Talk:Lactifluus piperatus

Lactifluus piperatus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 12, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the wild mushroom Lactarius piperatus, which oozes peppery milk when cut, has been used in the treatment of viral warts?

Taxonomy headache[edit]

Now I am not familiar enough with early taxonomy to figure this one out, but index fungorum has a different authority order, I will keep looking as I am sure there is an explanation on this as there are issues with whose descriptions are considered valid etc. Fascinating. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is even more fascinating! [1] - so L piperatus is the type and islated from many of the others...and they'll need a new type as much of Lactarius will be fragmented...whoa...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some notes on journals I can't access about this species being eaten by squirrels, which look interesting - just google :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the authority order from the main source I used for the article- the Phillips book, the best paper book I have (or that I've found, my house is full of books of this sort) on British fungi. Obviously, if you're seeing a different authority as more likely, change it. A few of the online books present alternative authorities, perhaps it would be worth comparing what the handbook-type, user-friendly books say. Oh, and I'll certainly look into the squirrel thing next time I can get onto a faster computer- this one's very slow. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Phillips book too, there is alot of fascinating material about the rules of taxonomy and which authors are considered proper, and various discussions have been had, so in a way, probably both are right. I am musing that this may get substantial enough (almost) for GA as it looks like there are alot of tidbits to add or expand upon. I will ask someone about taxonomy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just thinking this was heading in the right direction for GA. I've managed to bag myself a desktop, so I'm going to look into the squirrel thing now. Thanks a lot for your help. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also asked Peter G Werner who is much more of an expert on these things about the taxonomy mystery. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fantastic - this explains heaps of names I have seen now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"particuarly beech"[edit]

Sorry, but can we have a ref on this? Phillips doesn't mention it (which is what it currently looks as if it is attributed to) and I can't find anything on Google Books. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many refs[edit]

In my opinion there are far too many refs in this article. Looks ridiculous. However; it is a good article, and i have DYK nominated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridiformis (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated it myself- best to keep the DYK discussion in one place (where I nominated it- articles should be in the section that corresponds to the day they were created, not the day they were nominated). I can understand your concern about the number of refs, but I think it's fairly important we keep everything obviously cited to reliable sources so there are no original research or verifiability concerns, especially if we're aiming for GA (which I don't think is too far off). Common courtesy says that all sources used should be referenced, and Wikipedia guidelines say that citing the sources inline (so it's easy to see the relationship between statements and sources) is the best way to do that. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luridiformis, the referencing thing I think will be addressed sometime with some form of show/hide button. I find you iignore them after a while. Unfortunately they are necessary if you want to push an article to FA and GA. We may be able to weak a few so a reference covers a few linked sentences, but it is tricky. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up until now i have been reffing from basically 4 or 5 mushroom guidebooks, with occasional forays into 5 or 6 more. They don't vary that much. I can see the point of reffing if you are mixing sources, or if a statement, or fact is likely to be contentious. Ok i concede to your greater experience, and point taken about getting used to it. Ref. it to death chaps. I'm not about to fall out with anybody over such arguments....CheersLuridiformis (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Error[edit]

This page claims the latex dries olive green. Conflicts with the mushroomexpert.com article https://mushroomexpert.com/lactarius_piperatus.html as well as guidebooks I have referenced. Request double-check.