Talk:Ascomycota

message: This page should say how many species of ascomycota there are. --Savant13 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of species

message: I don't know where you'd gotten the information from, but there are numerous glaring errors in your entry of Ascomycetes.
Included are most of the fungi that combine with algae and sometimes cyanobacteria to form lichens.
The statement, while correct, doesn't give the whole picture. There have been evidences to show that some lichens consisted of basidiomycetous fungi, instead of ascomycetous fungi, with the photosynthetic symbionts. 
Like most fungi the Ascomycota principally digest living or dead biomass.
That is obvious. All life forms digest only either living or dead biomass. Maybe it's supposed to just be dead biomass?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.173.255 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where he/she got it from, but it looks like a lot of what was just questioned could have come from the Tree of Life project. –dto 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No title

message: I think Strobilomyces commendable work has brought this article up to Featured Quality. I think everyone should spend some time checking it for style (particularly because it is a translation) and then we should nominate it. Debivort 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just translating this article from the German one (it was featured in the German Wikipedia - which is generally better for fungi).  It is an enormous article, and I still haven't finished.  I don't know why it is so anomalously big, when most of the fungus articles are quite short and poor.  For instance Basidiomycota is probably more interesting, but is quite short, also in the German Wiki.  Perhaps some of this material should really be moved to other articles. Strobilomyces 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article? 

message: There's a lot of good information in this article, but the article has weak spots and is poorly organized - it looks thrown together from too many diferent voices. It really needs one or two people to go over it and give it a solid edit. This was going to be a featured article?! It needs some work before it gets to that point.
BTW, editors interested in this page might also be intersted in the WikiProject on Fungi. Peter G Werner 09:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: I will try to edit this more completely over the next few days, to be followed by Basidiomycota and other linked pages. Both terms phylum and division are recognized in the Botanical Code, hence my dual heading in paragraph one. Several major phylogenetic revisions of the fungi have either just been published or are in press and that serve to help stabilize and standardize these higher level taxonomic classifications. Heliocybe 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a lot of interesting information but a lot of it repeats itelf. Therefore, I am trying to go through it to meld it together. In doing so I find bits of misinformation and some gaps. It is taking time to bring it up to a common standard. 
Re Antarctica - ther are a lot more there than lichens. Re Zygomycota - now phylum being abandoned - I am not sure the coenocytic nature of the hyphae itself prevents colonization of arid environments or the reverse. I'd like to see some data. 
Some of the information should be covered elsewhere, such as under ascus, ascoma, ascospore, croziers, lichens, anamorphs, etc. The entire section on Deuteromycota needs to be reconsidered perhaps because Basidiomycota were also included.  And so it goes. Heliocybe 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full revision 

message: If we look at the basidiomycota we see a much better diagram showing the reationships for the smaller scale to larger scale reporoduction. Can we not have similar here?
that diagram is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basidium_schematic.svg
It is amazing that this is such a  high importance article yet no-one has fixed this basic thing!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.73.93 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decent pic needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ascomycota. 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/20070312153703/http://www.herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/FunFacts/Caterpillar.htm to http://www.herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/FunFacts/Caterpillar.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I made two edits to this page, please review and provide feedback if needed.
i) The Rhodophyta are red algae, not blue green algae, so I changed this link. Also, the blue green algae are now recognized as cyanobacteria and don't go through meiosis. 
ii) I replaced the link to the nonexistent page 'vegetative incompatibility' with a link to the subsection 'Allorecognition phenomena' on the Allorecognition page where vegetative incompatibility is discussed.
Siegele (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made two edits on Ascomycota page 

message: Just noticed that there's a section called "Asexual reproduction in ascomycetes" that's at the beginning of the page and is separate from the already existing subsection "Asexual reproduction" within the section "Reproduction". Why is that? It should be fixed. Snoteleks (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition of section about asexual reproduction