Perhaps the scope is too narrow. I don't know if this would be called a 'studio shot', but I can give coordinates if requested. -- TheHighFinSpermWhale
Maybe "Spore print" (generally speaking) could be a more relevant scope ? That is only a question, not a request to change, because I'm not a mycologist. Other question: is the Boletus chrysenteron spore print noticeable enough ? Different from other Boletus, other mushrooms ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boletus zelleri is quite close. However, this spore print is distinctive to boletes in that it is a honeycomb, and so forms many small dots, rather than lines radiating from the centre. So changing the scope to "Spore print" would be too broad; although changing it to "Boletus (Bolete), spore print" might be a good idea. And you may want to ask George to review this; he knows quite a bit about mushrooms. --TheHighFinSpermWhale00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. I knew there is some "honeycomb", and some "gills". Maybe a set with both ? It should be more interesting IMO. Well, I think this picture is interesting (and well done). I'm sure George will come soon to review this, without call ! But if you are in "trouble" with him, (are you ?) I may ask him for you if you want.--Jebulon (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I don't understand why you cannot ask him for a review yourself, but I left a message on his talk page...Happy if it helps you --Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]