Talk:Fungi imperfecti

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Dematiaceae VS Dermateaceae - a broken link/bad redirect

Dematiaceae is an artificial and polyphyletic grouping of all dark hyphae and/or dark spored deuteromycetes (or you could say "fungi imperfecti").

Meanwhile, Dermateaceae is an extant family of cup fungi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermateaceae

The two are not connected beyond being Fungi taxonomy terms, and being spelled very similarly.

Currently all the links in this article (and in the article for the genus Berkleasmium) redirect to Dermateaceae from "Dematiaceae" for some reason. I am going to try to correct this so they go to either a page for Dematiaceae, a page that contains an explanation of Dematiaceae, or (if none of that is possible) will remove the links altogether. --MariahKRogers (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the change

I made the change because the term widely used today is "fungi imperfecti".

Contradiction?

The lead paragraph says:

"The Deuteromycota were once considered a formal phylum of the kingdom Fungi. The term is now used only informally"

but then the next paragraph says:

"There are about 25,000 species that have been classified in the deuteromycota."

this seems to be a contradiction. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Content

The entire article seems to be about naming, without actual content about the fungi in question. For instance, is it believed these fungi really have no sexual reproduction, or is it more likely that we've simply not found it? If they only reproduce asexually, how is it believed that they evolved, especially when they have such unique properties such as producing antibiotics? Are all examples found indeed clones, or do they differ (indicating that sexual reproduction did happen at one point in time)? Right now, the article is more like a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEAE:E60:D4C5:C720:E1A6:FAEF (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Editing

This sentence in the first paragraph is very confusing:

"The phylogenetic line can be traced back to the point where these species hoard some of the rudimentary characteristics that could imply information sufficient to redirect them into the known and confirmed taxon."

What is trying to be said here? How can this be restated so that it is understandable?

35.2.111.119 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rework to emphasize that dual nomenclature is obsolete?

While I just changed a chunk of the "Problems..." section to generally clarify that dual nomenclature is obsolete, the long explanation of renaming fungi to match their teleomorph is not really that useful anymore, nor accurate -- either the anamorph or the teleomorph name is now retained under the One Fungus = One Name rule. Probably all of these older articles will need an overhaul to make this absolutely clear, even though it's been well over a decade since dual nomenclature ended... Taxosplitter (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]