Talk:Isidium

Isidium 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.
Review: May 7, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as High-importance).

GA review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isidium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might take me some days but I am on it. I start with the lead:

Do I understand correctly that there are two types of reproductive structures in lichens, isidia and soredia? If so, maybe this could be explicitly mentioned, to place the article in some context?

Clarified this point explicitly in the lead, explaining that isidia and soredia are the two principal vegetative reproductive structures in lichens. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is a tiny, wart- or finger-like projecting – "projection"?

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isidia also help lichens colonize new habitats; – this information does not seem to be very helpful; isn't that the case for any reproductive structure?

Reworded to explain how isidia tend to establish nearby due to their heavier structure, rather than stating the obvious.

however, their relatively heavier structure limits their ability to disperse over long distances – I do not understand why this is the case. "Their ability to disperse" refers to the isidia, but they do not disperse themselves (the spores do). Does the cuticle prevent spores from exiting? But if so, why should this influence dispersal distance of the spores?

Clarified that isidia are vegetative propagules (not spore-containing structures) that disperse as whole units, hence the relevance of weight and structure. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link lichenology

Done. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

influencing species classification and nomenclature in lichenology – I doubt they influence nomenclature (the formal rules defined by the ICN). Maybe instead write "hold significant taxonomic value, and are important features for species identification" to be more reader-friendly?

Reworded as suggested. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They disperse primarily via passive vectors such as wind – When wind and animals are "passive" vectors, what would be an active vector? I am not sure why you need to formulate with this complexity in the first place; why not simply "Spores are dispersed by wind, water, or animals …"?

Simplified phrasing to remove "passive vectors" and instead refer directly to wind, water, or animals. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

though their heavier, corticate structure restricts their potential for long-distance dispersal – already mentioned earlier in the lead.

Removed the redundant mention; the point is already clearly made earlier.

compared to lighter propagules like soredia – "propagule" is a new one and should be explained (if it is indeed essential for the lead, which I'm not sure it is).

Kept the term but added a brief gloss on first use in the lead to define it for general readers. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ecological restoration, including lichen transplantation, as well as their contributions to ecosystem functions and symbiont dispersal networks – this could do well with a bunch of wikilinks.

Added appropriate wikilinks to all relevant terms in that sentence. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsen and colleagues suggest – "suggested"? Also, in other places you use "et al."; I suggest to change those to "and colleagues", too.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the body for missing wikilinks (and add explanations of terms where needed): epiphytic, Parmeliaceae, symbiotic, foliose, etc.

All those linked, and several more as well. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In lichens, specific features related to their isidia are often captured in their species epithet. For instance, the epithet of Porina coralloidea alludes to its isidial features,[32] while Aspicilia stalagmitica earned its name due to distinct isidia-like outgrowths – "isidia-like" means "similar to isidia but not the same", so these are not features related to actual isidia as stated in the first sentence?

Reworded to make clear that the section includes both isidia and isidia-like structures, and adjusted examples accordingly.

The "Eponyms" section makes me worry about WP:Synth, but I consider it acceptable for this GAN since the information is pretty uncontroversial (this might be an issue if you bring this to FAC, however).

Understood. Adjusted the opening language of the section to present the examples as sourced illustrations, without implying a general naming trend not supported by citations.

Isidia appear in various shapes, including spherical (globose), cylindrical, scale-like (squamulose, coralloid, club-shaped (claviform), disc-shaped (disciform), cup-shaped (cupuliform), and wart-like verruciform – by my count, one closing bracket is missing somewhere, but maybe you can avoid the brackets-within-brackets altogether; are they really needed?

Revised the sentence to eliminate nested brackets and improve clarity using lichengloss formatting.

Pseudocyphellaria horridula – Link (even if its a red link)
Parmelina pastillifera – same

Both linked. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The isidia of the foliose lichen Pseudocyphellaria horridula … – In the description, you describe selected species in detail, but the point does not become clear. Are these exceptions from the general description? Why were these particular species selected?

Added a framing sentence to explain that these species have particularly distinctive or diagnostically important isidia.

such as warts or papillae – what are "warts" here? Can these be linked, too?

Added a gloss indicating that "warts" is an informal term for irregular surface protuberances; papillae is linked. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the isidia stay attached to the thallus permanently, likely increasing the surface area – That an additional structure increases surface area is logical, but why "likely"? Is there a possibility that they no not increase surface area?

Unnecessary hedging; "likely" now removed. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

soredia and soralia: You never explain these terms in the main text.

Added wikilinks and context for both terms earlier in the lead and glossary-linked mentions throughout the article.

Hi Jens, I wanted to drop a note to thank you for reviewing, and to let you know that my time is being consumed by the European destubathon until the end of April, at which time I will devote my full attention to responding to your helpful comments! Esculenta (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, best of luck for the contest! I will try to get this review done till end of the month. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contest over, thanks for your patience! I've responded to your comments above. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Vegetative reproduction
Unlike spores, which are microscopic and often windborne, isidia are multicellular fragments that rely on external vectors for movement – this still doesn't make sense to me; it means that "wind" is not an external vector?

Reworded the sentence for clarity: it now explains that isidia also rely on wind, water, or animal contact, but unlike spores, they disperse less efficiently due to their size and structure. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ecologically, isidia significantly increase the thallus surface area, enhancing its ability to retain moisture, exchange gases, and conduct photosynthesis. Ecologically, isidia significantly increase the thallus surface area, enhancing its ability to retain moisture, exchange gases, and conduct photosynthesis. – this is repetitive
As vegetative propagules—units of asexual reproduction containing both symbiotic partners—they are dispersed by wind, water, or animals. Their heavier structure limits their ability to travel far compared to lighter propagules such as soredia. – kind of already discussed earlier in the lead; merge with that?

Condensed and retained only the explanatory gloss for "propagules", since the dispersal point had already been made. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soralia and isidia formation can overlap – "Soralia" is a term that comes out of the blue, has not been introduced. (You replied above that you linked it, but it seems you didnt'?). Without knowing this term, it is quite impossible to understand the rest of the section.

Added a clear in-text gloss explaining that soralia are defined areas on the thallus where soredia are produced. Esculenta (talk)

Some lichens develop isidia from within the upper layer (cortex) and Some isidia connected continuously with the surrounding thallus cortex and seemed to originate from it – it is not clear to me what the difference between these types is. Both seem to develop from the cortex?

Rephrased to explicitly contrast internal vs external developmental origin and to clarify the homoiomerous/heteromerous distinction, with the technical discussion now centralised in the Formation and development section. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they are seen in seen in
These structures in H. sipmanii and H. seaveyorum resembles – resemble
are used interchangeably employed
I am making slow progress. I am mostly worried about GA criterion 1a "understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; if I should be part of that audience, we are not there yet. Your latest round of improvements already makes a big difference, but we need to work on it a bit more. I will get to the rest during the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph in "Formation and development" – this looks like the same content as in the second and third paragraphs of "Types and variations"? If so, I found the version in "Formation and development" much clearer and evocative and easier to follow.

Addressed by retaining the clearer version in Formation and development and replacing the overlapping paragraphs in Types and variations with a summary. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In gelatinous lichens, isidia begins – begin
these structures help "refresh" older thalli – so do they stay in-place when developing into new lobes (remaining attached all the time), or do they detach first and then grow on a different area of the lichen if they happen to land there?

Clarified in the sentence that the isidia remain attached and sprout into new lobes in situ. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly believed that after dissemination, isidia deconstruct into a loose association of fungal and algal cells before forming a new thallus – this is under the heading "Regeneration", so it does not apply to reproduction (a new lichen forms out of the insidium)? Does not really make sense.

Moved this entire paragraph to Formation and development, where dispersal and new thallus formation are already discussed. The Regeneration section now focuses solely on attached isidia. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While isidia are less conducive to dispersion than soralia due to their weight, their protective cortex makes them resilient in adverse conditions. Larger lichen fragments regenerate faster but are harder to disperse. – I understand the sentences but I do not understand what this has to do with regeneration. That the cortex makes them resilient is not restricted to regeneration? "Larger lichen fragments regenerate faster" – is the "lichen fragment" the soredium here (if so, just state that), or is that a larger piece of the lichen that can regenerate when a detached isidium lands on it?

This sentence was removed from Regeneration; the relevant dispersal points are now placed in Ecology and Distribution, where they are more appropriate. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isidia, given their role in lichen propagation, have become assets in such transplantation studies. – This sentence seems superfluous to me.
On the other hand, Sticta sylvatica required a considerable 24-month period post-transplantation to generate small lobules from its isidia – "On the other hand" does not make sense to me, because the previous sentence has nothing to do with this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“On the other hand” was replaced with a neutral transition to avoid implying contrast. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Acharius first created the genus Isidium based on the presence of isidia. William Nylander later classified – When was that? Is that still up-to-date or historical?

Rephrased and reframed the sentence in Taxonomic value to clarify that Acharius's use of isidial features was historical, and to avoid duplicating content already covered in History. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy (1993) and Harris (1995) – in other places, you follow non-technical notation (McCarthy, in 1993, and Harris, in 1995)
a defining taxonomic criterions – criterion
as they do not require resynthesis of the lichen symbiosis. – I think I understand but an explanation would be helpful for readers

Rephrased for clarity: now explains that vegetative propagules contain both symbionts and therefore bypass the need to re-establish the lichen relationship. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lichens producing these propagules frequently lack apothecia – what are apothecia?

Added a brief in-text gloss and link. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History section: I do not see how the second, third, and fourth paragraph describe the history. They seem to describe development, very similar to what is described in two other sections in the article.

Condensed and reframed these as a single paragraph of historical anatomical studies, clarifying their place in the development of isidium research. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About 100 years ago – needs to be replaced by absolute date, since it will soon be outdated
A low-cost device was designed to trap microscopic from the air. – Lacks context. microscopic what? When? By whom?

Rewritten to clarify. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision needed, I hope the comments above are of help! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens: substantial revisions have been made throughout for accessibility, including clearer definitions, structural realignment of redundant sections, and removal of jargon or duplication. I've responded to some points above to explain what I changed; comments without reply mean I implemented your suggested change. I appreciate the detailed feedback and patient attempts to get me to more clearly explain the lichen jargon (still a weakness of mine)! Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks good to me know. Congrats!--Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.