Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the rDNA phylogeny, were those two the only other Ramaria sampled or was the genus polyphyletic?
  • The genus was found to be polyphyletic. The tree can be seen here. This accord with other results: "Although the cladistic hypotheses currently proposed for the Gomphales (2 citations) suggest Ramaria to be polyphyletic, there has been no additional study to clarify the generic classification in this group." (2005) This assessment appears to still be accurate, and you can add Hosaka et al. (2006) to the proposed hypotheses. Circéus (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have now mentioned that the study concluded that Ramaria is polyphyletic. Will save further discussion for the genus article. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Circeus removed that, though; I'm not sure why. I don't think a brief (single sentence) discussion of taxonomic problems at the genus level (especially when they are as severe as here) is out of place in a species article. Ucucha 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't seem possible to write it in without requiring to much context. Plus I am of the opinion that since the polyphyly will not impact on Ramaria's placement (as the type, it will remain a Ramaria no matter how many species are removed), it's not really important. Circéus (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The stem is short and thick—between 1.5 and 6 cm (0.6 and 2.4 in) thick"—it would be nice to get rid of the repetition of "thick" here.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When was the variety described?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says laxative effects occur only in certain individuals; the piece in the body doesn't mention that.

• Now mentioned in the article. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps rename the "Research" section "Chemistry", and join the four sentences into a single paragraph. Or perhaps just get rid of the subsections in "Uses", as the section is not very large.

• Added a bit and moved some sentences around. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In my reading of the Humpert & al. paper, R. botrytis was found to be related not to "genera of underground false truffles", but specifically to Gauteria. If other studies are involved regarding the relatives of that latter genus, then they should be cited or the sentence reworded.

• "...includes the R. botrytis complex and mat-forming species of the R. stricta complex, both of which form sister groups to separate genera of hypogeous ectomycorrhizal mat-forming false truffles (Griffiths et al 1991) in the nuc LSU rDNA analyses." is where I got it from, but I agree mentioning Gautieria is better. Changed. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I note above, I was looking at the actual tree(s) XD. Circéus (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hosaka et al. (2006), which you cited above, shows a "Romaria" sp. sister to Gauteria. In any case, it's probably good to mention that Romaria is basically a meaningless genus at the moment. Ucucha 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read it clearly (though I admet the image is not nearly as legible as desirable) as "Ramaria". I don't think there is a genus called "Romaria". I think those accessions represent the "Ramaria cf. botrytis" I've seen mentioned while scouring papers regarding this question. Circéus (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Romaria is a misspelling. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the confusion; I intended to say Ramaria, but it must have been too late yesterday. Ucucha 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok how's this: "Ramaria botrytis is the type species of the genus Ramaria,[11] a genus that as currently defined is a polyphyletic assemblage of species with coral-shaped fruit bodies." Sasata (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good; passing GA now. Ucucha 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to comment regarding how the paper also suggests Ramaria will end up disintegrating à la Coprinus, but R. botrytis is the type species (a fact which probably should be mentioned in the taxonomy section BTW), and so that comment is moot. Circéus (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Type species now mentioned. Thanks both for helping improve this article! Sasata (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]