Talk:Boletus edulis

message: I think that the most commonly used name for this mushroom in English is cep, not porcino or porcini.
Cep (spelt like that) is a word in its own right in English.  It is related to the French word cèpe.
Strobilomyces 14:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grazie, Italia! Anonymous Italophone, thanks for your help here. I did some rewording that I believe preserves the intent of your edits. Eric talk 14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Might it make more sense to have this as Boletus edulis? And should we not treat the word porcini as a plural? —Ian Spackman 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going ahead and moving to "Boletus edulis", with redirects for cep and porcini. There are many names, but porcini is definitely not the one it should be under, since it is a) foreign, b) gramatically plural, and c) not universal. "Boletus edulis" is at least the standardized name, even if in Latin. Martinp 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I have added the Czech term for this mushroom to the list of foreign names, and noticed a comment asking why the list is there. I'm not sure either, but I like it. After all, the mushroom has names from a variety of languages in English (for what it's worth, I think it's most commonly called a porcini mushroom these days, at least in the UK), and mushroom-picking is a much bigger thing in many non-English-speaking countries.
::I like the variety of names from other languages, adds colour. Cas Liber 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit and other things 

message: The material on this website is interesting. My italian is nonexsistent, as is my knowledge of EEC naming regulations, but it is a fascinating mention of official names, much like Parmesan Cheese (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungo di Borgotaro 

message: This is a high-profile article of high importance in the Fungi Wikiproject, and is due for a GA/FAC makeover. All interested parties are welcome to add to this to-do list:
*scour academic databases for good info and refs to add (working on this one, there's lots) 
: ok I'm mostly done this. Sasata (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: on the fence about this for now... it's used in Chinese medicine as a component of "tendon-easing pills", it's got in vitro antiviral effects, some research presented at a conference suggest anti-inflammatory and vasoprotective actions, but is has debatable anticancer effect... will think some more. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: problem with a mold-pic is that one can't be sure the infected specimen is actually B. edulis, and that type of pic might be better suited at the Boletus article. I think instead I'll look for a closeup of the stipe to put in or near the description section. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: more pics added; no quality spore pic unfortunately. Sasata (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: There's other, eastern North American species that resemble B. edulis that could also be included. But now I'm thinking about what about all the European or Asian similar species that aren't getting mentioned (i.e. systematic bias)? More thinking/research needed. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty good to me, but I wouldn't mind finding someone else uninvolved to have a read through before FAC. Any volunteers? Sasata (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *I've stubbed Boletus regineus; do you think it's worthwhile to create a new article for the variant Boletus edulis var. grandedulis, or better to just include it as a subsection somewhere in this article? Sasata (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd go with subsection first off. Whether or not it has its own page a summary should be here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok, sounds reasonable. I'm mostly done adding stuff from the academic literature now, will just be tweaking and copyediting. I'll have a look in some cookbooks at the library this weekend. Sasata (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A Swede above noted that B. edulis is named after after a former king of Sweden, see here and here for sources... can we fit this in somewhere? Common name section or in first paragraph (i.e. history) of culinary uses? Sasata (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only did one year of Swedish, and lack a comprehensive dictionary, but the sources overlook that the common word in Swedish for porcini (porcino) is matsvamp. That, I presume, was then renamed after King when his obsession with the king bolete stirred public curiosity, and the vernacular term.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it goes okay in the common names bit, which is a bit listy and could do with some more embellishment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: The "Pests and predators" subsection has no business being where it is, and "Fruit body production" is an... idiosyncratoic choice for a first-level division. Both of these should be together as an "ecology" section, which could probably hold information scattered across other sections: e.g. the last paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" is not actually about bioactive compounds, since these don't actually have bioactivity (as I understad it, anyway: they do not seem to have effects on other organism), but about the mechanism that allows the plant to thrive in heavy-metal-polluted soil. Circeus (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, Sasata has unearthed a load of material. I have reconstituted an Ecology section now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think it's much better organized now. Plus, I can now justify expanding the part on mycorrhizal associations that previously felt somewhat out of place. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the ecology? 

message: My suggestion is that part of the text about the nutritional information should be converted to some sort of table, like the one at orange, for example. I found another study, a Turkish one , with somewhat varying, but useworthy results.--Paffka (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll work on it. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added a table. The article didn't explicitly give the caloric value, so I calculated it myself using the standard fat=9 cal/g, protein&carb=4 cal/g conversion. I also converted ppm to mg/100g. I hope this isn't considered original research :) The text of the section needs a revision now with this new information, as some of the values are different between table and text... have to decide whether to just stick with one source, or mention the significantly differing values in a footnote or something. Also, for aesthetic purposes, it would be nice to lengthen the text a bit so the bottom of the table doesn't protrude into the next section. I'll work on it some more this weekend. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: (groan) well, one lot of numbers are for fresh and the other for dried. These nutritional stats are one of the bugbears which ket me away from food articles :/. Maybe best option is to accurately state who (i.e. researchers and which university they are with) said what exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have expanded the section some more... tell me if it's better or worse now. Also, maybe the larger size means the subsection should be split off into a section, and subsectioned (Carbohydrates, Lipids, Amino acids, Trace metals and minerals)?? Sasata (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd fight the natural tendency to split into smaller subsections - we need a big section for the RHS nutrition table - just reading through now... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The reference is not the USDA nutrient database, the source is provided in reference 119 (Çaglarlrmak et al. 2001) The percentages refer to the approximate USDA recommendations for adults. Sasata (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional values 

message: Is this species found in Australia? Hall et al. (Edible and Poisonous Mushrooms of the World, 2003, p. 121) intimate that it has been introduced there, but do not say so outright... Sasata (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I have never heard that before (if it was confirmed there'd be a host of mushroomers descending on deciduous or conifer plantings around the place :)) - will double check but I am highly dubious...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Australia? 

message: I'm very impressed by the ergosterol peroxide stub, I de red-linked because I couldn't find enough myself Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: Hello all-
I think the "gentleman's mushroom" translation for Herrenpilz might want changing or elaboration. From looking around on the web, it seems the meaning of Herr in this mushroom name is more lord, as in nobleman or landowner. I found a couple sources that indicate that during the Middle Ages, peasants were expected to hand over these mushrooms to the local lord. Hereis one source, in German. Scroll down to the section Steinpilze für die adligen Herren. Here is another more detailed source,also in German. Let me know if you want translation; I'll watch here. Eric talk 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out this problem. The prefix Herren- means 'superior, high-quality', and so I've corrected the gloss with reference to an etymological dictionary. The webpage references to peasants turning the mushrooms over to the nobility is almost certainly an example of pseudoetymology. Doremo (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The relevant citation from Kluge (Seebold, Elmar. 1999. Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 23rd edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 371) is "Herr ... Herren- in Komposita ... dann häufig für 'besser, hochstehend.'" As such, it's comparable to, say, Herrenapfel, Herrenbier, Herrenbirne, Herrenbrot, etc.; that is, not apples, beer, pears, and bread that must be forfeited to a lord, or that rule over other apples, beer, pears, and bread, but simply apples, beer, pears, and bread of superior quality. A more poetic (but still accurate enough) gloss for Herrenpilz would be 'noble mushroom' or 'noble mushroom, superior mushroom'. Duden puts "'lord' of the mushrooms" in scare quotes because it's a funny/ironic literal translation, and then gives the explanation vorzüglichster Pilz 'first-rate mushroom, most excellent mushroom' without the scare quotes. Doremo (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though I don't know if Duden is really claiming the term is ironic or funny; I read those quotes more as an acknowledgement that there is no feudal-style ranking among mushrooms. In any case, I strongly suspect that when a native German speaker hears Herrenpilz, he's not hearing Herren the way an anglophone hears superior. I think it's evoking something much more akin to noble, lordly, or kingly--maybe in much the same way as anglophones came up with king bolete. Eric talk 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose it's like king bolete (or king crab, king cobra, etc.); a metaphor denoting the best of its kind. It really raises the question of how literal a gloss should be because both 'noble mushroom' and 'superior mushroom' are accurate, depending whether one focuses on the literal or denotative/idiomatic meaning. Just as it might be useful to write "German Sauerstoff ('oxygen', literally 'sour substance')" it may also be useful to write "German Herrenpilz ('superior mushroom', literally 'noble mushroom')" to convey both the idiomatic and literal meanings—or simply "German Herrenpilz (literally, 'noble mushroom') because the denotative meaning B. edulis is already clear from the context anyhow. For me, the main issue is that it is not derived from the folk story about forfeiting them to the nobility. Doremo (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I only now saw that you'd replied to my old post about the etymology (which I'd forgotten completely about)! Should we move this discussion to that section? I like your last suggestion above. Eric talk 21:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll change the gloss to 'noble mushroom'. Doremo (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that reads better. Have you seen the conjecture on German websites about Steinpilz having possibly grown out of Schweinpilz? One interesting Steinpilz caption on Flickr. Eric talk 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Steinpilz conjecture is likely simply a conjecture; per Kluge and Grimm, the name refers to the firmness of the flesh ("wegen des festen fleisches"), such an older name is unattested, and a sound change /ʃv/ > /ʃt/ would be very peculiar. The term Schweinpilz is sometimes found for Suillus luteus (e.g., in Krünitz's Oeconomischen Encyclopädie), which matches the etymology of the genus name, sometimes also for Boletus luridus and Suillus bovinus. Doremo (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of ''Herrenpilz'' 

message: The taxobox has binomial_authority = Bull. without a year. The text says first described in 1782 and the caption on the etching of Bulliard says 1783. The pub date for Herbier de la France is given as 1780-93 and 1780 on the linked doc. Clarification needed! --Chuunen Baka  (talk  • contribs) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good catch, I have corrected the date to 1782 in the image caption. IBCN rules (which also governs fungal taxonomy) say not to include a publication date when giving the full name & authority, so we follow that convention in fungal taxa articles (albeit inconsistency, I admit). Sasata (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority year? 

message: In the lead there is a sentence which reads "...by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots". The verb to envelope typically means the subject of the sentence wraps itself around the object. In this case the object seems to be "sheaths of fungal tissue". So unless I am mistaking the intent of the sentence (which is certainly more than possible) It should read " by enveloping the tree's underground roots with sheaths of fungal tissue", or something to that effect. I hesitate to make a change to an FA article that is currently on the main page without discussion however. Colincbn (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I have altered the text per your suggestion—thanks. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording change 

message: Y'all are showing measurements in tonnes (tons).  What kind of (tons), please?  Long or short? - Denimadept (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tons quoted are US short tons of 2,000 pounds. I've made a wikilink to disambiguate at the first mention that is clearly a short ton. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  In future, I recommend using a link at the beginning, and "short ton" throughout.  Not everyone reads the entirety of an article in detail. - Denimadept (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Just a question: Since Wikipedia is quite international, why settle with a national measure like the U.S. short ton? Why not the more generic 1000kg:s or tonne? This would make the figures clearer for a much broader audience? I feel we should strive for as much genericism as possible without national preferences and last I checked, the metric system is far more commonly in use around the world than the imperial system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.82.183 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tons 

message: this raises two questions, firstly is there an article on mushrooms sold pickled, i guess not, there is no link. secondly, what mmakes someone includes this. we dont see many mushrooms pickled today, but among the 20 or so i seen, non were boletus. i actually suspect all edible mushrooms have been traditionally pickled in quantity, and if i have seen closer to twenty without searching.. are they nowadays really a few? 80.57.43.57 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "one of the few species sold pickled" 

message: Any reason why the Pierre Bulliard image is facing away from the text?  As far as I can see it is also in breach of another MOS guideline as it is placed on the left at the start of a section.  Two birds could be killed with one stone here by moving it over to the right.  -- CassiantoTalk 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a lot better.  Very interesting article BTW. -- CassiantoTalk 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've reverted the recent change to "porcino" in the lede because of clear statistics here. Other Google Books data: "the porcini is" (46 hits) vs. "the porcino is" (5 hits), "made with porcini" (47 hits) vs. "made with porcino" (0 relevant hits), "uses porcini" (10 hits) vs. "uses porcino" (1 hit), "can buy porcini" (4 hits) vs. "can buy porcino" (0 hits), etc. Any change to "porcino" should be based on good evidence that the term is dominant in English. Doremo (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen "porcino" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again, @Casliber! Porcini is the plural form of porcino, the Italian word for this species. The "Italiano" link at the left of the article page will take you here: it:Boletus edulis. @Doremo: I don't seek consensus for what I see as a copyedit. Google hits and incorrect usage in books don't prove anything beyond the fact that incorrect use of porcini is widespread. Would you have us change the first line of Chanterelle to read "...commonly known as the chanterelles"? When you follow the "but look how many people are doing it" reasoning, we end up with articles like Panini (sandwich), which was deliberately moved from the correct form panino after a few editors decided that since a lot of people were already using the word incorrectly, our encyclopedia work should follow suit. You might want to take a look at Argumentum_ad_populum. Eric talk 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to object to Panini (or Zucchini or Spaghetti etc.). If you can provide reliable sources showing that porcino is the dominant usage in English, then you've got a good basis for making the change. The Italian grammatical usage on the Italian WP page is irrelevant. Doremo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct use of the term may well be irrelevant to you, but it shouldn't be irrelevant in the formulation of a serious reference work. If misunderstanding or misuse of a term is widespread, that may be worth noting in an article, but we should not grant legitimacy to incorrectness merely because it is pervasive.  Eric talk 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porcini 

message: Which dialect is this FA supposed to be in? It currently has more than one. --John (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I figured it out. --John (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engvar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boletus edulis. 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/20090107041412/http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomking.html to http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomking.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here's a quality image for your consideration. The whole upload (29 photos of various fungi) needs a license review and I'm a bit stumped by what is needed. Schwede66 01:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20130523094609/http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.pdf to http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.pdf
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) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20110721185827/http://www.belogradchik.info/1/content/view/390/2/lang%2Cbg/ to http://www.belogradchik.info/1/content/view/390/2/lang%2Cbg/
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) 02:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boletus edulis. 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/20140517151731/http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/State_Herbarium/Resources/Publications/Journal_of_the_Adelaide_Botanic_Gardens/Journal_search/25/1 to http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/State_Herbarium/Resources/Publications/Journal_of_the_Adelaide_Botanic_Gardens/Journal_search/25/1
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) 22:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cep#Requested move 20 June 2018.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Cep#Requested move 20 June 2018]]

message: French names for related species are used under Related species and are translated to English in the article. One of the species listed is Tête de nègre (Boletus aereus), which is translated to English in the article as "negro's head". As the common name used in the French article for Boletus aereus is Cèpe bronzé and the English is "dark cep", I am changing the listed names accordingly. 80.217.118.1 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic use of N-word removed 

message: I have it from a pair of professional Oregon USA independent consulting botanists, Bruce Newhouse and Nick Otting, that the centrally bulbous photograph at "Stem shape can range from club-shaped to centrally bulbous" is actually of Boletus aereus. Bruce Newhouse was a co-founder of Cascade Mycological Society.  He and Nick Otting are published by Oregon State University Press. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. I'm posting a question to the uploader of the photo to Commons. He does not provide much info in the description: :commons:File:Boletus_edulis_JPG9.jpg My question to him is on the file's talkpage. Eric talk 09:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong photograph