This article is within the scope ofWikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChina related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofNepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page and add your name to themember's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
The article shows that the species is in the genusPhallus. Other genera were proposed, but it is back inPhallus. I don't think that there is a question.Robert McClenon (talk)16:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the move. I think there are two separate new species names, depending on whether the mushroom has the net surrounding it (this is discussed on some websites). Can this be clarified? Also, there are two years given: one in the box and one in the text: 1798 and 1809. Which is correct?Badagnani18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article hoping to find out what the purpose of the indusium or 'skirt' that forms around the base of the mushroom. Is it for protection from larger animals such as rodents? If there is a known theory as to what its function is I would be very grateful if someone could add it.93.97.42.178 (talk)11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha Alan. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we have to follow the principle ofverifiability, not truth. If someday a mycologist were to publish their contradictory opinion about this study in a reliable source, then we would certainly include that here too (going to Hawaii anytime soon?)Sasata (talk)14:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to this supposedly peer reviewed study is wrong. While this ref seems to be in use in many webpages, the journal did not publish a 5 pages article, but a scarcely half page one. That has no materials and methods section, and does not seem to go beyond the status of a letter. Seems far from being peer reviewed. Also the information about the methods of the study is not verifiable, since the article referenced does not report them. It seems like this part needs more confirmation.— Precedingunsigned comment added by89.150.133.82 (talk)22:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably referring to the 1-page PDF abstract that is available on the 'net. The full study is indeed 5 pages, with materials & methods described.Sasata (talk)23:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phallus indusiatus is astinkhornfungus found all over the world intropical areas. The fungus is characterised by a conical to bell-shaped cap on astipe and a lacy "skirt" that hangs from beneath the cap. Maturefruit bodies are up to 30 cm (12 in) tall with a cap that is 2–4 cm (0.8–1.6 in) long. It is anedible mushroom used as an ingredient inChinesehaute cuisine.Photo: Christian Schwarz
Something odd is going on with the twoZhongguo Shiyongju refs: they have issue numbers, but no volumes, should those issues be volumes or are volumes missing? Speaking of it, have you actually seen the articles? Or are you citing them secondhand/abstract only?
I have photocopies of these articles; there do not appear to be volume numbers. Only the abstracts are in English, so I guess in effect I'm citing by abstract.Sasata (talk)18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to doublecheck the language of Das & al. (2007)?
Generally, I've found the streammlined{{Cite conference}} to provide little to no actual useful features over{{Cite book}} (the pre-streamlining was more useful), so I converted the (somewhat messed up) Yang & Jong (1987) ref to it. In many citation styles book series are treated as if they were periodicals. I assume that's what caused the confusion here.
The two Lloyd refs seems to have been the same (though it was a mess to track what was being referred to). You might want to double-check that it is correct.
I've put in a reference forDictyophora lutea. I think the rest of the synonymy can be covered with Kasuya (2008) and the refs therein. Unless we intend to give full citation of the other names, we can probably drop Das & al. (2007) (and maybe even the authors to lighten the text?).
I'm not too familiar with greek, maybe we can find someone from the classics project or something that can look at the word quoted in Desvaux's description ofDictyophora and transcribe them for us? (they are in a footnote, but I can't make the precise letters: I think it's in italics)
I have come acrossa source that connects the japanese name to those referring to the indusium (kinugasa, a lady's veiled hat). Also shuffled a name from the indusium names to the bamboo names.
I think some clarification of the transition from the immature to mature fruit body is a good idea (namely the fact that the mature body breaks and emerges from theuniversal veil-style peridium, rather than merely changing shape). Also we have to be careful because the "volva" ofPhallus species might not (as I understand) be analogous to that of agarics. Need checking.
Good idea. When I was scouring the Biodiversity Heritage Library pages, I vaguely recall seeing a old journal article that described the development of this mushroom. Will see if I can find it again and summarize for here.Sasata (talk)20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit about this now (and a link to a time-lapse video, clearly worth more than 1000 words). Found that source I was looking forhere. Do you think it'd be worthwhile to grab Fig. 336#3 and perhaps 337#1 and use them to help go into some more detail about the mechanism of fruit body development? Peridial remnants of gasteroid fungi are also referred to as a volva; have amended the volva article to reflect this.Sasata (talk)08:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "polyhedral" to "polygonal". I don,t think they are cube- or pyramid-shaped.
What does "collapsing" mean? Does it "tuck" into the volva or does it rather "crumple" like the Alta Floresta specimen depicted?
The description needs to mention the cap texture a bit earlier, but it's not clear whether the ridged texture is completely hidden by the gleba (looks from the picture like specimen are usually found with most of it gone)
Also I think the description needs to stick to the description (the cap is coated in a fould smellu, slimy subtance that is made of spores: the gleba) and move the reasons why down to ecology.
Was thinking about that myself. Done.Sasata (talk)
I think we can afford to describe the spore as elliptical rather than the overly technical "ellipsoid".
We've stated thatP. indusiatus is associated with bamboo forests in Asia, so I'm not clear that mentioning the species forP. cinnabarinus is all that useful, plus Kuosays it's found in the americas and Australia too.
Removed the details, expanded the distribution. Hmmm, Kuo says thatDictyophora indusiata f.rosea sensu Guzmán, Montoya & Bandala =Phallus cinnabarinus; I wonder if that is the samesensu as Wright (1960) (in which case I could probably dump that straggling sentence at the end of description, or move it to taxonomy ...)Sasata (talk)20:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucida is a genus of Lepidoptera with nothing to do with flies. Either there's a typo in the original article or there's some homonymy. MaybeLucilia? We'll need to dig into this one.
"typically found after heavy rains" feels odd. I feel saying outright that it grows when it rain (or whatever the technical formulation) would be smoother?
Rare "on the market" or however best to word it? The species is clearly not rare as such. "not abundant" is probably a better wording than "uncommon" too.
I think some context for the "Bird's Nest Eight Immortals Soup" is needed. Is that a famous/notorious/mythic recipe? Similarly for Kissinger, more context would be good too. The species seems to be considered some sort of delicacy, and I think if we can state so it would be helpful.
Tried to add some more context to the bird soup. Don't know what else to say about the Kissinger meal without straying too far from the topic, but I added some links that show the importance of this visit in US history. Also mentioned explicitly that it's considered a delicacy and aphrodisiac.Sasata (talk)06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cultivation information might be worth separating more clearly from edibility/cultural aspects (or be acknowledged in the header).
I don't like mentioning authors that are not notable in the text. I think the second to last paragraph should start "A nutritional analysis of Nigerian specimens determined that [...]"'
You know I'm not in favor of sections with a single subsection, can we see if the "Uses" supersection is needed? Also the orgasm part might better belong under bioactive properties?
The statement that dictyoquinazols "belonging to a class of compounds known to be rare in nature" is unclear as to which class we are talking about (Quinazolines is the most likely I think, but I sure wouldn't bet on it) and is not found in any shape or form in Liu (2004), at least not that I found.
I'm not sure the lengthy, overly technical discussion of the Unique RNase is all that useful. i mean, yes it relevant to fungi biochemistry/physiology, but I'm not sure it is pertinent in a section on Bioactive properties. Maybe relegate it to a simplified aside at the end of the section?
The remark about Polyphenol fails to relate to the fact that polyphenols are avery well known class of antioxidants that is showing even in general literature nowadays, so it's a bit tangential unless there are some really novel ones involved. I think this emphasis should be reduced and a bit more given to albaflavenone.Here's a chemical structure for it if it can be useful.
I'll try rewriting part of the section. It has somewhat too much unfortunate waffly repetitiveness for a simple critique.
I don't think there's an overemphasis on polyphenols (~2 sentences in a 6-paragraph section). You could be right about the waffly repetitiveness though, and I'd welcome any additional changes that you think might would help. I added the structure of albaflavenone. I'm itching to get this submitted to FAC, so I think I'll cut out the Chinese name stuff to what I can source, and add more back later if I get a response from WP:China.Sasata (talk)16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now submitted. Thanks again for your helpful critique Circeus. Still have to work a bit on the distribution section (range map), but I should have that done by tomorrow.Sasata (talk)21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links onPhallus indusiatus. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I have just modified one external link onPhallus indusiatus. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
