Talk:Pulveroboletus bembae

Pulveroboletus bembae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 30, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 3, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the specific name of the Gabonese fungus Pulveroboletus bembae is derived from the name used by the Baka people for the tree it associates with?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulveroboletus bembae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 12:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why do the external links call it bembaensis?~~
I have no idea. It's weird, because according to the Mycobank page, De Greef was the one who entered the data. I have emailed him to ask for a clarification. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wrap up this loose end, Jérôme Degreef wrote back and explained that they originally named the species bembaensis and submitted it to MycoBank under this name (publication rules for Mycotaxon apparently says new names must be submitted to MycoBank first). Then the nomenclature review requested a name change, as bemaensis is "grammatically correct, but linguistically inappropriate". So the name was changed to bambae prior to publication, but this was not communicated to MycoBank (/Fungorum). They have now been alerted, and the name should be changed in the database soon. Sasata (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead could (again) be a bit longer.~~

Now a bit longer. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you should insert a sentence that says "De Greef and Kesel" described the species in a 2009 paper" or something like that.~~

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"pronounced suprahilar depression"—suprahilar?~~

Glossed. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No images, and sources look reliable. Ucucha 12:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up my GAN review again. This is my first attempt at a GA on a species with so little information available... I was inspired to do so from seeing some of your efforts :) I think I'm going to try this again with more recently published fungal taxa. For one, the research is a lot easier, and I'm thinking maybe the mycologists who described these species will see these articles and be inspired to write some themselves. Maybe I'm dreaming, but it's worth a try. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes; I am passing this as a GA now. Yes, little-known species are easier (although one sometimes also has to bury pretty deeply to find the little that is there), but species that we do know a lot about also have more interesting information. Ucucha 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]