clavomphalia
• Clitocybe
• Collybia
• Conchomyces
• Cynema
• Cyphellocalathus
• Delicatula
• Dendrocollybia -  Done
• Dennisiomyces
• Dermoloma
• Fayodia
• Gamundia
• Haasiella
• Hygroaster
• Infundibulicybe
• Lepista
• Lepistella
• Leucocortinarius
• Leucoinocybe
• Leucopaxillus
• Leucopholiota
• Lulesia
• Macrocybe
• Melanoleuca
• Melanomphalia
• Mycenella
• Mycoalvimia
• Myxomphalia
• Neoclitocybe
• Neohygrophorus
• Nothoclavulina
• Omphaliaster
• Omphalina
• Palaeocephala
• Peglerochaete
• Pegleromyces
• Phaeomycena
• Phyllotopsis
• Physocystidium
• Pleurella
• Pleurocollybia
• Porpoloma
• Pseudoarmillariella
• Pseudobaeospora
• Pseudoclitocybe
• Pseudohiatula
• Pseudohygrophorus
• Pseudolasiobolus
• Pseudoomphalina
• Resupinatus
• Rimbachia
• Ripartites
• Squamanita
• Stanglomyces
• Tilachlidiopsis
• Tricholoma
• Tricholomopsis
• Tricholosporum - 12 species (not 5); piecing collective distribution together from the species pages: Costa Rica, Mexico (x3), Morroco, Europe (x2), USA, Japan, South Africa, "thermoméditerranéen de Corse et de Sardaigne"; still have to sum this up cohesively on the genus page

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Tricholomataceae genera. 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/20110716110803/http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_baroni_001.pdf to http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_baroni_001.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) 19:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)