# Talk:Lichen growth forms

For those of us without a classical education, a brief explanation of the derivation of the form names would be useful. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Great idea Pbsouthwood. I'll try to find some etymologies. MeegsC (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: do the added etymologies help? MeegsC (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
MeegsC, They do thanks. The article feels more complete now. The inner nerd applauds. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood LOL. Glad you approve! Thanks for the suggestion. :) MeegsC (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are some growth form term etymologies:

foliose: L. foliosus, leafy < folium, leaf + suf. osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.229)
areolate: L. areolatus, with areolae < areola, dim. of area, halo, open space + suf. -atus > E. -ate, provided with or likeness; or +suf. -aris > E. -ar, like, belonging to (p.38)
byssoid: L. byssus < Gr. býssos, linen cloth of very fine threads + L. suf. aceus > E. aceous, of or pertaining to, with the nature of
fruticose: L. fruticosus, similar to a shrub, shrubby < frutex, shrub + suf. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.234)
leprose: L. leprosus, scurfy, scaly < lepras <Gr. lépra, leprosy < leprós, rough + L. suff. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.339)
placodioid: Gr. plakós, plaque, tablet + NL. suf. -oides, contraction of Gr. oeides, which denotes similarity (p.482)
squamulose: L. squamulosus, provided with small scales < squamula, dim. of squama, scale + suf. -osus > E. -ose, full of, augmented, prone to (p.610)
Symbols: L. = Latin; Gr. = Greek; E. = English; NL = Neolatin; dim. = diminutive; suf. = suffix; < = derived from; > giving rise to.

Source: Ulloa, Miguel; Hanlin, Richard T. (2012). Illustrated Dictionary of Mycology (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: The American Phytopathological Society. ISBN 978-0-89054-400-6. Esculenta (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Nice! · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw your GA nomination and dipped in. I was just making my annual "fungi I saw in my yard collage" and I just used the same app w some of your lichen photos. If it helps, go with good. If not, ignore me. Carry on with your fine work! jengod (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jengod! I'm currently working on the lichen and lichen morphology articles, and will definitely plug this into one or both of those articles. Nice work! MeegsC (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Usoihe (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Usoihe (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

ok some feedback...
Overall the writing itself impresses as clear and precise, just a bit confused about scope (see below) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Am not a fan of Overview sections as is a nebulous catch-all term - maybe something mroe defining, like context (as we're talking about the parent organism?) for first para, and second para goes under growth forms or something.  Done
I'd put the meaning of byssoid close to the top of that section.
Only for this section (i.e. not for the other section definitions)?
I was travelling with an at-times annoyingly bad internet connection. hat stood out but didn't scan others. In general I'd have meanings (from Greek etc.) near the top near the name. Not a huge deal though.
Do you think this article should be merged with Lichen morphology is the two seem to complement each other...?
I'm loathe to do this, as I'm in the process of greatly expanding lichen morphology. I think it would make that article too long.
Fair point. Just musing on it, then is this more of a "list" article? I guess how are you thinking the content delineation panning out across lichen morphology/anatomy type articles?
I've started the upgrade on lichen morphology here. I've got a long way to go! The anatomy article will be less "listy" as there aren't many different parts on the inside. And the articles on the various external bits (e.g. cephalodia) won't be listy at all.
Who came up with these classifications of growth forms - why are the look-a-likes not proper growth forms?
The concept of the three main forms is mentioned as traditional, but reading the article I don't know why, nor why they are reclassified later.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)