Fungi: Lichens High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as High-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Removed several families from the list:

Auriscalpiaceae Favolaschiaceae Hericiaceae Meruliaceae Stereaceae

These are families of corticioid, polypore, jelly fungi, etc and have never been treated as members of the Agaricales. I also removed these two:

Omphalotaceae Russulaceae

Recent molecular work places these in the Boletales and Russulales, respectively.

Peter Werner - June 20, 2005

My mistake concerning the Omphalotaceae. I've replaced it in the taxobox, along with some other Tricholomataceae segregates. Peter G Werner 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agaric[edit]

I just created the article Agaric, not realizing that this article already existed. Agaric should be merged to here, or removed and replaced with a redirect to here, by someone who knows more about it than I do. -- Dominus 04:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like someone should do the same for agaricus. -- Dominus 04:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if Agaric is intended to cover the genus, then it should be merged into Agaricus, but merging the genus into the order seems a bit radical. — Pekinensis 22:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJFJR has merged Agaric and Agaricus. I have removed the merge tags from this article. — Pekinensis 21:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

Which is right classification, this article or http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Agaricales? Neither have any sources. — linnea (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of entire page[edit]

I will be doing a total revision some time in the near future.Heliocybe 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still intend to return here to rewrite all of this. Much of the information is incorrect because it is outdated. However, time commitments have only permitted me to touch it up for now. Heliocybe 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I'll help if I can cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoperdaceae[edit]

These are the "true" puffballs, but they no longer stand alone as a family. The group is embedded within the family Agaricaceae. Heliocybe 11:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agaricales. 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/20160303170605/http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/Reprints%20PDFs/Mathenyetal_Agaricales_2006.pdf to http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhibbett/Reprints%20PDFs/Mathenyetal_Agaricales_2006.pdf

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) 21:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]