# Talk:Baorangia bicolor

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the current referencing error, I cannot find a way to fix it and do require help fixing it. If you have any insight into the problem please let me know.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The first source here will be quite useful, as it is from a 2000 monograph of North American species, and has descriptions of the varieties borealis and subreticulatus. I can see all three pages on Google Books preview, but if you can't let me know and I can take  some scans from my personal copy: Alan Bessette; William C. Roody; Arleen Rainis Bessette (2000). North American boletes: a color guide to the fleshy pored mushrooms. Syracuse University Press. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-0-8156-0588-1.
Another description from a 2003 West Virginia field guide: Roody WC. (2003). Mushrooms of West Virginia and the Central Appalachians. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. p. 316. ISBN 0-8131-9039-8.
I think this next source mostly repeats info from the first source (same author), but it also discusses a few similar species: Bessette AE, Roody WC, Bessette AR. (2007). Mushrooms of the Southeastern United States. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0815631125.{{cite book}}:  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Here's an older description here: William Chambers Coker; Alma Holland Beers (1 June 1974). The Boleti of North Carolina. Courier Dover Publications. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-486-20377-5.
Moar info, with tips on preparation for the table: David W. Fischer; Alan E. Bessette; R. McKenna Brown (1 January 1992). Edible Wild Mushrooms of North America: A Field-To-Kitchen Guide. University of Texas Press. pp. 98–. ISBN 978-0-292-72080-0. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
The following journal articles were found by searching the Web of Knowledge.

Title:   A Study of Boletus Bicolor from Different Areas Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry
Author(s): Zhou Zai-jin; Liu Gang; Ren Xian-pei
Source:  SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS  Volume:  30   Issue:  4   Pages:  911-914   DOI:  10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2010)04-0911-04   Published:  APR 2010
Here, the authors used a cool technique, to differentiate population from different locations.
The next two sources can be used to source the mushroom's distribution in China (Yunnan Province) and Korea:

Title:   Macrofungus resources and their utilization in Shangri-La County, Northwest in Yunnan Province
Author(s): Wang Lan; Song Ding-shan; Liang Jun-feng; et al.
Source:  Journal of Plant Resources and Environment  Volume:  15   Issue:  3   Pages:  79-80   Published:  JUL 2006
Title:   HOST SPECIFICITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUTATIVE ECTOMYCORRHIZAL FUNGI IN PURE STANDS OF TWELVE TREE SPECIES IN KOREA
Author(s): LEE K J; KIM Y S
Source:  Korean Journal of Mycology  Volume:  15   Issue:  1   Pages:  48-69   Published:  1987
B. bicolor has been shown in laboratory experiments to be able to form ectomycorrhizae with Pinus rigida ...

Title:   Fungi that produce ectotrophic mycorrhizae of conifers.
Author(s): DOAK K. D.
Source:  Phytopathology  Volume:  24   Issue:  1   Pages:  7 p   Published:  1934
... and Pinus virginiana:

Title:   HYMENOMYCETOUS SPECIES FORMING MYCORRHIZAE WITH PINUS VIRGINIANA
Author(s): HACSKAYLO E
Source:  MYCOLOGIA  Volume:  47   Issue:  1   Pages:  145-147   DOI:  10.2307/3755764   Published:  1955
Rolf Singer described the mushroom in some detail (including microscopic characteristics) here on pages 53-54 (under the name Boletus rubellus subspecies bicolor):
Singer, Rolf. (1974) ."The Boletoideae of Florida with Notes on Extralimital Species III" American Midland Naturalist 37 (1): 1-135 JSTOR 2421647
The species is also found in Nepal, where it is one of the most commonly used edible mushrooms:
Morten Christensen, Sanjeeb Bhattarai, Shiva Devkota and Helle O. Larsen. (2008). "Collection and Use of Wild Edible Fungi in Nepal" Economic Botany 62 (1): 12-23 doi:10.1007/s12231-007-9000-9
That should be enough for a very good start. Sasata (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats a lot of resourses. I do greatly appreciate your help. Thanks.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It is time for the Fungus to rise up... there is more in life than vertebrates. No pressure Krustev LeMont, but I have high expectations.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sasata I need your help to get access to the China and Nepal journals, that is if you have access to them. Your help is much appreciated.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please send me an email, and I can reply with PDFs attached of what I can find. Sasata (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole range give is shades of red. What does it mean then, to say that the normal color is red? --Ettrig (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, hope I fixed that little bit of unclear info. Point out anything else that catches your eye.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

places such as Missisippi and Florida These areas are too big to be called places. This expression is very difficult to generalize. What are the other "places".
The distribution to North America AND Nepal is very peculiar. Can we really be sure of this?
There is a lot of repetition. No statement should be more than once in the main article. (Some repeated in the lead.)
Different formulations of size used in different places. Choose one style.
--Ettrig (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope I fixed those problems. Thanks for pointing them out.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Distribution requires more research. One of the sources confines itself to Nepal, the other to North America. The current formulations could most easily be interpreted as meaning that this fungus lives only in Nepal and eastern US. But it is most probable that it lives also in a wide area around Nepal and we no nothing about whether it is also in South America, Europe or Africa, or even Australia. --Ettrig (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The distribution has been difficult due to the articles on b. bicolor in china have all been in Chinese, and the Nepal ones extremely vague. Im would have to say that the species that live there are subspecies, but once again, the language barrier prevents me from getting to the articles.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The distribution of this species, apparently limited to eastern North America and Eastern Asia, is not unusual, and even has a name: the Grayan disjunction (I've been meaning to write an article about that sometime; see this link]). See Chorioactis for another example. I've looked through my sources and in Web of Science, but couldn't find much more about the range of this species than what is already given in this article. It is entirely possible, of course, that the Asian populations are just lookalikes to which this name has incorrectly been applied, but we won't know that until some molecular work is done, and for now, we have to accept the sources at face value. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the article mentions China in the lead, but not in the article body itself. The source for its occurrence in Yunnan, China, is listed in the section above and should also be referenced in the article. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll fix that.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The article Boletus amygdalinus was listed as GA today. Maybe it can provide some inspiration. --Ettrig (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That article has almost the same setup as mine, good sign. Thanks--Krustev LeMont (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Also see Tylopilus alboater‎‎, currently at GAN, which has a similar distribution. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

please add information about the varieties; this is available in the Bessette 2000 monograph mentioned above (and the source below). If you can't see the pages on Google Books preview, let me know and I will email you a scan of these pages. These varieties were named by mycologists Alexander H. Smith and Harry D. Thiers in their 1971 monograph The Boletes of Michigan, which is available online here.
There is no information about microscopic characteristics given yet. This information (in excruciating detail) can be found in the Smith and Thiers source above. Follow the format given in other bolete articles and you should be ok; I'll be watching, so don't be afraid to mess up the technical details :)
check out Wikipedia Commons for some other images that might be used; I don't think the current taxobox image is the strongest choice (how about this?)
See Commons:Category:Boletus bicolor.
That picture is a very good looking picture and does show the stem, spore, and cap colors wonderfully. I just do not like the perspective it is in, it makes it seem giant. Also ill get to adding that information soon, tomorrow or the day after most likely. Thanks for the help.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you think you could check out the microscopic characteristics section for possible errors? The vocabulary was quite beyond my knowledge and mistakes in the wording are probably in there because of it. If you could look at that i would appreciate it.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The source I was getting the information from for boletus rubeus presented the information in a way that made it appear as boletus rubeus was not a species but wrongly identified boletus bicolor.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's my recommendations for a taxonomy section adequate for GA. Go to MycoBank and enter "Boletus bicolor" in the "search names" box. "Boletus bicolor" appears three times; the name authored by Raddi in 1807 is legitimate, the other two authored by Peck in 1872, and by Massee in 1909 are not. As a bare minimum, the taxonomy section should mention the existence of these names, indicate clearly which is the preferred name (citing MycoBank as the taxonomical reference). Other information that's good to add is the original citations for each of the three publications (i.e., the protologs; you can scrape this information from each of the respective Mycotaxon pages by clicking "more info" by the literature citation). It's even better if you can get a hold of those documents, and add any information that can fill out the taxonomical history (e.g., where was the type species collected & when? who collected it?) This will be difficult (maybe nearly impossible) for Raddi 1807, as it's in Italian, and published in 1807 (but there's lots of old literature being made available on the net now, so it's a good idea to try looking). The synonyms should be included in the taxobox, along with the citation to MycoBank (see other recent mushroom GAs for details on exact formatting). The incorrectly named Boletus bicolor Massee (1909) is now Boletochaete bicolor Singer (1986).
Another thing to mention is the etymology of the epithet; it's pretty obvious it means "two-colored", but you'll have to have a citation for that. After this, give the common names and a citation for that too (this is currently only mentioned in the lead, a violation of WP:LEAD). I noticed there's a species called Boletus bicoloroides; if you can find any information about this (you should be able to, Boletes of Michigan is available online), it would be useful to add this to the "Similar species" section. Sasata (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm going to get this done as fast as I can but it will probably take me several days, Wikipedia wears me out fast. What names were you referring to in the begging of the first paragraph? And I have been searching for Raddi and can find no reference to it except for the mycobank page. Finding any information on the history has yet to happen, it seems odd how there is nothing that I can find that even hints to the taxonomic history. --Krustev LeMont (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Boletus bicoloroide has now been covered in similar species.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I added the definitions of the name and references for it.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's the basic info that should be included:

The species was originally named by Italian botanist Giuseppe Raddi in 1807.
A species (collected in Sandlake, New York) was later named Boletus bicolor by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1872. The citation links to Peck's description of the species. However, this name is a homonym, and is thus illegitimate under article 53.1 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (you could even search online to find out what exactly this article says if you desired). I found this information from the Index Fungorum page. Interestingly (to those who find taxonomy interesting), even though Peck's name is illegitimate, his name is given as the authority by at least one source (e.g. the Bessette et al. (2000) monograph) Why, I'm not sure, it might have something to do with perceived differences between North American and European material (the type material is from Europe), but that's just a guess (WP:OR) and can't be answered without a more thorough literature search.
The name Boletus bicolor was also used by George Edward Massee in 1909 for a species found in Singapore. This naming is also illegitimate, and the species described by Massee is currently known as Boletochaete bicolor. Sasata (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for breaking it down for me, this really helps a lot. With this done it should be ready for GA I would think. Thank you.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's ready for a GA nom. Good luck, I'll be watching and will help out if you need it when respinding to the reviewer's concerns. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help, I'm going to put it up in a day or two after I give it one last good look over to make sure there are none of those stupid mistakes in it.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The names have been added and there is now a taxonomy section, that means it should be good for GA now.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Under chemical testing, the is a reference to it turning a negative coloration. I Googled, but could not find an explanation as to what that means. Is it a fungus term or am I just missing the obvious? --JimmyButler (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Negative coloration in this situation means no change in colour. To quote from Chemical tests in mushroom identification: "Three results are expected with the iron salts tests: no change indicates a negative reaction; a color change to olive, green or blackish green; or a color change to reddish-pink." Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your point now, from the contradiction in the article wording "it will turn to a negative coloration".
Book snippet, page 97 "Macrochemical tests: pileipellis stains blackish with the application of FeSO4 and is negative with KOH or NH4OH; context stains bluish grav to olive-green with the application of FeSO4, pale orange to pale vellow with KOH, and is negative ..." Updated article. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently the end of the opening paragraph of the article reads, "...A deep blue/indigo bruising of the pore surface and a less dramatic bruising coloration change in the stem over a period of several minutes are identifying characteristics that distinguish it from the similar poisonous species Boletus sensibilis."
According to many mushroom authorities, B. bicolor tends *not* to blue readily or deeply and that is one helpful distinguishing characteristic compared to some of the inedible similar species, which blue rapidly. I've seen the gills turn merely gray on bruising and the other parts not blue at all, when bruised. The opening statement appears to say the opposite.
Later in the article there are several additional statements about reduced or lack of bluing which are more in line with identification descriptions, so this first statement seems confusing. In general, the multiple bluing descriptions in this article probably should be pared down to a single carefully researched statement, and might best be removed from the opening paragraph.
The photograph also is confusing and I have some doubt that it actually represents a B. bicolor, since the stem base is in the photo is bright blue, and that would be atypical according to other authorities (and even this article re. B bicolor stems).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.141.237 (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Baorangia bicolor. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106110228/http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5608.asp to http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5608.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002014802/http://www.mycomontreal.qc.ca/english/portraits_en/BolBic_e.htm to http://www.mycomontreal.qc.ca/english/portraits_en/BolBic_e.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/mtax/00934666/v114n1/s36.pdf?expires=1321228047&id=65625707&titleid=41000038&accname=Guest+User&checksum=2DAD1C79AF7D0D446C9D7CA2A7CBB891
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) 11:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)