Talk:Clathrus archeri

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Clathrus archeri is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

New Zealand Stub‑class Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia AND Tasmania?

"is indigenous to Australia and Tasmania" Is this done for a reason or just to make those Tasmanians crankey? It's pretty funny if it's a mistake. Uneffect (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it. Schwede 66 01:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Suberumpent" Is Spelt Wrong

The way to correctly spell it is "sub erumpent".

Squidward Mushroom?

Squidward mushroom?

Who calls it that? Piltdown Yaren (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Identification is somewhat Confusing

The article contains the following snippets: "This species was first described in 1980 in a collection from Tasmania", "It was first discovered in the UK over a century ago (~1914) ". These may be technically perfectly correct statements, but to the uninitiated (the putative target of wikipedia) they seem plain contradictory. Tracing back from the linked sources, it appears that the first scientific description of the species (under a different genus name) was actually 1850. Maybe someone with sufficient expertise could tidy this up into something both correct and comprehensible to mere mortals?

Urilarim (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]