User talk:Birkebak

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Birkebak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed the many taxonomy changes you've been making to fungal taxa articles. Are there some recent publications I've missed? In general, I go with the classifications suggested in the Dictionary of the Fungi (10th ed., 2008), unless there's something more recent. If you let me know what specific publications you're using, I can update this information in the articles. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shasta, I am basing most all of my taxonomic uppdates based off of Matheney et al. Major clades of Agaricales: a multilocus phylogenetic overview. Mycologia 98: 982-995 (2006). There is a PDF available at our lab page: http://www.bio.utk.edu/matheny/Site/Home.html . In my experience the Dictionary of Fungi is a little slow to take up molecular systematic changes... and index fungorum is the worst about it. Birkebak (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll have a closer look at this paper (as well as the other recent phylogenetics papers from the Matheny lab) and add these as sources to the articles. Hope you stick around, we need more fungal taxonomists here! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you think I should add a sentence or two with the citation of this paper? I am quite new to Wikipedia (i work on the fungi when I get really bored in class)... Birkebak (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just copy and paste this as the reference: <ref name=Matheny2006>{{cite journal | author=Matheny PB, Curtis JM, Hofstetter V, ''et al''.|year=2006| title=Major clades of Agaricales: a multilocus phylogenetic overview| journal=Mycologia| volume=98| pages=982–95| doi= 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.982 |url=http://www.bio.utk.edu/matheny/Site/Publications_files/Mathenyetal_Agaricales_2006.pdf |accessdate=2010-03-29}}</ref> Don't worry about the small stuff (i.e. formatting and the like), I've got most of the fungi taxa articles on my watchlist and will clean up and tidy where necessary. Sasata (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a welcome template at the top which has some handy links in it. Welcome to wikipedia and there are a few of us interested in fungi about the place - Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi and its talk page are places interested editors can discuss matters fungal :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fistulinaceae vs Schizophyllaceae

Hi, Birkebak! I think, I will change systematics in taxobox to Dict. of Fungi, Mycobank, Index Fungorum variant. It's just too much of a change. I think it's better to tell about radical changes in text of the article, not in taxobox. I'll read your sources to understand it better, but anyway I think there is must be some general system for all fungal taxoboxes, and dict. of fungi is the best for now.--Adept Ukraine (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]