This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fungi High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota High‑importance Psilocybe subaeruginosa is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. New Zealand High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this scientifically correct practice? I see that the species was discovered by John Burton Cleland, but I've never seen the species referred to as "Psilocybe Subaeruginosa Cleland", and I'm not aware of this naming format being commonplace.

EDIT: Asked my plant science professor, he said this was technically correct practice. However, the same naming format does not seem to be in use for any other Psilocybe species on Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be changed for consistency? I'm not going to edit it, and it is a minor issue, however I thought it might be worth pointing out.

Ok fixed it! Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 08:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]