Jump to content

Talk:Fungus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr21782 (talk | contribs) at 04:31, 5 February 2024 (→Organization and Writing Quality: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleFungus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 22, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 16, 2006.
Current status: Featured article


When was Fungi classified as seperate from Plants?

In article: "In the past, mycology was regarded as a branch of botany, although it is now known fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants." Soucre? And when did this happen? Flasher702 (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article! It's under Taxonomy and a source is given.Graham Beards (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did this happen? – I think the first system with Kingdom Fungi separated from plants was the system of R. H. Whittaker from 1969 ([1]; [2]; [3]) but there may be some older reference. --Petr Karel (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chromista

The chromista article itself describes chromista as a proposed kingdom. Is it really appropriate to reference it here as part of a "traditional" classification? 2601:282:1780:1AEA:4E36:758F:40D2:E997 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

This concerns the last sentence of the first paragraph under the headline "etymology". The sentence in question:

> […] the root is also used in other languages, such as the German Schwamm ('sponge') and Schimmel ('mold').

The hyperlinks of Schwamm and Schimmel both point here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schwamm#German

Presumably, the latter link (Schimmel) should point here instead: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schimmel#German


Much obliged, hh3k0 Hh3k0 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving two paragraphs about taxonomy

The first two paragraphs under [Taxonomy] should be moved to [Taxonomic groups] (or possibly be deleted). The problem with their current position is that they, and the first paragraph in particular, obfuscate the reclassification of fungi as a separate kingdom. 12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Btw, the comprehensive fungal taxonimical system Outline of Fungi by Wijayawardene et al., 2020 (broad collaboration of mycologists from many research organizations all over the world; [4]) should be mentioned (at least) in the second paragraph. --Petr Karel (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Chromista from lead para


  • These organisms are classified as a kingdom,[4] separately from the other eukaryotic kingdoms, which, by one traditional classification, includes Plantae, Animalia, Protozoa, and Chromista.:
  • Remove Chromista as it is not traditional nor supported by any references in article :
  • No references support its inclusion.:

FixitFelixicus (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Chromista is "traditional" (originated 1981 [5] or earlier; then used in "Cavalier-Smiths" system (e.g. [6]; [7]) and survived at least till his last study published 2022 ([8]). The same or similar system with 5 eukaryotic kingdoms containing Chromista is applied in many other projects (AlgaeBase; WoRMS...) The only problem is, that it is (most probably) not a monophyletic taxon (for the death of the "Chromalveolate hypothesis" see e.g. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x and its references). The same problem as Chromista has the "traditional" kingdom Protozoa.
So, I agree either with removing or maintaining of both Chromista and Protozoa. --Petr Karel (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the response by Petr Karel, this edit request should probably be marked as responded to. This edit very likely needs a response/decision from someone with specific knowledge of this field (such as Petr Karel). I suggest someone with that knowledge be bold and make a decision about Chromista and possibly Protozoa and then implement it. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the "definition" of Fungi as 1 of the 5 eukaryotic kingdoms is OK for lay readers. As a reference, one or more of the refs to Cavalier-Smith's system could be added (see my previous answer). The problem of this approach for phylogenetical taxonomists is that Chromista, even in the modified definition since cca Cavalier-Smith 2015), are probably paraphyletic (not a clade inside Diaphoretickes) and Protista polyphyletic taxon, as I mentioned.
The lead paragraph could be completed by the phylogenetic quasidefinion: Fungi ≈ sister group to Cristidiscoidea Page, 1987 (syn. Nucleariae Tedersoo, Sánchez-Ramírez, Kõljalg, Bahram, Döring, Schigel, T. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov 2018 syn. Rotosphaerida Rainer 1968), making together an opisthokont clade Holomycota Liu et al. 2009 (syn. Nucletmycea Brown et al. 2009). (I mentioned most of the significant synonyms to show, that individual approaches in systematics and taxonomy for the basal opisthokont groups vary at least in nomenclature; in the lead paragraph only one taxon name, without authority and year, shoud be presented which equals to the name of the wikipedia article.) Also for this approach there is a problem of competition: Instead of the broad definition by mycologists (Outline of fungi, 2020, [9]), protistologists would like to rule above the Opisthosporidia (paraphyletic group of rozellids, microsporidians and aphelids) so they prefer narrower definition of kingdom Fungi without the whole Opisthosporidia or at least without rozellids and aphelids (see [10]); this narrower group/clade is sometimes called true fungi (Eumycota).
The cladistic definition as another alternative is too complicated for wikipedia: "The smallest crown clade containing Rozella allomycis F. K. Faust 1937, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Longcore, Pessier and D. K. Nichols 1999, Allomyces arbusculus E. J. Butler 1911, Entomophthora muscae (Cohn) Fresen. 1856, Coemansia reversa Tiegh. and G. Le Monn. 1873, Rhizophagus intraradices (N. C. Schenck and G. S. Sm.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler 2010, Rhizopus oryzae Went and Prins. Geerl. 1895, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Meyen 1838, and Coprinopsis cinerea (Schaef.) Redhead, Vilgalys and Moncalvo 2001)" (Phylonyms, 2020, ISBN: 978-1-138-33293-5, p. 109).
I hope my answer could help you to make the decision about the lead paragraph. You can also ask the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life for support. I am not a native speaker so I will not implement the decision into the text. Petr Karel (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about:

These organisms are classified as one of the traditional eukaryotic kingdoms, along with Animalia, Plantae and either Protista[1] or Protozoa and Chromista.[2]

Reasonably concise and covers the main alternative traditional schemes.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect for the intro paragraph, thank you.
(But IMO any featured article about a higher taxon should also have a precise taxon definition based on recent knowledge - I'm missing a paragraph on the phylogenetic position of fungi e. g. between the paragraphs Evolution and Taxonomy.) Petr Karel (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Whittaker, R.H. (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms or organisms. Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms". Science. 163 (3863): 150–60.
  2. ^ Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). "A revised six-kingdom system of life". Biological Reviews. 73 (3): 203–66.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

Please add the missing hatnote: {{Redirect-distinguish|Fugus|Fugu}} 134.199.113.124 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is detailed yet brief enough to read and comprehend. It is well-written for both the public and experts. The content is very well-organized into sections, as well as related groups. Mr21782 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fungus&oldid=1203570678"