WT:WikiProject Fungi#Request for article reviewers

{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|

• Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France (36th)
• Ceská Mykologie (173rd) / Czech Mycology (398rd) [combined would be around ~36th]
• Documents Mycologiques (203rd)
• Field Mycology (147th)
• IMA Fungus (526th)
• Persoonia - Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi (445th)
• Revue de Mycologie (253rd)
• Sylloge Fungorum (921st)
• Zeitschrift für Mykologie (552nd)

}}

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

should be an article. This Subkingdom is too significant to be a draft. Make Mucoromyceta a article Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Species only sourced to predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'll second this. The big question I'm seeing is if Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium and Mycobank that list this species are enough independent verification to compensate for the predatory journal issue. I'm not seeing a strong case being made for that, but I'm not as familiar with the fungal taxonomy organizations either. KoA (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually edit in this area, but I recently came across Climacocystis and Climacocystis borealis and noticed they were still using manual taxoboxes. I was planning to just sort out the taxonomy template and convert them over to automatic taxobox/speciesbox myself, but noticed that the articles place the genus within Fomitopsidaceae while MycoBank[https://www.mycobank.org/Simple%20names%20search] places it within Climacocystaceae and Index Fungorum[https://www.indexfungorum.org/names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=17325] doesn't place it in a family at all - what taxonomy should we follow for the purpose of the taxonomy template here? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

: I would go with Mycobank as that seems most up to date. See [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1115761/full Liu et al 2013] for description of family Climacocystaceae and this placement is also followed in the classification at [https://www.outlineoffungi.org/outline.php Outline of Fungi]. The [https://www-sciencedirect-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1878614617300685 Justo et al 2017] study cited in Fomitopsidaceae article doesn't recover Climacocystis in Fomitopsidaceae and places them in an informally named clade.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Index Fungorum has a record for [https://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=840367 Climacocystaceae] with Climacocystis as its type, so is a little inconsistent as the genus page isn't updates. Outline of Fungi has a [https://www.outlineoffungi.org/pdf/Outlineoffungi.org%20-%20Note%201518%20Climacocystaceae.pdf note on the new family]. The published latest classification by the Outline of Fungi consortium can be found in [https://www.mycosphere.org/pdf/MYCOSPHERE_15_1_25.pdf Hyde et al (2024)].  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Cheers {{u|Jts1882}}, seems like it's fair to say Climacosystaceae is the currently accepted family placement and Index Fungorum is just lagging behind. In the absence of any disagreement, I'll follow that classification for the taxonomy template and update the articles accordingly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Done - though on adding the NatureServe status to the C. borealis speciesbox I noticed that NatureServe placed this genus in another, entirely different family, Hapalopilaceae, which seems to now be considered a synonym of Phanerochaetaceae... and this is why I usually stay away from fungi! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: Hapalopilaceae is the older placement. NatureServe cite Species Fungorum (2018) as its Scientific Name Reference and Mushrooms of North America (Phillips, 1991) as the Concept Reference, which is probably where the family was taken from. Looking at archive.org, there is no Species Fungorum record archived before 2022, but the archived records of Index Fungorum had family Fomitopsidaceae in 2016 and 2020 and Hapalopilaceae in 2003.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I has bugged me for about 2.5 years that the ascospore article was redirected to ascus, even though they are both clearly topics worthy of their own pages. Finally got around to it on my "to-do" list, so this issue has now been rectified. The ascus article ("level-5 vital article") looks comparatively weak, so it too now goes on "the list". Esculenta (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)