This page 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
Kustrim Cerimi & Corrado Nai (14 September 2022). "Most Fungi are Invisible – even on Wikipedia". BioMed Central. Most people are unaware of the crucial role of fungi, of their stunning diversity, and of their incredible range of applications. This seems to be reflected on Wikipedia as well, where Wikipedians in the WikiProject Fungi are working to better organize information in articles related to fungi.
You are correct, the species complex information should be incorporated into the main Xylaria hypoxylon article. As individual species in the complex get described, separate articles will eventually be made for them. For an example, see the taxonomy section of Parmelia saxatilis. Esculenta (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There seems very little information to justify an article on the complex. It's not clear what species should be included, only that polymorpha and longipes are excluded. I might be misreading the situation, but it seems most of the specimens in the complex are actually described as Xylaria hypoxylon and that it needs further study to define the species more clearly, i.e. X. hypoxylon as currently understood is probably a species complex including yet to be described species. The iNaturalist forum discussion suggests the work was preliminary in 2022, but I don't see a reference for a "resolution in 2024". Something on the complex in the taxonomy section of X. hypoxylon seems the appropriate approach. — Jts1882 | talk16:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high importance article in the project, so I thought I would notify the project that I have removed a reasonably important paragraph. See Talk:Saprotrophic_nutrition#Nitrogen_and_cofactors for my full reasoning.
I would appreciate it if there is anyone with reasonably basic saprotroph knowledge to rewrite the paragraph.
I updated the synonymy in the article and it seems like Clavaria miniata is still acknowledged as a synonym by Index Fungorum. I adjusted the text to soften Reid's suggestion of non-synonymy, as this was written in the days when some mycologists thought ellipsoid spores vs. spherical spores was enough to differentiate a new genus. I also softened the Wiki-voice on the "common name" of this fungus, as the authority of the single cited source is too weak to say this definitively. Esculenta (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second this. The big question I'm seeing is if Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium and Mycobank that list this species are enough independent verification to compensate for the predatory journal issue. I'm not seeing a strong case being made for that, but I'm not as familiar with the fungal taxonomy organizations either. KoA (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
