Talk:Lactifluus volemus

volemus

I tried to keep to the citations, which are really too misleading to retain: there's no "flowing" implied in volemus, simply that the concave cap is cupped in the center, rather as you'd cup your hand (to make a seed-sower's vola). The only use of volemus in Latin was to describe the pira volaema, the "volema pear" that was noted by Marcus Portius Cato, De agri cultura 7.4, and which appears in Virgil, Georgics II: "...Crustumian pears, and Syrian, or the heavy volema." That's how the pear inadvertently came into it: a dense little Roman pear you could cup in your hand; the pear itself has nothing to do with Fries' application of this epithet to this mushroom. Perhaps there's a better citation referring more competently to the Latin: not all mycologists are latinists— I for one am neither.--Wetman (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. What on Earth does "oscure and recherché" mean? I've never heard either of those words... J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oop! "Obscure" was my typo. "Recherché" ("researched" doesn't have the same connotation) means "carefully sought out", or "smelling of the midnight oil", that is to say, exhibiting a self-consciously rarified choice. Fries' recherché word volemus was intended to set us scurrying to the dictionaries.--Wetman (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"oscure [sic] and recherché specific epithet"

Please tell me this is a direct quote from a source. While part of me is more than a little glad to think that such florid prose may still exist spontaneously, I don't think we should alienate readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia (*cough, cough*) with such... rich vocabulary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't read the above section. Never mind... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Phylogeny paper

Was wondering about corrugis and volemus being a possible example of "hardly distinguishable" species (sensu Kuo's rant on Russula, he also says the smell can distinguish the species), but came across this:

• Shimono, Yoshito (2007). "Molecular phylogeny of Lactarius volemus and its allies inferred from the nucleotide sequences of nuclear large subunit rDNA". Mycoscience. 48 (3): 152–157. doi:10.1007/s10267-006-0346-0. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |moth= ignored (help)

I figure that will be useful. There's some analysis of it in that McIllvainea I came across back in February. Circéus (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Already ahead of ya... got the paper printed out here :) Will add soon after I find some time to read it. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, guess I should have expected that XD Circéus (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

I've made a few fixes here and there as I saw fit, but here are some thoughts.

• I agree with what you said about the lead- an expansion and a split would be a good thing.

• Added a little and split in two. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In this work" Which work?
  • Now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• ""Tribus"" What is a Tribus? You've italicised it, so it's generic or lower?
  • Tribus (Latin for tribe) was Fries's term for his infrageneric groupings of similar species; the term (in the sense that he used it) is not used today, so I put it in quotes so that a reader who know a little about taxonomy will not be confused with the currently used taxonomical term tribe, a grouping at the infrafamilial level. Am open to suggestions on how to change the wording (or add explanation) to make it less confusing. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the sentence a little to make things a bit clearer. Please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood, or if I'm simplified to the point of patronising. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• "In his 1838 Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici, he recognised Lactarius as a distinct genus, citing Galorrheus as a synonym" Presumably, then, this is the point at which it was first called "Lactarius volemus"? Worth a mention?

• Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Fries's Tribes" Firstly, I'd personally use "Fries's", but your way is also fine. However, why capitalise "Tribes"?

• After looking through some papers and seeing them use Fries's, I'll start doing it that way too. Tribus now uncapitalized. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the Latin of vola," Why "of"?

• Removed. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Lactarius wangii" Mention who described it and when? And perhaps when it was synonymised?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Its name in Japanese is "Chichitake" (乳茸, "milk mushroom")." Ref? Why do you feel this is worth mentioning?

• I think the kanji look cool ... removed. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in subgenus Lactifluus" In the subgenus?

• Yes, but I think it works without it as well, and wanted to avoid the repetition (Lactarius volemus is the type species of the section Dulces in the subgenus Lactifluus.) Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2005, Japanese researchers reported using techniques such as molecular phylogenetics, and comparing differences in fatty acid composition, morphology and taste to clarify the relationships between these two species and others in section Dulces" Rephrase?

• Done. Sound better? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "A pale golden yellow in colour, the mushroom browns when bruised." Presumably it is the gills that are a pale golden yellow, yet the main clause refers to the whole mushroom.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing why "cystidia" would be italicised, while other Latinate terms (like "basidia") are not.

• Agree, removed italics. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• The use of Wiktionary links for the various types of cystidia seems a little odd- you aren't using them as words but as subjects (if you see what I mean)- a link to an article would be better. Cystidia is already linked; the inline descriptions will probably serve until the article on cystidia is expanded.

• Someday soon I'm gonna work on that cystidia article (I've got a microscope on my xmas wish list); have changed per your suggestion. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why mention the edibility of L. subvelutinus at all?

• Removed. Might make more sense if I had that info consistently given for all the similar species, but you're right, it seemed misplaced. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The Japanese ''[[Lactarius austovolemus|L. volemus]]''" What's going on there?

• Linking and spelling error; fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Another author" You haven't mentioned an author yet

• Reworded. Sasata (talk)

• "sphagnum beds" Can "sphagnum" be used like that? I'd go for "Sphagnum beds" or "peat moss beds".

• Changed to the latter, more layman term. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sure did! I'm gonna ping Circeus to see if he'd be willing to do a check as well, he's another excellent nitpicker :) Sasata (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps the synonyms in the taxonomy section should be ordered chronologically? And perhaps years in the synonym list? J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done x 2. Sasata (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• In the prose, the synonyms are still not (so far as I can see) logically ordered. You mention the Chinese name before you mention the Kuntze name, for instance. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I misread taxonomy section for taxobox... now reorganized. Sasata (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

JM: what do you think about including this image of the variety flavidus? It's a great pic, and it would be encylopedic to include it... but the article's pretty stuffed with pics as it is. One option would be to include it as a second image in the taxobox, and make the synonym list collapsible. Also, another idea is replacing the "typical colour variations" pic with this, caption would be "Typical growth habitat". Do want prefer to show colour variations or habitat? Sasata (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A photo of var. flavus in the taxobox would be a great addition- how about, as well as that, switching the current lead image with the "colour variations" image? The main strength of the current lead image is the latex, which is also shown well by the gill image- other than that, it's not particularly strong. That would leave room for the "typical habitat" image. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

More review

• Fries also moved Scopoli's Agaricus oedematopus in Lactarius (Epicrisis, p. 345). I haven't been able to find information regarding the first synonymizer. It doesn't help an homonymous name exists (A. oed. Schaeff.) and is more often cited (apparently a synonym of Collybia fusipes).

• Gertrude Burlingham (JSTOR 3753631) considers Agaricus oedematopus synonymous with Agaricus volemus, although it isn't clear if she was the synonymizer. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Evolution of synonymy is a frustrating thing to track. I only really meant that Lactarius oedematopus should probably be listed in the synonyms. I do wish we could better track the history of that name... I checked the details for the "Neuhoff, 1956" ref mentioned by Hessler & Smith, but it's a chapter of Vol. 2b of Die Pilze Mitteleuropas, so not much use... Circéus (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is this nonsense about "L. volemus var. volemus which was later considered synonymous with L. corrugis."? Hessler & Smith clearly say this is var. subrugosus, not a misidentification of L. corrugis. I'm not sure whether that particular example is relevant in so far as you just said basically the same fact in the previous section...

• Oops - var. volemus was my error, but yeah, I didn't even notice I had the same info in the previous section; Chopped. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I cut off the definition for "decurrent". If linking "adnate" is enough, then so is linking that word (plus I'm a proponent that this is what links are for to begin with).

• Fair enough. I think I'll put a picture of a decurrent mishroom gill in that article. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mentioning whether austrovolemus and lamprocystidiatus overlap in range with volemus would be relevant (since that was done for chromospermus).

• Mentioned distribution for both these (it's good you made me check, I had incorrectly put one as Japanese). Sasata (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Circéus (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check Circéus! While you're here, how about a translation for the article title "Sur la volémite, nouvelle matière sucrée" ("On volemitol, a new carbohydrate" ??) Sasata (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "On volémite, a new sugary/sweet substance" would be a much better choice. Circéus (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A few things before TFA

Hi, a few urgents. First, just a query I might be quite wrong on: is the "milky" latex the same as the "natural rubber"? In the blurb, they look like different things.

They are different things: the natural rubber is a polyisoprene compound that may be found within the latex, but is also present throughout the tissues of the mushroom. Sasata (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the inconsistent precisions in the ranged values in one section are of concern. Here's one: "7.5–10 by 7.5–9.0 µm". Where there's one decimal place, you'd need a good reason not to put a .0 in the other, I think. Please see WP:MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, somehow the trailing .0 got forgotten; the spore measurements are now as per the source. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sasata. There's a discussion at FAC talk about this one that could use your input. I'm off to bed soon. Tony (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Three species in one

...at least in Europe: this paper (PDF here) came out a few months ago, for those editors interested (I have other projects atm...). Tylototriton (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tylototriton, I have put updating this article on my "to-do" list. Sasata (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lactifluus volemus. 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/20110722105347/http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/08-2375.pdf to http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/08-2375.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) 09:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lactifluus volemus. 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/20101109193220/https://www.ugent.be/we/biology/en/research/mycology/projects/volemus to http://www.ugent.be/we/biology/en/research/mycology/projects/volemus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610095210/http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=231293 to http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=231293

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) 12:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)