Talk:Fungus

Medicinal use section

I believe this is a better paragraph for this section of the page...

Many fungi species of medicinal mushrooms have been used in folk medicine for thousands of years. The use of medicinal mushrooms in folk medicine, is best documented in the East. Medicinal mushrooms are now the subject of study for many ethnobotanists and medical researchers. The ability of some mushrooms to inhibit tumor growth and enhance aspects of the immune system has been a subject of research for approximately 50 years. International mushroom research continues today, with a focus on mushroom's that may have hypoglycemic activity, anti-cancer activity, anti-pathogenic activity, and immune system enhancing activity. Discoveries so far include, that the oyster mushroom naturally contains significant amounts of lovastatin, and that certain fungi may be a future source of taxol[1]. To date, penicillin, lovastatin, ciclosporin, griseofulvin, cephalosporin, and ergometrine, are the most famous pharmaceuticals which have been isolated from the fungi kingdom.

However, this page is difficult to edit (constant reverts), so I am putting it here in hopes someone can change it for me!Jatlas (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this better? Overlooking the grammar and prose problems, the "future source of taxol" claim is interesting, but it seems (to me) to be too speculative for inclusion in a general overview article, and the source of the claim is an article in Chinese, making it impossible for most to read more than the abstract. There's a POV problem with the phrases "significant amounts" and "most famous pharmaceuticals". However, I wouldn't mind dropping a few more "famous pharmaceutical" names in that section, if others think it is appropriate. Other opinions? Sasata (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sasata that this draft would not improve this section. I can see that the first sentence, "Many species of medicinal mushrooms have been used in folk medicine for thousands of years" could be a lead in, but it will need a solid reference for this claim. In addition, "folk medicine" is a bit of a fluffy term (which folks have practised this medicine?). This area is a can of worms, because it invites bold claims that are by nature contentious. Taxol is a case in point—since the paper by Stierle et al here describing taxol production by a fungus, there hasn't been a follow-up study in high-profile journals (say, PNAS or the like) that have corroborated their findings or taken it further to larger-scale production by these fungi. Considering that they published this >15 years ago, and that this is a compound for cancer treatment, something seems amiss (mis-identification, insurmountable problems with scale up, patent issues, etc). So to err on the side of caution, I would keep this section brief and entirely free of speculation with regards to medicinal properties and future applications. Malljaja (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok... :( well I thought it was an improvement... Thanks for the opinions... Jatlas (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I still think including pharmaceuticals isolated from fungi would be an interesting addition to this section (or possibly a new section).Jatlas (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Which pharmaceuticals would you like to include in addition to those already given in the section (beta-lactams, lentinan, polysaccharide K)? Lovastatin is the only one I can see right now that may be missing, but I don't think that this justifies a section solely dedicated to fungal pharmaceuticals. The level of detail should probably correspond to entries of similar breadth (see e.g., industrial use of bacteria). The entries for these compounds and the fungi that make them are probably giving enough detail. Malljaja (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you guys are right... In that case, I have a few suggestions for editing what is currently in this section.

• "Certain mushrooms enjoy usage as therapeutics in traditional and folk medicines" ...seems redundant we should say either folk or traditional medicine.

Done. Malljaja (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Research has identified compounds produced by these and other fungi that have inhibitory biological effects against viruses and cancer cells." Instead of virus it should read pathogens since many fungal compounds also inhibit bacteria. Also I think it should be mentioned that the inhibitory effect on cancer cells, is most due to up-regulation of the immune system and not a direct effect (i.e. mention biological response modifiers).

The citations that immediately follow are reference for activities against HIV. I prefer to leave it like that for clarity, and because anti-bacterial effects are already covered in the "Antibiotics" section and are not really in the purview of medicinal mushrooms (which may also produce antibiotics, but I'm not aware that they're competitive with those from moulds yet). The latter is an interesting but tricky topic (some compounds are cytotoxic, but others are immunomodulators, and to distinguish these effects is not straightforward in biological models), and difficult to accommodate. This would need a good citation—I'll look into this. Malljaja (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Specific metabolites with biological or antimicrobial activities, such as polysaccharide-K, ergotamine, and β-lactam antibiotics, are routinely used in clinical medicine". Since inhibitory effect on pathogens is already mentioned, this sentence should be simplified to "Specific metabolites of mushrooms, such as polysaccharide-K, ergotamine, and β-lactam antibiotics, are routinely used in clinical medicine"

Done. Malljaja (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lentinan and PSK sentences should be joined due to the fact their MOA and clinical application is practically identical.

I agree if the two compounds have very identical effects and uses, which I'm not sure that they have, since they differ in chemical composition—one is a β-glucan, the other a protein-bound carbohydrate (I've not been able to track down its structure, even on NCI). So I believe leaving this info in two sentences would be clearer—one talks of use as a clinical drug, the other of therapeutical use as an adjuvant. Malljaja (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think and lets make these changes if they are agreed upon.Jatlas (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes... PSK and lentinan are both β-glucans (although PSK does have a protein attached). Also, PSK does not have a structure, since is it is a collection of molecules and not a specific chemical (which is described in papers as being primary beta-glucan structures). PSK is a specific fraction that has been isolated from Turkey Tail (based upon molecular weight differentiation, I think...). I believe their clinical roles are both adjuvants for cancer therapy. So that was my reasoning for combining them. Well, I'll let you guys decide. Glad you made the other changes for me!Jatlas (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal use section link

I would like to place a "Main article" link for Medicinal mushrooms under the title of Medicinal use. Please let me know if this is allowed.Jatlas (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of collage photo

File:Fungi collage.jpg has an error in its source information. The bottom left image is not File:Aspergillus.jpg. William Avery (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by Ddusenbery

I've reverted an earlier edit by the above editor, and an expanded edit by the same editor was just reverted. I see a couple of problems with these edits. One, the new section "Behaviors" duplicates most of what is already in other sections of the entry + the assertion that fungi have "rolled up" to become animals, while interesting fodder for inspired debate, is a little simplistic. Secondly, the editor uses the same name as the author of the book he cites, so I think there's a potential conflict of interest issue. I'd urge the editor to engage in discussion here, also to clarify whether he indeed is the author in question. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this addition is suspect. Besides, the animals do not nest within the fungi phylogenetically so there is no reason to say that fungi evolved into animals. de Bivort 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

It is a kingdom seperate from plants, animals, and PROTISTS. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.251.134 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a kingdom separate from plants, animals and bacteria, like the article says, and also separate from protists and archaea. It's more complicated than you think; see Kingdom (biology). I think the present wording of that paragraph is ok, giving an overview of where Fungi fit on the tree of life without getting bogged down in detail or stating anything inaccurate. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I second Adrian's comment. Also, if you go to the Protista entry you'll notice that there is some taxonomic uncertainty re the placement of protists in a separate kingdom. They are not as easily delineated as the Plant and Animal kingdoms. Malljaja (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead page on WikiSpecies says tat fungi are part of Classis 24 of the Plant kingdom, rather than a kingdom of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.179.17 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an older classification that has been superceded by recent work in cladistics and molecular phylogenetics. It needs to be fixed in WikiSpecies. -- Donald Albury 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lead page on Wikispecies says no such thing; it lists a separate Regnum (kingdom) Fungi. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page title "Fungus"? The name of the kingdom is Fungi. The title should be the name of the kingdom. Mycowizard (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, WP follows a naming convention for its articles that prefers the singular over the plural (see also Animal and Plant).Malljaja (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And for most subject areas (plants are an exception) prefers vernacular names. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional value?

I think some more info would be nice. 85.77.213.2 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Mushroom and Edible mushroom entries may be more appropriate places for such info. There's some there already, but not too much, perhaps because the nutritional value of dietary mushrooms is not very remarkable (not counting medicinal properties, which are relevant to nutraceuticals). Malljaja (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a case for including info here, as the relevance of fungi to human nutrition goes far beyond mushrooms. Think of quorn, vegemite (which is mostly yeast extract), tempeh and other molded oriental foods, and molded cheeses, plus there are plans for making so-called single cell protein from fungi or other microbes grown on agricultural wastes. The essential amino acid content of fungi is of special interest to vegetarians. Wikipedia seems to have a gap on this topic – I'll try to find something over the weekend. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Physiology and Nutrition

Icecooldesign (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be added, as it is one of the most important aspects of fungi (namely extra-cellular digestion):

Fungi are saprotrophic, meaning that by extra-cellular digestion they digest their food. This occurs by both exocytosis, and then endocytosis, in which vesicles are secreted onto the matter, digested, and then absorbed endocytotically. Hence, they are vitally important in such processes as the nitrogen and carbon cycles in which they help to digest products very quickly, and making them available for plants to take up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecooldesign (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of what you're proposing is already covered in the entry (such as extracellular digestion by hydrolytic enzymes). I'm not aware that fungi take up nutrients via endocytosis, since they have a cell wall. It seems that mainly small molecules, ie. monomeric sugars and amino acids, are taken up after extracellular breakdown. But perhaps the direct and indirect roles in plant nutrition could be slightly expanded. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rozellida

Someone might like to comment in the article on the Rozellida hypothesis (found while looking for new stuff on Nucleariida) - that is that Rozella and related uncultured species (probably also parasitic) are the sister group to (the rest of) Fungi. I'm not sure how robust (apart from the uncertain position of Microsporidia) the hypothesis is. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Morphology, Microscopic structure picture

The picture in the Morphology, Microscopic structure section depicts Hyaloperonospora parasitica. This organism is an oomycete (Chromist)and not a Fungus. This picture is thus inapropriate for this article. DetourJan (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An environmental isolate of Penicillium
1. hypha
2. conidiophore
3. phialide
4. conidia
5. septa

So it is ([2]), thank you. What does everyone think of replacing it with the image on the right? One issue I can see is that the terms conidiophore and phialide are not presently mentioned in the article. I'm not sure how detailed alt text ought to be for an image like this. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To make detail such as the beads-on-a-string structure of the conidiophores easier to see, it should probably be cropped on both sides, and perhaps the top third could be cropped and the image made wider than standard thumb size. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The suggested new picture looks ok to me and would be a good replacement—the numerals along with the various fungal structures make it look a wee bit cluttered, so some cropping might indeed help with that. The H parasitica figure should probably be replaced asap, thanks for catching that DetourJan. One of those things that text book editors could get bad rashes about, but luckily this is WP ;-). Malljaja (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malljaja. I've replaced the image with a cropped version of the image on the right, 50% larger than the default image size so the structure of the conidiophores can (just) be seen. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Time of earliest fungi

Fossils of the alga Grypania have been reported in 1,850 million-year-old rocks (originally dated to 2,100 million years ago but later revised(Fedonkin, M. A. (2003). "The origin of the Metazoa in the light of the Proterozoic fossil record" (PDF). Paleontological Research. 7 (1): 9–41. doi:10.2517/prpsj.7.9. Retrieved 2008-09-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)). A diverse collection of fossil algae were found in rocks dated between 1,500 million years ago and 1,400 million years ago.(Javaux, E. J., Knoll, A. H. and Walter, M. R. (2004). "TEM evidence for eukaryotic diversity in mid-Proterozoic oceans". Geobiology. 2 (3): 121–132. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4677.2004.00027.x. Retrieved 2008-09-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) The earliest known fossils of fungi date from 1,430 million years ago.(Butterfield, N. J. (2005). "Probable Proterozoic fungi". Paleobiology. 31 (1): 165–182. doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031<0165:PPF>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2008-09-02.) The proto-fungi must have been before 1,850 million years ago, as fungi are opisthokonta within unikonta, while plants are bikonta, in a very different branch of the eukaryote tree. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

fungi and orchids.

Many orchids have tiny seeds which embody no food supply of their own. These seeds lie around until invaded by the hyphae of a fungi, then they take over the fungus as their food supply. [Some orchids (Gastrodia ) have taken this to the extreme of relying on the fungi for all their food.] This parasitic activity helps explain the apparent association of some orchids with a particular type of plant community. The association is really that of the fungi with a specific plant community, and the orchid in turn with the fungi. Suma rongi (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See Orchid mycorrhiza. Sasata (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New Phylum, or possibily even Kingdom!

There is a recent discovery of a new Phylum of fungus, a phylum that is so different from all other fungi that some are calling it a new Kingdom See our new article on Cryptomycota. However, there is (understandably) a naming dispute on this article, because the science is so new.

One person suggests that the name Rozellida has been previously given to this clade. I, however, disagree. This article says otherwise.

"The only previously known fungus that the team found to fall within the new group is the genus Rozella — long thought to be an oddity because of its lack of a chitinous cell wall — which diverged from the rest of the fungi very early on. "We thought that the Rozella branch of fungus was just a twig that had hung on over the course of evolution," says James, "but this paper shows us it's part of a whole evolutionary bush."

Nature News, Published online 11 May 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.285

The evolutionary tree of fungi grows a new branch, Marian Turner

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/news.2011.285.html

Also see the current Wikipedia article Rozella

Let's look for more sources, and discuss this issue further. RK (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sex in fungi

how do they reproduce sexually :0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummydrop (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See Mating in fungi. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ref formatting

I would like to convert the refs in this article to List-defined refs, and at the same time clean up any minor formatting inconsistencies. If there are any objections to this, let me know, otherwise I'll do this in about a week. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what this would look like. The MoS link doesn't make the distinction very clear between this sort of reference tagging and other formats. Can you give an example of a page that uses this style? Again, this is more out of curiosity, in case I'd like to use it somewhere myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, check out Verpa bohemica. There's no change to the way the refs look to the reader, but internally they all get moved to the end, which makes editing and article maintenance easier. Sasata (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That does indeed look much easier to maintain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Is there a tool or mechanism for identifying listed references that aren't actually cited in the article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you preview (or save) with an unused ref, it says in big red letters "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "foo2011" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." Sasata (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sasata, this re-formatting suggestion is excellent. It'll make for much easier reading of the source text, and one can almost at a glance see any formatting discrepancies in the ref list (unless of course a whimsical bot comes along and screws it up again ;-) ). Malljaja (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, one problem is when one specifies the authors with the parameter "last=", the bot thinks the parameter "first=" is missing and "helpfully" adds it. I didn't know this formatting nuance (and others) when we worked on this article 2 years ago. When I convert the refs, I'll fix these, as well as other stuff like remove empty parameters, eliminate retrieval dates for convenience links print-based sources, add missing doi's, etc. I've done this enough times now to know what's needed to keep the citation bot away :) Sasata (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, the deed is done (it only took four hours!) There's further tweaking that could be done (for example, most of the Mycologia refs are available for free viewing on the Cyberliber page, so direct links for all those would be handy), but my brain is fried, so I'll leave it for another day. Sasata (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sasata, that was worth all the effort. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great work as always! Great to see this entry in such good order. Malljaja (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of "lifestyle" in descriptions

I noticed the use of "lifestyle" in both the Fungus and Evolution of fungi articles. However, isn't this mostly an expression having to do with psychology and sociology? It somehow appears to insert an awkward tone to a scientific encyclopedic description. Do other readers also stumble on that expression with the same impression? 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The term lifestyle is quite commonly used in biology. For example, have a look here. So even though many lay readers might connote it with human activity and expression, it's the appropriate term here. Malljaja (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me then, thanks for the example. It may also have to do with the fact that english is not my native language. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The bridge between alga and Amoeba:Funghi,true or false?

How do we consider funghi, like, yeast, to be classified as, botany or zoology?In my estimation, they are neither and are the evolutionary bridge, between plants and animals.Some funghi, combine with algae and are intriguing indeed.Yeast, are utilised to produce, alcohol(ethanol) in beer and teetotalling bread, a subject worthy of scrutiny! Furthermore, parasitic:- Lichens, could shed a shimmering light, on the beginning of lifes creations.There is a possibility that analysing, funghi and coral reefs, might be a worthwhile study, into the microcosm's, savoir faire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.206.205 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeast are fungi.

The study of fungi (mycology) is a branch of botany. This is an accident of history; fungi are more closely related to animals (both groups are opisthokonts) than to plants. They are not an evolutionary bridge between plants and animals.

Lichens represent a symbiotic relationship between some types of fungi and some types of algae.

Lavateraguy (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

etymology

the fungus/sphongos root is not obviously the root of the words in German, and very obviously not the root of the "champignon"-cluster of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.115.27 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A fact does not need to be obvious to be true. You can verify the German information from Ainsworth, as cited in the article, or from an etymological dictionary of of German, as I have done. However, you are correct about the French and Spanish. The RAE's dictionary of the Spanish language derives champiñón from French, but the French derives from the Latin placename Campania (Champagne), a region in Gaul, and this most likely derives from an older Italianate word meaning either "fields" or "camps". --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Description of Fungi collage is incorrect

The bottom left image in the collage of fungi (with the bluish background) is actually an Aspergillus conidiophore

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.203.227 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gah! The uploader of the original image agrees with you. I've fixed the caption here and at Evolution of fungi. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new image - diagram of hyphae

Fungal Hyphae Cells
1- Hyphal wall 2- Septum 3- Mitochondrion 4- Vacuole 5- Ergosterol crystal 6- Ribosome 7- Nucleus 8- Endoplasmic reticulum 9- Lipid body 10- Plasma membrane 11- Spitzenkörper 12- Golgi apparatus

I made this image, I would like to add it to this article. This image was made as part of a Wikischools project (WP:APBAPST) What are your thoughts? AHiggins12 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks nice — well done. It would be good to indicate the location of the Spitzenkörper, which roughly corresponds to the location of "vesicles", but usually inhabits a more compact zone. Also, I'm unsure what a "crystal" is, and the cell membrane should ideally also be included. Malljaja (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the cell membrane is #10 plasma membrane. She based her image off of this one I believe, which accounts for the crystal inclusions, not sure what they are, perhaps Laccase or something from this google search. Earthdirt (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, many thanks for the explanation. I could not access the original image, though. One additional suggestion is to separate the figure legend from the figure. That way the figure legend could be edited by others if needed (for example, it would be good to regularise the plural and singular, as in vacuoles --> vacuole, ribosomes --> ribosome, etc.). Malljaja (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Try this link. I think those vesicles at the tip are actually Spitzenkörper (mislabeled in the diagram from the original source). The crystals could be ergosterol, which apparently accumulates in older hyphae. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the plural/singular of the legend and change vesicles label to Spitzenkörper and changes crystal to ergosterol crystal. Does anyone object if I add it to the article? Earthdirt (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

seeing no objections I'm adding it. Earthdirt (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fungal Cell

I have a query about the fungal cell wall. How many layers are there in the cell wall of fungus. It would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniruddha 3 9 27 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Request: Mycophage

A brief inclusion of mycophage or fungiphage (or derivative terms) should be added, probably under Ecology section. -- General form of word, as in "fungus-eater". Note: Fungivore seems to be the only relevant page. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Poisonous vs. hallucinogenic

Concerning the section Edible and poisonous species: Popular anti-drug campaigns notwithstanding, I think we should clarify the point here that some fungi are hallucinogenic without being poisonous (by any meaningful definition). Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is distinguished in the mycomorphboxes, at least, on species pages. de Bivort 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Plant?

Is not mushroom a plant? --Oddeivind (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, a mushroom is not a plant, but a member of an entirely separate kingdom, "Fungi". There's confusion because historically, the study of mushrooms used to be considered part of botany, which is the study of plants. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mycobiota

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'd suggest this definition be incorporated into the Fungus article.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC) --Forward Unto Dawn 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - fauna is separate from animal, which feels right to me. de Bivort 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just in response to that, both of those articles are well-developed. This article (mycobiota) is a one line article which repeats what is said in the fungus article. However, the creator of the article has stated that they intend on expanding this article, so I'll Withdraw my proposed merger for now.--Forward Unto Dawn 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2013

The following sentence "The use of fungi by humans dates back to prehistory; Ötzi the Iceman, a well-preserved mummy of a 5,300-year-old Neolithic man found frozen in the Austrian Alps" should be changed with this one The use of fungi by humans dates back to prehistory; Ötzi the Iceman, a well-preserved mummy of a 5,300-year-old Neolithic man found frozen in the Italian Alps". So far is stored in Italy, not Austria. Spqr83 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The source at Ötzi_the_Iceman says it was found in the Austrian alps. RudolfRed (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No it does not, it says it was found later that the location is almost 100 meters inside Italy and because of that Italy reclamed its rights over him and now he is stored at that country. --RoRo (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

reference unclear

In the first sentence of the article: "A fungus (/ˈfʌŋɡəs/; plural: fungi[3] or funguses[4]) is a member of a large group of eukaryotic organisms that includes microorganisms such as yeasts and molds (British English: moulds), as well as the more familiar mushrooms." it is not clear to me whether yeasts, molds, mushrooms and fungus are all parts of a large group or whether yeasts, molds and mushrooms are all fungus. I looked at the Simple English version and found "A fungus (plural: fungi) is a kind of living organism: yeasts, moulds and mushrooms are types of fungi." Perhaps this could be clarified. 209.181.43.238 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I've changed "A fungus is a member of a large group..." to "A fungus is any member of a large group...". Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Readability

This handy site indicates that this article has a poor readability score of 25 (="very difficult"). Ideal would be a score in the range of 60–70 ("Standard"). I'm going to go through the article in the next while and try to improve this, mostly by splitting longer sentences and trimming unnecessary verbiage. Feel free to revert any changes that you think have affected the meaning. Any assisistance is most welcome! Sasata (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Animation constitutes WP:OR, so tagged

The presentation of editor-produced visual information regarding progress of a fungal infection/infestation (decomposition), here [3], is not a simple graphical illustration, but is OR—it is a study in the progress of putative pathogen as a function of time. However nice I and we may find this as an illustration, this sort of expertise-rich content must come from published/peer-reviews sources; we cannot miss the fact that we must take on trust that this is indeed a pure fungal infection/infestation (accept editor subject expertise). While in this case we may have little doubt, it is the principle that is important; concern for "editor as expert and original content producer" is at the heart of the WP policy, extrapolating this example to a general approach is troubling, and so this contribution should not stand. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy concerning original research in images is described at WP:OI. I don't see how this is any different from the multitudes of images in Wikipedia and on Commons where the only evidence we have that the fungus/bridge/painting is what we say it is is the uploader's say-so. The animation is not used to advance any unpublished idea or argument, nor is there any claim the infection is pure. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First use of term "Mycology"

According to the article, the use of the word mycology "is thought to have originated in 1836 with English naturalist Miles Joseph Berkeley's publication The English Flora of Sir James Edward Smith, Vol. 5."

However, Google Book Search reveals at least one earlier use, this, from Scottish Cryptogamic Flora, Vol. III, by Robert Kaye Greville, published 1825. 217.44.215.218 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The source our article currently cites says " 'Mycology' ... seems to have been first used ... in 1836". So the author was making their best guess, but per 217.44.215.218 was incorrect. I see two options. We could go with something like this:

The word mycology was thought to have originated in 1836 with English naturalist Miles Joseph Berkeley's publication The English Flora of Sir James Edward Smith, Vol. 5., but was in fact used at least as early as 1825.^{[ref the Google book search above]}

That would be as informative and as accurate as we could be. It might be opposed on original research grounds, though personally I wouldn't have any problem with it, as there's no novel synthesis and nothing controversial or debatable.

Alternatively, we could just remove any mention of the first use of mycology. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Sexual reproduction cycle in basidiomycetes

Sexual reproduction cycle in basidiomycetes.

This is an image I designed and drawn to help the comprehension of the sexual reproduction process in basidiomycetes.

--LaNitaRi (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added to the article Basidiomycetes, but don't think it should be added here (too much weight on the life cycle of one particular class). I like the image, but in the future you might want to consider making the lettering larger/darker, as it is very difficult to read without viewing the image full size. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Great pic! If you're open to editing it, "New fungus" and "Growth of the fungus" should probably be "New fruiting body" and "Growth of the fruiting body" or something like that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Biosynthesis of terpenes

The following sentence toward the end of the Characteristics section could be misleading because it implies fungi are more similar to plants and share a biosynthetic pathway with plants (which it is implied animals don't have since they aren't mentioned). In fact, all eukaryotes possess the mevalonic acid pathway, while the MEP pathway in chloroplasts is absent from both fungi and animals.

"Another characteristic shared with plants is a biosynthetic pathway for producing terpenes that uses mevalonic acid and pyrophosphate as chemical building blocks.[28] However, plants have an additional terpene pathway in their chloroplasts, a structure fungi do not have.[29]"

Instead, this could read: "As eukaryotes, fungi possess a biosynthetic pathway for producing terpenes that uses mevalonic acid and pyrophosphate as chemical building blocks.[28] Plants and some other organisms have an additional terpene biosynthesis pathway in their chloroplasts, a structure fungi and animals do not have.[29]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.151.230 (talk • contribs)

Agreed and  Done. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Closer to animals than plants?

Is there a citation for this claim, or is it original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.22.57 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

See Opisthokont for various citations. That Fungi and Animals are more closely related to each other than to most other organisms, plants included, is one of the more robust conclusions about broad-scale eukaryote phylogeny. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it be worth modifying the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph to mention that fungi and animals are both opisthokonts, unlike plants which are archaeplastida? (If I'm reading that correctly?) Or would that be redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.22.57 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing

In the Taxonomy section it refers to "The above cladogram" but there is no diagram "above". Does it mean "below"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.70.173 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Such pointers are always risky because we don't know how elements will be rearranged in Wikipedia mirrors. I've eliminated the Phylogeny subheading, which puts the pointer in the same section as the cladogram, and changed "above" to "accompanying".

Meanwhile, is there any reason for the two refs in this section to be explicitly attributed in-text, rather than just cited in the usual way? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

You should add Fungi (Caribbean Dish), which redirects to Cou-cou to the "you may be looking for" section at the top. 67.174.242.129 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trailing periods after authors in citations

(see vauthors vs. authors and vauthors vs. authors citation style for background)

I propose removing the redundant trailing period after the authors in the citations in this article and replacing |authors= with |vauthors= in {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} templates.

Currently this article formats authors to citations in Vancouver style followed by period before the date. The use of trailing periods after the authors is part of the Vancouver system where it makes grammatical sense since this period separates authors from the title. However the combination of {{cite journal}} with |authors= or |vauthors= follows neither the Vancouver system nor the default WP:CS1 style, but is a hybrid. In {{cite journal}}, the date is parenthetically placed after the authors, and hence it makes sense to place the period after the date. Placing a period before and after the date as this article currently does is redundant.

The newer |vauthors= parameter (1) produces clean metadata, (2) is fully compatible with the auxiliary |author-linkn= and |display authors= parameters, and (3) contains error checking to make sure that the authors are consistently formatted according to the Vancouver system. |authors= has none of these advantages. Furthermore the trailing period is not supported by the |vauthors= parameter and in fact triggers an error message.

User:Sasata in this edit objected to this change on the basis of consistency (some authors lists will have ending periods, some not) and WP:CITEVAR. To the best of my knowledge, the version after my edit was completely internally consistent (no author list had trailing periods). WP:CITEVAR says don't change citation format unless there is consensus to do so. I am now asking if there is consensus to make this relatively minor change to the citation format of this article. Boghog (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sasata: I have asked if there is consensus in replacing |authors= with |vauthors= in this article. You have not responded to my detailed arguments above in favor of this change. Hence I interpret your non-response as agreement that the substitution should be made. Do you agree with my interpretation.? Boghog (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No. There does not appear to be consensus for making the change. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)