# Talk:Daedaleopsis confragosa

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daedaleopsis confragosa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to this before the end of the Cup. Happy to take a look through now, though. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"The whitish underside ages grey-brown" Curious turn of phrase. How about "Turns grey-brown with age", or "Turns grey-brown as the fruit body ages"?
Done. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"and has undergone several changes of genera in its" Genus, surely? Compare- "I have undergone several changes of insurer in the last few years"
Agree, fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What variety of English are we using? We have "color" and "grayish" but "grey"?
Am. English, fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
sessility is a dablink
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"sheets with unusual texture and colors." How about "with an unusual texture and unusual colors" or "unusual textures and colors"?
Changed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"brown heart rot" Link or explanation?
Now linked and explained. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"from China,[16] western Maharashta (India),[17] Iran,[18] and Japan.[19]" And Russia, presumably? Or are you treating Russia as Europe?
Source discusses its presence in the Urals, which is borderline between the two, so added "It is also found in Europe,[15] with a range extending east to the Urals." Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Formatting on the Saber source is a little odd?
Oops – missing journal title, now added. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why have you categorised this as described in 1788?
Not sure ... fixed to 1791. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sources look reliable, even if they are a little obscure looking. The pictures are solid. I wonder whether there's a little more to be said about this one- I'll have a flick through some of my guidebooks tomorrow... J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, additions are welcome. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sterry P, Hughes B (2009). Complete Guide to British Mushrooms & Toadstools. HarperCollins. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-00-723224-6. Notes that it's very common- one of the 100 most common fungi in the UK. "Sometimes umbonate at the point of attachment". Fruit body grows solitarily or in tiers.
Garnweidner E. (2011). Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-261-67406-6. Called "blood-stained bracket"- Shame we missed Hallowe'en! Notes that there has been continual species splits because the pores are so variable, sometimes even looking like gills.
Courtecuisse  R. (1999). Mushrooms of Britain and Europe. Collins Wildlife Trust guides. London, UK: Harpercollins. p. 337. ISBN 978-0-00-220012-7. Fruit body up to 2cm thick. Sometimes found on both sides of host. Microscopic features: "Sp 7.5-11 x 2-2.25 μm, curved. Bas 20-40 x 3-5 μm, cylindro-clavate. Numerous branched hyaline hyphidia, x2-3 μm. Trimitic: SH 3-7 μm, very thick-walled; GH 2-6 μm, thin- or thick-walled, with clamps; BH 2-5 μm." Hope you can make sense of that mycojargon- seems to include a lot of info not in the article.
That's good stuff – I've incorporated most of it in this edit. I'm ordering the Courtecuisse book :) Sasata (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across it in a charity shop. It's pretty technical for me; certainly a good source for articles like this, but less useful when I'm just trying to work out which Russulaceae I saw in the park! Anyway, I think that little expansion has provided the umph that it needed, so I'm happy to go ahead and promote. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daedaleopsis confragosa. 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/20131019102119/http://recent-science.com/index.php/rrst/article/viewFile/5423/2835 to http://recent-science.com/index.php/rrst/article/viewFile/5423/2835
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) 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)