Jump to content

Talk:Agaricus xanthodermus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only white Agaricus?

[edit]

The article currently claims that this is the only white mushroom in the genus Agaricus, which is obviously false. I will remove this claim. Is it intended to say that this is the only white-staining mushroom in the genus? — Pekinensis 23:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I believe that the new name goes against the current naming conventions as it is substantially less common than the old one [1][2]. — Pekinensis 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). I didn't mean Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Gdr 17:26:28, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
Right. I believe that the Latin name is the most common name in English. — Pekinensis 17:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So move it back! Gdr 17:42:24, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, but I can't because I'm not an admin. — Pekinensis 21:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for changes

[edit]

1. Generally Agaricus species discolour (perhaps slowly/with difficulty) either red or yellow. A. campestris is a reddening type. Surely it is more important to distinguish A. xanthodermus from the yellowing types (A. augustus, ...)

(yes and no; people mainly eat the redding ones like A. campestris - but I take your point)Cas Liber 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I found one book which said A. xanthodermus went to 15cm, but normally I think it is only up to 10cm, which for a mushroom is much smaller than 20cm. I saw the related A. iodosmus does go to 20cm, but that is a different species. I propose max. 15cm.

(agree)Cas Liber 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I think that Agaricus xanthoderma is more correct than Agaricus xanthodermus; in any case the alternative should be mentioned.

(mentioning both is important. be good to find some literature or arbitration on it)Cas Liber 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. I propose to rearrange the section on characteristics to make it easier to add new ones. Strobilomyces 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smell

[edit]

I never knew what phenol smells like so I always hated how this was described as such. To me the ones in my garden smell a bit like freshly laid asphalt or some chemical at the hairdressers' - weird. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Justification for name Agaricus xanthoderma

[edit]

I wrote "the form Agaricus xanthoderma is also often seen, and in fact, this is more correct in classical terms; here -derma (δέρμα) is a Greek neuter noun, not an adjective, which would agree in gender with Agaricus."

This is correct. Species names are not always adjectives which agree with the genus names, they may also be genitives or nouns themselves which are "in apposition". A. xanthoderma is the third type, and its meaning is like "Agaricus yellow-skin". Other examples are Agaricus silvicola (which means "Agaricus, inhabitant of the woods"), Russula erythropus (Russula red-foot), Cyathus olla and Boletus satanas. This is stated at Binomial nomenclature#Derivation of binomial names starting from "The second part of a binomial may be a noun in the nominative case" and it is easily verifiable.

I say that Agaricus xanthoderma is more correct in classical terms because xanthoderma is pure Greek and xanthodermus is a new pseudo-Latin creation which would not have been used in real Latin.

Gigemag76 deleted most of my text and says that it appears to conflict, but there is no conflict. It is easy to verify that xanthoderma is a noun meaning yellow-skin and that noun + noun is a normal combination for scientific mushroom names. What citations would I need to provide to be able to make the point that A. xanthoderma is correct?

Strobilomyces (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood "more correct in the classical sense" to mean the genders (of both genus and species) were the same - "which would agree in gender with Agaricus". Perhaps it would be best to reword the sentence, similar to how you have it above, to indicate the name is also correct (how can it be "more" correct?).Gigemag76 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have found Genevier's original paper and he used xanthodermus, so that is the right name. I changed the article accordingly and added some more information. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one always puzzled me too - glad folks found some stuff out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is often French authors who use A. xanthoderma. After the Agaricus of Linnaeus (used for all gilled mushrooms) was split into many genera, the French authors were using Psalliota xanthoderma as the name for this mushroom. Then when they finally had to change to Agaricus in the modern sense, they had to decide between Agaricus xanthodermus and Agaricus xanthoderma, and perhaps they didn't bother to look up the original paper but just decided that the noun + noun derivation ought to be the right one. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Strobilomyces, I stumbled accidently on this interesting discussion. The examples that you mention, i.e. Agaricus silvicola and Russula erythropus, might however be less clear-cut as silvicola can be considered as an adjective of common gender in classical Latin, while ἐρυθρόπους is (also) a masculine and feminine adjective (with ἐρυθρόπουν as neuter form) in ancient Greek. Wimpus (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wimpus Thanks for your comment. f I understand you right, you are saying that sylvicola can be viewed as an invariant adjective whereas I would say it is a noun in apposition. This does not make any difference in practice; the word would take the same invariant form wherever used and it is only a difference in how we talk about it grammatically. I think "noun in apposition" is better as an adjective would normally have different forms, and I think it agrees with the explanation here. Your example with erythropus is strange, but I see that there is a fungus name Helotium erythropus, which should be neuter. According to you it should be Helotium erythropun?? I think erythropus is treated as a noun meaning "red-foot". Strobilomyces (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. It seems that Lewis & Short are considering words on -cola in some instances as masculine nouns, like incola and in other instances as adjectives like silvicola and undicola as they translate these words adjectivally, like "inhabiting woods, sylvan" and "wavedwelling". The label adjective is however missing and in the print version of this dictionary (I've checked) is this label also absent. This source however writes Silvicola, an adjective ..., which seems to suggest that silvicola is used as an adjective. In the lemma caelicoli are Lewis & Short however using the label "adjective". So, words on -cola can be masculine adjectives. I am aware that there is however a fine line between an adjective and a noun in apposition in certain instances.
Stearn's Botanical Latin discusses words on -pus under the heading "Nouns functioning as adjective", although in Ancient Greek ἐρυθρόπους was merely an adjective or a nominalized adjective, but not an ordinary noun. In Greek, in contrast to Latin, neuter adjectives of the third declension are always (?) asigmatic (lacking an (additional) σ in the nominative singular). So in Latin we can use the adjective ignipes for all three genders with a final -s in the nominative case, the sigma in Greek can not be attached to ἐρυθρόπους in the neuter case. This would result in something like ἐρυθρόπου or even ἐρυθρόπο, as Greek words can not end on a dental (δ, τ or θ), but probably analogous to other Greek compound adjectives on -ους/ουν, e.g. ὀξύνους/νουν, compound adjectives on -πους ended on πουν in the neuter nominative singular. So, it seems like, considering Stearn's Botanical Latin, that erythropus is treated as a noun in apposition in Botanical Latin, although that seems not consistent with classical Greek usage. In many cases, dictionaries lack the form of the asigmatic neuter adjective that lost additional final consonants. As, it is difficult to asses what the neuter form might have been, these adjectives might have become nouns in apposition in botanical and zoological Latin to prevent complicated wordsmithery. Wimpus (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think these details may be interesting but they don't have any impact on the botanical names, which are just invariant. For me there is no significant difference between a noun in apposition and an invariant adjective. As you imply, most botanists do not and even did not in the past worry themselves overmuch about such minutiæ. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may have had some kind of impact as erythropum (Latinized from ἐρυθρόπουν?) can be found in Dicranum erythropum, Chrestosema erythropum, Agonum erythropum, Platydema erythropum. Wimpus (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think that "pus" means foot, as in "octopus" and that these examples are errors. Strobilomyces (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, could be not. In Ancient Greek ὀκτάπους and ὀκτώπους are both used as adjectives and nouns. Wimpus (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants" seems to treat words on -cola as noun: "In particular, the usage of the word element -cola as an adjective is a correctable error.". Wimpus (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinogenic effect

[edit]

When I accidentally ate about two of these mushrooms (fried in oil), some 10 years ago in SE England, not only did I feel ill, but that night I vividly remember having had unpleasant dreams, constantly visualising a geometric "shattered-glass" image in black-and-white in my dreams. I have also heard about unpleasant dreams from someone else who made the same mistake. Is there any literature on this side-effect which could be cited in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.126 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agaricus xanthodermus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agaricus xanthodermus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agaricus xanthodermus. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agaricus section Xanthodermatei or -mati?

[edit]

The consensus within the literature seems to be -matei and even within the few papers that are using -mati there are references to other papers that use -matei. The original description of the section uses -matei and I believe that to be correct, but since there has been an edit specifically changing only the spelling (from -matei to -mati) I am unsure if I am overlooking something important. FeloWrites (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agaricus_xanthodermus&oldid=1198154118"