Well not particularly, but the title promises to tell you. In order to delay that, they have, to me, forsaken a lot of clarity of expression (they've had to com

Well not particularly, but the title promises to tell you. In order to delay that, they have, to me, forsaken a lot of clarity of expression (they've had to come up with at least two circumlocutions to keep the secret) for the sake of a trite "payoff". Describing the toxocysts without naming them as "globes they compare to lollipops" is very clumsy too. Compare how? Favourably? And why not just use the word "toxocyst" right there so that when they refer to it later the reference[1] is explicit? Additionally, anyone who knows the words toxo- and -cyst will also have an immediate clear understanding of what it is. It's also argubly adding vagueness because it's missed out that it's specifically the shape, and not any other lollipop-like quality that's been referenced. Look at how it was written in the original paper: > In this study, we show through genetic screens that P. ostreatus relies on a specialized structure, toxocysts, to paralyze the nematode C. elegans. A volatile compound, 3-octanone, stored inside toxocysts... See how they don't tease it, and just get on with saying it and just make it clear first time round? I'd have been marked down for the writing in my English lessons, and I wasn't even being paid to write this stuff. Then again, I wasn't bring marked based on website analytics. [1] "small globes called toxocysts that hang like fruit from the hyphae"