Talk:Agaricus bisporus

Name

Shouldn't this article be moved to Table mushroom? Supermarkets almost always label them as "table mushrooms". — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Table mushroom" seems somewhat ambiguous, conceivably taken to include edible mushrooms in general, and gets substantially fewer google hits than "button mushroom". — Pekinensis 01:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Portobello mushrooms are actually considerably larger than the common small white mushrooms you see in supermarkets. The Portobellos I've seen are generally 4" to 6" and brownish in colour. They also are much more flavorful than the standard "button" mushrooms you seem to be referring to... Kris Wood 08:37, 1 August 2005

Hmmm that's odd, the link I clicked for discuss was on the Portobello mushroom article, and was referring the merging of that article with button mushroom. While it may be a subspecies, it does have distinct differences and that's what I was referring to above, just didn't want anyone wondering why I was rambling about portobellos in the button discussion. :) Kris Wood 08:42, 1 August 2005

Yes, the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates are set up to concentrate discussion on the page of the target article. When I put the tag there, I probably should have started the discussion here to avoid confusion. Sorry about that.

My feeling is that vegetable varieties usually don't need separate articles, unless and until there is a lot of material on the variety. The wiki is plastic enough that this is not a decision for all time, and can be made on the basis of how much material there is now, rather than how much material there may be in the future. For example, broccoli, cabbage, kale, and so on get their own articles, while pinto bean, kidney bean, navy bean, and so on are treated in subsections of common bean.

— Pekinensis 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, perhaps something like the german version of this article. It seems to discuss the different varieties of button mushrooms with images to further illustrate the differences. Kris Wood 15:12, 2 August 2005

I've done the merge. Pictures would be nice, although I believe that de:Champignons treats the whole genus, and the large brown mushrooms shown there are A. silvaticus. I've moved the interwiki link to Agaricus. — Pekinensis 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

carcinogenic ?

just heard from mycologist Paul Stamets that a lot of the worlds experts think that button (and portobello) mushrooms are highly carcinogenic while being digested. This would be big news to me, but i'm no expert so i thought i'd bring it up in the discussions first before posting it on the real page.

— Tom Schuring 22 November 2006 09:16(+10)

Um.. I do you mean anti-carcinogenic? [[1]]

Would be good to see a reference for this. It is a pretty big claim to put on the page without some backup cheers,Cas Liber 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure he says carcinogenic (i fixed the spelling :) in this interview: http://www.dhlovelife.com/video/Vlog_24_FunGuy.mov with paul at 6:30 he says: "button mushrooms are thought, by many experts, to be highly carcinogenic when they are digested, which can cause tumors and abnormal cell-divisions. it's a unique chemical that is in button mushrooms and portobellos. they are very much analogous to smoking a cigarette, except the 'accarotene's (?) cause tumors all over your body as opposed to just in your lungs.

— Tom Schuring 22 November 2006 03:17(UTC)

Wow - watched the vid and then followed a few google links. Found a lively discussion here half way down the page.

[[2]]

Ultimately it is tricky to convert in vitro evidence to real life but it is worth a mention. Just a question over how to phrase it.......Cas Liber 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like ? :

I found the following references supporting evidence of cancer-causing chemicals in the button (and portobello) mushroom. I researched this online after hearing about two mushroom growers who both developed lung cancer at about the same time, as well as another person who grew mushrooms who also developed cancer. One assumes they also ate a lot of the mushrooms. I first wondered if cancer-causing chemicals, gasses, etc., in "farming" mushrooms may be the cause and was surprised that it was ingestion of the mushrooms themselves that has caused cancer in clinical trials. http://www.wikigenes.org/e/mesh/e/1175.html http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/46/8/4007.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2132000 [Quantities of agaritine in mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) and the carcinogenicity of mushroom methanol extracts on the mouse bladder epithelium] http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=371&page=240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesWeller (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

Button Mushrooms as all Mushrooms of the Genus Agaricus have been found to contain levels of Agaritine which will metabolize into Hydrazine, a well known Carcinogen. [[3]][[4]]

or should it be placed in Agaricus then ? I'm just worried that nobody will see it there. most people actually eat button-mushrooms.

— Tom Schuring 22 November 2006 22:44(UTC)

True - I think the best place is on the button mushroom page - I'd use a heading 'agaritine' and emphasise that the levels of compound are very low - have to be careful how this is worded. cheers Cas Liber 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version of this article includes the following sentence:

• Some mushrooms contain hydrazine derivatives, including agaritine and gyromitrin, that have been evaluated for carcinogenic activity.

But why does it say "some mushrooms" rather than mentioning that the actual species this article is about contain these compounds? Please fix. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move to Cultivated mushroom

When I was a kid we always called A. bisporus the Cultivated mushroom. It is also the recommended common name on the British Mycological Society site here:

[5]

thus I feel the page should be moved there as Button mushroom and Portobello mushroom are names for two different stages of growth they are sold at. Cas Liber 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried a google test, and "button mushroom" has more than twice as many hits as "cultivated mushroom" (91,300 vs. 41,700). Per WP:COMMONNAME, this would seem to indicate against the proposed move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is the term 'Button mushroom' is only the term for the little immature forms sold in shops. Thus, a portobello mushroom is not a button mushroom nor vice versa, yet both are different stages of Cultivated mushroom. cheers Cas Liber 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An analogy is lamb i.e. immature sheep meat, which redirects to domestic sheep. cheers Cas Liber 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining that. Now I agree with the move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose move to a regional, and more importantly, highly ambiguous name. Good grief, the article itself says (emphasis added), that this is "one of the most widely cultivated mushrooms in the world.". A move to Agaricus bisporus would be a much more sensible one, and include all growth stages there. The ambiguity of the proposed name is especially important in light of the initial capitalization being turned on in Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer it on Agaricus bisporus myself. I didn't nominate that as it is widely cultivated. Cas Liber 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The shiitake is also a "cultivated mushroom", as opposed to that same species for which "some documents record the uncultivated mushroom being eaten as early as 199 A.D". And Volvariella: "Mushrooms of the genus Volvariella account for 16% of total production of cultivated mushrooms in the world." And Enokitake: "There is a significant difference in appearance between the wild and the cultivated mushrooms." Gene Nygaard 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, shall we move it to Agaricus bisporus instead then? We could withdraw this move request and set up another one, or we could just be bold and do it. Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it is on requested moves, let it sit for about five days, in case anybody has a better idea. Then that would be fine with me, and apparently the two of you as well, so if nothing changes do it then.

If that move to the scientific name is done, it is important for at least Category:Edible mushrooms that the main redirects from common names (Button, Portobello, etc.) be categorized as well. If nothing has changed recently, when categorizing redirects it is important to put the categories on the same logical line as the redirect itself (otherwise it can cause some problems; IIRC, it might mess up the categorization of the main article if they are put on separate lines). Gene Nygaard 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose also. "Cultivated mushroom" is way too ambiguous – there are a number of "cultivated mushroom" species. The title should either remain "Button mushroom" or be moved to "Agaricus bisporus" (of course, that brings up the whole kettle of fish as to whether Agaricus bisporus or Agaricus brunnescens takes priority as the name of this species). This article is about a single species, hence, making its scientific name the title might be warranted. On the other hand, its an agricultural crop, and Wikipedia puts article titles about crops under common names. Then again, is there a widely agreed upon common name for this crop other than "mushroom"? Ultimately, Agaricus bisporus might be the least ambiguous. Peter G Werner 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Champignon is the other likely possibility, much more common in American English at least when referring to this specific species. Why in the world is that name relegated to the third paragraph in the article as it stands now? It isn't called "champignon de Paris" in English, and that's in the opening paragraph. They should be flipped. Who cares if it might be more ambiguous in French; so is tonne, the French word for a short ton or a long ton as well as a metric ton, distinguished in French with French adjectives if necessary. Gene Nygaard 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

that word I'd associate more with Marasmius oreades though...Cas Liber 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed move, per reasons stated above. The phrase "button mushroom" is in far wider use. Johnashby 15:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'm pulling the plug on this move and proposing a move to the scientific name instead Cas Liber 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Button mushroom → Agaricus bisporus — Button mushroom is the name of an immature stage and theoretically can be applied to any immature mushroom. In shops, Button mushroom, Portobello and Crimini (all mutually exclusive) all apply to this species. It otherwise has no universally accepted common name. Cas Liber 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Cas Liber 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Peter G Werner 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support It sounds like this is a more appropriate name for the article.Zeus1234 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Assuming this move passes, should button mushroom, portobello mushroom, &c. have their own sub-articles (at least for culinary reasons) or is this content forking? —  AjaxSmack  00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that all could be discussed on the one article really under subheadings. We can always make links ot the subheaings directly where mentioned on other pages Cas Liber 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that its an agricultural crop, I think its best titled under its scientific name, Agaricus bisporus, since it really doesn't have a clearly established, unambiguous common name. (Note that there has been some debate in the past as to whether Agaricus brunnescens was the name that took priority – in theory it does, if it really refers to the same mushroom. The type specimen of A. brunnescens is in a poor state of preservation, hence, it hasn't been widely accepted that the name demonstrably refers to the same mushroom, so A. bisporus is by far the most commonly used name.) Peter G Werner 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV Bias

The statement "Mushroom hunting can be a satisfying hobby" is unsourced, biased, and seems unnecessary. I do not deny the possibility that mushroom hunting could be a satisfying hobby, but in order to maintain encyclopaedic tone the fact should be demonstrated through facts (or at least sourced assertions).

You're right - the whole bit needs an overhaul. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Beginning a to-do list of sorts towards FAC...

• notes on nutrition as it is such a widely consumed foodstuff. There will be info out there
• notes on who named it and when. There is also controversy whether it should be A. bisporus or A. brunnescens.
• Nice to get some more info on Psalliota.
• expand history section

More to come later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin D

I think that someone should throw some information on this page about button mushrooms as a source of vitamin D when zapped with UV. Just google vitamin D and mushrooms and you will find articles about it.
Here is just one news article talking about it, maybe someone can find an actual academic source for this information. [6].
68.184.35.29 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)jon

It doesn't fit into the article at the moment, so I'll leave the references here for now: Sasata (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"These mushrooms can contain high amounts of Vitamin D,[17] especially when UV-irradiated.[18][19]" What does "These" mean in the beginning of the sentence? If you are talking about Shiitake and Miyatake mushrooms then the names should be spelled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Can someone clean up the reference portion... I would but i don't know how. Thanks! Jatlas

Using mushrooms to prevent cancer

Recently a large amount of material was inserted to promote the use of mushrooms to prevent cancer. This sort of treatment is unproven, and should not be promoted uncritically on Wikipedia. As per WP:MEDRS, we should be relying on secondary sources such as medical reviews, not primary sources such as individual studies or press releases. A recent review for this sort of material is here:

• Borchers AT, Krishnamurthy A, Keen CL, Meyers FJ, Gershwin ME (2008). "The immunobiology of mushrooms". Exp Biol Med. 233 (3): 259–76. doi:10.3181/0708-MR-227. PMID 18296732.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

and I suggest that reviews like this be used to source any discussion of mushrooms for cancer prevention. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree this mushroom is not a cure for any type of cancer, or can prevent any type of cancer. I am simply posting interesting scientific data. If anyone has a problem with how I am presenting the data please let me know and I will be happy to listen and work on a way to fix the problem. Jatlas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No no, working on the article is good - I guess a guideline to structure is consensus statements and review articles would make the lead, and more on developments WRT research can be expanded upon in the Oncology section. It is a learning curve :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when are mushrooms a "vegetable"?

It says:

"Recently it was noticed that mushrooms contain high amounts of Vitamin D[17] (especially when UV-irradiated[18][19]) This is notable due to the fact no other vegetable is currently known to contain vitamin D naturally. A mushroom company in California offers A. bisporus previously exposed to UV light with 100% RDA of vitamin D per 3 ounces.[1]"

Mushrooms are a fungus, not a vegetable.

Pooka and Fygar (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Botanically/biologically speaking, it is fungi, but it may be classified as a vegetable legally and commercially. See vegetable for the various possible definitions. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mushroom Council?

I've never heard of the ominous "Mushroom Council" before, but if they're notable enough that anyone cares whether they use 'portabella' or 'portobello'... then why don't they have an article yet? Are they some sort of official body that governs the use of mushrooms? Should we bother to name the exact spellings used by any random mushroom-related organization? 8.18.38.105 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Flavor, Texture, Food Uses

Considering it is mainly cultivated for human consumption, shouldn't there be a section describing the flavor, texture, etc of both the young and the mature mushroom, as well as its most common uses in food? As the article currently stands, it is fine for people looking for botanical information about it, but there is quite little about the culinary aspect (which may be the most popular interest people may have in the article). — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As just a comparison, see the "Culinary Use" section of the Truffle article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Many sources describe white mushrooms has having less flavor than brown, and portobello (mature) specimens are widely used as a meat substitute. Not sure what would be the best references to cite, though. GCL (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the info I was looking for. 67.254.199.19 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Chestnut mushroom (var. Avellaneus)

I was wondering what the 'Chestnut Mushroom' commonly seen in super markets (resembling a brown button mushroom) is, so I did a little research and after finding no mention of it on Wikipedia I found the name 'Agaricus bisporus var. Avellaneus'. I'm not sure yet if 'var. Avellaneus' is a mycologically recognised name or just a marketing name for cultivation sales, but does anyone else think it's worth mentioning the Chestnut Mushroom as it seems to be everywhere these days. I may do a little more research later Gul e (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Potential Medicinal Value

A couple of weeks ago, I made a contribution in this section regarding conjugated linoleic acid and its dietary potential. I was in fact researching CLA, which provided a direct reference to this species as notable (in fact many mushrooms, especially wild edible mushrooms contain these types of isomers). It seemed appropriate to add the tidbit and link the two wiki pages. All available info on a subject, right? It has since been summarily removed on the grounds that the contribution was speculative and un-sourced by a User named Zefr, whom, as far as I can tell isn't associated with working on this page.

It's true that I didn't cite any refs here on this page, but rather linked directly to the page about CLA, which has a plethora or refs and discussed the dietary aspect of both at length. It was my thought that anyone who had further interest in that side-topic would happily link there. I'm kinda new at wiki-editing but don't see direct links to already established and accepted pages as being any less valid than on-page citations. Am I wrong? Does anyone here have a problem with what I contributed or the format I chose to use? Please let me know; that way I can either put it back up or avoid making a similar mistake in the future.

Thanks, JohnathanEAndrews (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnathan: your comment speculated about 1) significant fat and CLA content which is not borne out by the nutrition profile of mushrooms and 2) weight loss effects from eating mushrooms, an effect with no scientific proof satisfying WP:MEDRS. Particularly, you stated "Dietary studies have listed A. bisporus as a non-animal source of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which contains combined trans- and a far greater amount of cis-fat isomers, the latter which is believed to be responsible for an increase in the metabolizing of fatty tissue in the body (resting metabolic rate} and an increase in the development of muscle mass (which burns more calories than fat mass), resulting in healthy weight loss and better overall health." There is a string of non-facts and speculation here with no published evidence under peer-review.

You've asked for advice about editing, so if I may: first you organize source-supported scientific evidence then second you could try a draft on your sandbox page, asking for editing help from any experience editor, or you could enter the draft here on Talk for the community to engage. All the Best. Zefr (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agaricus bisporus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610071831/http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=531546 to http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/SynSpecies.asp?RecordID=531546

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nativity

"native to grasslands in Europe and North America" - it can't be native to two different continents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmo999 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Pizza

This mushroom is the one that is a pizza component but there aren't said anywhere something like "used in gastronomy as pizza ingredient".

Prostate cancer research

I believe a press release from the Endocrine Society is sufficiently authoritative to support a statement of some sort, though I am certainly *not* suggesting the proposed statement resemble that attention-grabbing headline in any way. MarshallKe (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

It's a study in mice, likely ~2 decades from successfully completing drug development, if everything goes well (about 90% do not). We use WP:MEDRS reviews to support medical content. Read WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr: I am very familiar with MEDRS and normally would have agreed with you. However, I have had a discussion with an editor over at Talk:Lavender_oil who seems to argue that if the source is a press release from a sufficiently authoritative source, then it is a secondary source roughly equivalent to a systematic review and that it is not our place to analyze the analysis (per MEDRS, "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review."). It would be great if you could join the discussion there. MarshallKe (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Underlying choice of sources and application of MEDRS is also WP:CIR, i.e., medical editors should have the competence to understand the topic sufficiently and assess the quality of evidence, as discussed in WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Studies in mice (or those in vitro, as for the lavender oil discussion) are far too preliminary to mention in an encyclopedia article (bottom of the MEDASSESS left pyramid). An encyclopedia summarizes established content confirmed by scientific consensus - mice and in vitro studies are too preliminary to evaluate their signifiance or to mention, and are years away from being confirmed through scientific consensus. We wait for the WP:MEDRS review article. Zefr (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)