Intro Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae... versus Taxonomy Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae... - there seems to be a significant difference in tone. The Intro states it more ambiguously while the Taxonomy is very certain.
I'm afraid I don't see the ambiguity. Comparing the two sentences:
lead: "Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae suborder of the Boletales."
tax: "Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae in the Boletales order." I could take out the word "currently" from the lead if that's the the source of the problem.
Sasata (
talk)
16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)reply
When I read the word "currently" as an adjective I think it means something might (or is expected to) change in the future. Fair enough. However, the body sentence says "belongs to" with no uncertainty in there. Unless it is referring to a past re-classification to that suborder/order, I'd remove the "currently".
"Kim M, Kim KW, Jung HS. (2007). "Morphological discretion of basidiospores of the puffball mushroom Calostoma by electron and atomic force microscopy". Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 17 (10): 1721–26." - appears to have a dead link.
The MOS on 'list incorporation' urges against such lists as the Species list. I do not think it would be better as prose, but I can't help but think it would look better as a table. Is the Species list, as presented here, typical for genus articles? Are there any similar FA or GA that use this Species list format?
There aren't a lot of genus-level articles to compare to unfortunately. I wrote Cyathus, and the corresponding
List of Cyathus species; I would have no issues with chopping out the species section here and similarly having a "See also" with a link to "List of Calostoma species", if you agree that's the way to go.
Sasata (
talk)
16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)reply
As if an omen from above, a new paper has appeared (August 2009!) that discusses edibility of the type species C. cinnabarinum. Unfortunately, it's in Spanish, but I took as much as I could from the English abstract. Also included info about the pigment molecule from the same species. Have also converted the species list to table format... how does it look now?
Sasata (
talk)
16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Intro Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae... versus Taxonomy Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae... - there seems to be a significant difference in tone. The Intro states it more ambiguously while the Taxonomy is very certain.
I'm afraid I don't see the ambiguity. Comparing the two sentences:
lead: "Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae suborder of the Boletales."
tax: "Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae in the Boletales order." I could take out the word "currently" from the lead if that's the the source of the problem.
Sasata (
talk)
16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)reply
When I read the word "currently" as an adjective I think it means something might (or is expected to) change in the future. Fair enough. However, the body sentence says "belongs to" with no uncertainty in there. Unless it is referring to a past re-classification to that suborder/order, I'd remove the "currently".
"Kim M, Kim KW, Jung HS. (2007). "Morphological discretion of basidiospores of the puffball mushroom Calostoma by electron and atomic force microscopy". Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 17 (10): 1721–26." - appears to have a dead link.
The MOS on 'list incorporation' urges against such lists as the Species list. I do not think it would be better as prose, but I can't help but think it would look better as a table. Is the Species list, as presented here, typical for genus articles? Are there any similar FA or GA that use this Species list format?
There aren't a lot of genus-level articles to compare to unfortunately. I wrote Cyathus, and the corresponding
List of Cyathus species; I would have no issues with chopping out the species section here and similarly having a "See also" with a link to "List of Calostoma species", if you agree that's the way to go.
Sasata (
talk)
16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)reply
As if an omen from above, a new paper has appeared (August 2009!) that discusses edibility of the type species C. cinnabarinum. Unfortunately, it's in Spanish, but I took as much as I could from the English abstract. Also included info about the pigment molecule from the same species. Have also converted the species list to table format... how does it look now?
Sasata (
talk)
16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)reply