User talk:Casliber



Nomenclature of fungi[edit]

Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels – Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, keen to see what pops up. Cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th–19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]

On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.


  1. ^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.

A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."

With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
  • A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
  • A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
  • A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
  • A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
  • A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.

Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.

The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
On Boletus
Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[1]

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)

The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at

Bract pattern[edit]

Banksia menziesii cone.jpg

You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."

I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.

I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?

(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me on this one – I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


If this is what developing flower pairs look like...
then what are these brown and white furry things?

I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....

What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.

If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.

In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.

When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.

As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:

  1. Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
  2. "Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting – Gah! Forgot to ring Alex – evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Banksia menziesii with persistent florets[edit]

Banksia menziesii inflorescence with persistent florets.jpg
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets.jpg

While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.

It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Banksiamyces again[edit]

I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra) 110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check.
This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:

From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":

"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."

At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More bedtime reading[edit]

[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Halpern[edit]

You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just go back from a weekend break with no where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).

One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Constellation task force assessment[edit]

Certainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aboriginal Astronomy[edit]

Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on and you may find some papers you havent come across on

Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Gene migration research, India --> Australia[edit]

This points to a gene study you may be interested in.... Likely people from the Indian sub-continent mixed with Australian aboriginies 4xxxx years ago. An maybe brought dingos. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Will read anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Glasser's choice theory[edit]

Could use some work if you're interested. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ok – will take a look soonish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Orange-bellied Parrot[edit]

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Will take a look. sounds good – helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

got any advice for writing a constellation FA?[edit]

Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
StringTheory11 Wow! Great idea/find! That really helps. Agree with what you've said. I think it is good to get these in order as it also highlights what other articles are underdone or incorrect etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carcinoma in situ[edit]

The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As it reads right now, which ones are you thinking should have invasive added to them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me know what you are thinking of once you get it clear. It is an intriguing question. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I reworded it like this to make it flow better yet be inclusive and cover all interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
After some deep thought, I think that your edit is good enough. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the human altering of function is fine there. I think it is fine as a level 3 heading underneath function Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When medicines affect function, it is called pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction; "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in shape". Change to: ?
1. "... the cervix is cylindrically shaped usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in cross section".
2. "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in in cross section" Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your amendment looks find to me. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Satanic nightjar[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)