Talk:Omphalotus nidiformis

Omphalotus nidiformis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2020.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 5, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 5, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the ghost fungus (pictured) from southern Australia is so named as it is bioluminescent?

Current status: Featured article

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Omphalotus nidiformis 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What'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.

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

earlir comment[edit]

Is the spore print white as stated in the text or yellow as stated in the taxobox ? [Please delete when corrected.]

oops! well spotted..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, but see comments below.

2. Factually accurate?: Yes, however a citation is necessary for the paragraph that describes the physical appearence of this fungi.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: No problem

5. Article stability? Stable

6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1) I think that the single sentence second paragraphs in the lead can be merged with the first paragraph.

(done)

2) The lead says "...leads to very severe cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea". However the last section says "There is no diarrhea and patients recover ..." So does it cause diarrhea or not ?

(aha - original ref says no diarrhoea)

3) It may be better to convert the last ref (Griffiths, K (1985)) into the inline format and use it where appropriate.

(actually, that was a local guide, I got a broader reference one (national) so I have removed it for the time being)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will promote the article to GA. Ruslik (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I am frustrated as I'd really love to get enough text to get these photos on Bioluminescence which I took last autumn and was really proud of onto the page...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original account[edit]

The original account of Drummond appeared in Hooker's Journal of Botany - April 1842. Would be good to find...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the page#? The journal is available here. Sasata (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Sasata (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another account by Drummond, from 1843. Sasata (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting quote from here (p. 90): "The effect produced by it upon the traveller, when on a dark night he comes suddenly upon it glowing in the woods, is startling; for to a person unacquainted with this phenomenon the pale, livid, and deadly light emanating from it conveys to him an impression of something supernatural, and often causes no little degree of terror in weak minds or in those willing to believe in supernatural agencies". Sasata (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More from Cooke here. Sasata (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A description of "Pleurotus phosphorus" by Berkeley here. Sasata (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this entertaining quote worthwhile including? "It is perhaps of no great economic importance. Nevertheless, it would be advisable to destroy it by burning wherever found." Sasata (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - especially as the author is none other than JB Cleland, who was one of Australia's foremost early mycologists. I like Drummond comparing it with a will'o'wisp too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence[edit]

What does this sentence mean?

It can be detected at night a faint whitish eerie glow can be seen at the base of trees in sclerophyll forests.

I have removed it for now because I don't understand what it's trying to convey, and the parts I do understand might be incorrect (I have only seen the glow described as green, not white). -kotra (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC review comments[edit]

Will note concerns or ideas here as I come across them. Sasata (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Several species with similar bioluminescent properties occur worldwide, all of which are poisonous." Is there a source that claims this? From what I've read, many (most?) are of unknown edibility.

I meant omphalotus species, all of which are thought to be poisonous (not sure if all have been proven to be though. Need to re-read and figure out what to put down). Will get onto this tomorrow when less sleep-deprived. Need to attend to a couple of things tonight.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great to add a pic like this, this, or one of these to help illustrate the variability of the cap colour. Sasata (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See what other text can be added...I dumped all the images I've taken onto commons now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The toxic ingredient is a sesquiterpene compound known as illudin." I don't see where in the cited source it says this; should this be illudosin?

Something's gone missing here, not sure what. God that is a dry article! ~~Need to flesh out this and find the secondary sources...~~ got it out of good ol' Benjamin book... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that this is a reliable source, there's some more tidbits that could be included from here. Sasata (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it is, though material should be used with care. It has some critters which eat the mushroom and some aboriginal folklore, and the author of the website is clearly part of a research centre. I am wary of too detailed discussion on new species until that has been in a peer-reviewed journal though. (Funny, I've seen some really dark specimens in Sydney and uploaded a photo). The Miller paper talks about variation so I am really waiting for that one to come through and see what it says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to mention irofulven, a semi-synthetic compound derived from illuden S that is undergoing phase II clinical trials as a therapy for various cancers (which could be cited to a secondary source here), or is this straying too far off topic? Sasata (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ok, especially as the mushed up fruit bodies are being tested... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you have access to this Oz journal: Willis, J.H. (1967). "A bibliography of the "Ghost Fungus," Pleurotus nidiformis (Berk.) Sacc." Muelleria 1(3): 213–18?

I think I can get that. The other came as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating paper that by Miller - and will help fill out this article nicely. ~~I'll have to eyeball Muelleria myself on thursday when I am next to the library.~~ Got Willis paper now too - some interesting taxonomic stuff to add. Miller talks about a darker form -- I have a photo of it here which I took a few years ago. Be good to get this one in the article too. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Should we name-drop William Henry Harvey as the one who said the bioluminescence was strong enough to read a watch face by (per here)? Sasata (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, nice anecdote that Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omphalotus nidiformis. 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/20111228053045/http://springbrook.info/research/luminous_ghost_fungus.htm to http://springbrook.info/research/luminous_ghost_fungus.htm

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) 03:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Omphalotus nidiformis. 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:

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) 06:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]