Talk:Cantharellus lateritius/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty! A couple things:

In taxonomy, paragraph "The species was first described in the scientific literature as Thelephora cantharella by the American Lewis David de Schweinitz in 1822, based on specimens collected in Ohio. Elias Magnus Fries later transferred it to Craterellus in his 1838 Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici. In 1856, Miles Joseph Berkeley and Moses Ashley Curtis mentioned the fungus in their analysis of Schweinitz's specimens, but renamed it ~~Craterellus~~ lateritius. The motivation for the name change is unclear; Ronald H. Petersen, in a 1979 publication, suggests that Berkeley "was apparently reluctant to surrender his own name for the organism". Petersen suggests that Berkeley may have forseen the necessity to avoid giving the species a tautonym (a situation where both the generic name and specific epithet are identical). However, as Petersen indicates, a future publication renders this explanation dubious: in 1873 Berkeley again referred to the species using his own name ~~Cantharellus~~ lateritius, and indicated a type location (Alabama) different than the one mentioned by Schweinitz. Petersen considers Berkeley's name to be a nomen novum (new name), not a new species, as Berkeley clearly indicated that he thought Cantharellus lateritius was synonymous with Schweinitz's Thelephora cantharella. Normally in these circumstances, Schweinitz's specimen would be considered the type, but Petersen was unable to locate Schweinitz's original specimen, and thus according to the rules of botanical nomenclature, Berkeley's epithet has precedence as it is the earliest published name that has an associated type specimen."

Where I crossed out, did you mean Craterellus or Cantharellus?

Good catch! The last two Cantharellus shoulda been Craterellus - fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence "Petersen suggests that Berkeley may have forseen the necessity to avoid giving the species a tautonym (a situation where both the generic name and specific epithet are identical)."; Why did Berkeley think giving it a tautonym may have been a possibility?

I get the impression from Petersen's paper that Berkeley just wanted to use his own specific epithet, as Petersen was coming up with possible explanations for his name change and refuting them; looks like Berkeley simply got his way because the type specimen was lost. In retrospect, however, the original name would have been awkward, as species in the genera Craterellus and Cantharellus have typically flip-flopped between the two depending on what the authors of the time thought were the important characteristics... so maybe Berkeley was just ahead of his time :) Sasata (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's a chanterelle, may we/do you have more culinary content for the edibility section? :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little bit, and also another similar species & pic. Thanks Robert! Sasata (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very fine fixes :) Pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Cantharellus lateritius passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass