Talk:Mushroom

Fruit bodies

A lot more people know what "mushroom" means than what "fruit body" means; therefore, it doesn't actually help very much for purposes of explanation to a lay audience to say that the mushroom is the fruit body of a fungus. So, could we have an explanation of what "fruit body" means in this context? --LMS

Done. I would create a proper page for fruiting body, but I don't know enough to make anything more than a dictionary definition. -Smack 07:15 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, marshman

Thanks, Marshman, for your contribution of more mushroom photographs  :) Most of mine aren't digital (although a few are, such as my sulphur shelf photo).

And that is quite a picture! (sulphur shelf) - Marshman 02:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Appropriate

Hey, if you want to move Nintendo/Mario stuff to the least signifiant place on the page, be my guest. It might even be suggested that the entry is inappropriate for this article - Marshman 21:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toadstool

Toadstool redirects to Mushroom now? Er, but the word doesn't even occur on the page. It was much better redirecting to Amanita muscaria - would anyone object to this being changed back? Suitov 14:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Only if that is the common name of A. muscaria. I did not think "toadstool" was that specific, but I do not use the word, so I may not be any kind of authority. Another solution is to prepare a brief paragraph explaining just what a "toadstool" is within the Mushroom article; it could then link to A. muscaria - Marshman 16:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I came to this talk page with the sme idea. Many people in England use the word toadstool to refer to the poisonous types and mushrooms for the edible types. To anyone with no interest in mycology mushrooms are the things you by in supermarkets and all the others are toadstools! I have never heard any suggestion that toadstool refers only to fly agaric before reading the wikipedia article.217.17.114.253 18:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've never had a "working" definition for 'toadstool' other than synonymous with mushroom - Marshman 03:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Toadstool redirects to Mushroom now? Er, but the word doesn't even occur on the page." / "I came to this talk page with the same idea." Sorry if this me-too-ism, but... Me too! Of course "toadstool" means something different from "mushroom". According to the Collins English Dictionary: "Any basidiomycetous fungus with a capped spore-producing body that is poisonous" (my emphasis). -- Picapica 22:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems like we all agree that toadstool is not used uniformly. I was always told that any mushroom growing in the ground could be poisonous and I think my parents just called them al toadstools so I wouldn't eat them. --Gbleem 23:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the dictionary definition. That should be mentioned in this article. Beyond that, I see no reason to redirect "Toadstool" anywhere but to mushroom - Marshman 00:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite, and thanks for that edit, Marshman. I think the only thing that people found odd before was that having searched for "toadstool", one was previously directed to a page which had no mention of the word. That problem's now solved. -- Picapica 11:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

In the light of this discussion, I hope my new paragraph is found useful. Cheers, Edwing 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

basidiocarp

"The technical term for the spore-producing structure of "true" mushrooms is the basidiocarp. The term "toadstool" is used typically to designate a basidiocarp that is poisonous to eat."

This confuses me. Is the basidiocarp the entire fungus, the cap and stem or the cap alone? Which parts of a toadstool are poisonous. --Gbleem 23:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Basidiocarp is the fruiting body of the fungi specimen. "Basdidiomycota" refers to the phylum of the fungal group. Also, the "stem" is actually becoming called a "stipe" more and more -- because fungi are more related to animals than plants. Siraf 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for Druggies

An external page on the use of mushrooms for drug users is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article, as the site appears commercial in nature and out of context for the Mushroom article. You may want to try and get it listed or linked from a drug use article. - Marshman 23:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternative images

Additional images that can be used on this page once there is more text to support it

• 
  The most overlooked, but common edible mushroom, this is sometimes used in soups.
• 
  This image is the cleaned up version of the image to the right.

Removed disambiguation stuff at bottom

I removed all the disambiguation junk at the bottom. My feeling is that kind of thing should go into a disambiguation article -- unless someone planned to develop it into something bigger? — FJ | hello 06:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly an improvement. Thanks - Marshman

Mushrooms or what?

Hey guys, shouldn't stinkhorns be removed from the list of edible mushrooms? Also a mushroom is an edible toadstool so truffles aren't mushrooms just fungi. Toadstools are the bits that grow out and look like umbrella's. - Wikk

If no one eats stinkhorns anywhere, they should be removed from the edibles list. And, although there seems to be a fair bit of disagreement as to what people have learned as the difference between mushrooms and toadstools, your interpretation may be a bit towards the fringe. The idea that a mushroom is an edible toadstool seems to be a reasonable but perhaps too literal interpretation of having a shape matching something a toad could or would sit upon. I may be wrong, but majority opinion might be closer to: mushrooms "are the bits that grow out and look like umbrellas" and toadstools are just poisonous mushrooms. You can see how the latter interpretations (reflecting the present article) are incompatible with your suggested changes. - Marshman 17:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A warning?

As of Turkish wikipedia (vikipedi), we decided to put a warning to all edible wild mushroom articles. We dont want anyone try to identify mushrooms by wikipedia and poison themselves. Here is a sample page and template Warning reads something like this: "Important warning: Wikipedia mushroom articles are only for information purposes, do not try to identify mushrooms using this info. Since it can be very difficult to distinguish edible and poisonous mushrooms, only experienced and specialist people should identify them" Maybe English wikipedia and others should consider putting this kind of warnings to potentialy dangerous articles.

Perhaps we should. Be bold!Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. Under identification it states that mushrooms may be poisonous. 142.151.184.55 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Name?

Just wondering if there was a single scientific name for all mushrooms in general, or only for specific types of mushroom. Anyone know? - Impulse 360 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. By "scientific name", do you mean a "species name"? Or do you mean a taxonomic name or classification for a group of species? Rather than go into an explanation, I direct you to the article on Fungus. "Mushroom" refers to just certain fungi with the only common property that of a more or less similar fruiting body (and a good deal of latitude applied there), so the name you are looking for might be Basidiomycota, although some Ascomycota are also called mushrooms - Marshman 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that just about answered it. Thanks! - Impulse 360 03:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

pov and us-centric points

The section headed "history" contains much pov.

• What is the justification for referring to hallucinagenics as "super human journey".
• Also, no sources for the stuff about women.
• Finally, the usda and what it did or didn't do (i don't even know what it is let alone why it is relevant) should not be in this article (neither should which mushroom is most eaten in the US).Necessaryx 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it could use a rewrite towards a more encyclopedic entry. Also, it is a "History of Mushroom Use" and not a History of mushrooms - Marshman 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) So I moved it to Edible mushroom - 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Berserkers & 'shrooms

Strolling over Wikipedia to correct this factiod, but it doesn't seem appropriate to go into lengths about that in this article. I've put more details and references in over at Amanita_muscaria. Amphis 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

rumour or fact?

I just heard there is some theory that 95% of a mushrooms mass is below the surface. The mushroom is named something like mycorhizza or something. Is this true? Does anyone know where I can find this? - JamieJones ^talk 12:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if you just read the article at Wikipedia you would know that to be a fact. Mycorhizae refers to the relationship between fungal mycelia and the roots of certain plants - Marshman 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But is there data on the 95% figure? Can you verify that? JamieJones ^talk 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A figure like 95% is just a "gee-whiz" number. The fact is that a majority of biomass of any fungal organism is going to be present as a mycelium in the soil, in a substrate of some kind (like an old log), etc. As the mycelium grows it will, from time to time in response to favorable conditions, produce a fruiting structure (the mushroom). But the only thing important about what percentage of the total organism comprises the visible mushroom versus the less visible mycelium in the soil or log, is that the latter is likely to be a much bigger number. The mycelium can get very large, can grow and die back, can produce a few to a lot of mushrooms. I doubt there is any fixed relationship. Maybe think of it like the fruit on a tree. At the right time of year, it can be the case that there is a lot of fruit present, maybe more than leaves in some species. But the fruit hangs around for only a short time. The tree has a trunk, branches, leaves, and a lkarge, not-visible root mass that together far exceed the mass of fruit if considered both in time and space. But what good would it be to known just how much biomass of fruit there is for what biomass of everything else that is the tree. It is going to be different for each species and for each individual of each species. And there are plants that in their lifetime produce a lot more fruit than anything else, so in the world of plants any percentage can be encountered depending on species, growing conditions, and whether you want to consider time in the calculation. - Marshman 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. Last thing: the person told me that someone (forget the name) has hypothesized that different organisms in the forest, such as the trees, communicate via fungal mycelium. Is that true? Thanks for a thorough reply. 64.235.102.2 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone can hypothesize anything. The term means to come up with a guess or idea that is then subjected to testing. It does help to have some facts first, but not necessary. The biggest problem as I see it is in the term "communicate." In the usual (common) sense of the term, I would suspect the hypothesis is saying that trees pass information back and forth to each other. That seems highly unlikely as trees lack any means of processing information; like having phone lines (the mycelium), but no phones. Is there communication at some more basic level? Well living organisms must respond to changes in the environment, so the cells have to respond to the "information" the environment provides (like the soil is now moist, grow new roots and take up water, grow new leaves, etc.) Fungal myclia could be part of this "communication." I find it hard to reconcile this form of communication with what is being implied by the statement. Either you are pulling my leg, or someone is pulling yours. - Marshman 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The talk of "communication" sounds like it came from Paul Stamets. I was flipping through "Mycellium Running" at the book store earlier. He was talking about how Mycorhizae will transfer nutrients between trees in a forest, even between individuals of different species, then launched into his "Nature's Internet" musings. He does a decent job of letting you know when he is and isn't trying to please audiences only interested in objective fact, but you have got to get it in context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.68.115 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Chitin?

Alton Brown of food network said that the shell of mushrooms is made up of chitin, the same material that composes insect exoskeletons. Can somebody add this in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.243.34 (talk)

ethymology

In the article it is said:

Old English muscheron, from the Old French mouscheron, French mousseron —same name in English as a common kind of mushroom— itself perhaps a diminutive of mousse, meaning moss

Perhaps someone should look at this: http://ec.grec.net/lexicx.jsp?GECART=0090688

This is a Catalan dictionair entry about "moixernó", a kind of mushroom (Tricholoma georgii), in French mousseron de printemps or vrai mousseron. The proposed ethymology is:

d'origen incert, probablement d'una base *muksernon- (amb la variant *muksarion, base del mateix mot en altres llengües), preromana, potser cèlt., emparentat amb el gr. mýkes 'bolet', mýxa 'mucositat' i mýxos 'peix viscós'

That is:

non clear origin, probably from a root *muksernon- (with the variant *muksarion, root of the same word in other languages), preroman, maybe celtic, related with the Greek mýkes 'mushroom', mýxa 'mucosity' and mýxos 'viscous fish'

--80.39.155.111 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It may be relevant to include the etymology in the body of the article, if it adds to our understanding of mushrooms, but including an in-depth etymology at the start of the article just makes things difficult for the reader. Since the origin is disputed, and it doesn't really add to our knowledge of mushrooms that ancient Greeks or medieval Frenchmen saw them as mucous or moss-like, I've deleted; the information can always be moved to Wictionary. --Blisco 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What about truffles?

The statement in the first sentence A mushroom is an above-ground fruiting body is not really appropriate i suppose, as truffles are also mushrooms, but the fruiting body of the truffle mycellium grows under-ground.

I agree. Who placed this? Adolph172

Article is a mess

As it stands, this article is a mish-mash of topics that are covered (or should be covered) variously under Sporocarp, Basidiocarp, Edible mushroom, Psychedelic mushroom, Mushroom hunting, and Fungus. Some of the information is downright inaccurate. The article has a very "thrown together" feel, like a bunch of random contributions from lot of different editors. The images in the gallery at the bottom seem very random and not terribly helpful. "Mushrooms in popular culture" is just a list and should probably be broken out into its own article.

This article needs a complete rewrite, in my opinion, with a clearer idea on what topics are to be covered. I propose that the article be composed of several sections that link to other main articles ) using Template:Main at the head of the section and condensed version of the main article in the section or sections.

Here's the structure I propose and the articles that should be linked to

(Introduction)

• Morphology and types

Main article: Basidiocarp

Main article: Ascocarp

• Human use

Further information: Ethnomycology

• • Edible mushrooms

Main article: Edible mushrooms

Main article: Mushroom hunting

• • Psychoactive mushrooms

Main article: Psychedelic mushrooms

• • Medicinal mushrooms

• • Toxic mushrooms

Main article: Mushroom poisoning

• In popular culture

Main article: Mushrooms in popular culture

I think completely rewriting the article and structuring it this way would greatly improve it. Also, taking excessively detailed bits of information (for example, nutritional makeup of edible mushrooms) and merging them into another section would be good, too. Fact checking and citing references would in the process of doing this would also be helpful. Peter G Werner 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just restructured the article according to the outline above. However, I still feel that a section by section rewrite is called for, saving material when its worthwhile, but not being hesitant to completely rewrite content that is poorly rewritten or inaccurate and move out information that doesn't belong in this article. Peter G Werner 03:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

eek - I've just started to look at this. I started to address the Edible mushroom article and was pondering whether it was redundant. I figured subheadings of commercially cultivated fungi, fungi sold commercially but wild-picked, then those just widely eaten withut being sold commercially. Then I started to think whether this needed to be two articles etc....Cas Liber 06:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm wondering whether mushroom hunting and edible mushroom should be combined looking at things....Cas Liber 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

rationalising images

Yeah, the gallery is not helpful. I'm looking at interspersing relevant images into text.Cas Liber 07:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete Reworking

I tried my best in reworking the article (using the sandbox), changing the layout, and moving information to areas where it is most relevant. But I dont wish to replace the article in its current state. How would one go about placing the article in an area for people to judge/review its quality and whether or not it actually should replace the old one. Or add comments to something needed etc. Somewilliepete 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What you could try is completely replacing the text of the article with what you've written, or replace those sections that you've rewritten (if you haven't rewritten the whole article). Then immediately revert back to the prior version. (To do this, go to the history tab, go to the version prior to your edit, then click on "edit" and "save", which immediately reverts it.) Now your changes will be in the edit history and a side-by-side comparison can be made with the current state of the article. From there, you or anybody else can decide what they want to incorporate in. Give it a try, and thanks for your help! Peter G Werner 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

fan mail regarding toadstool vs mushroom

I removed the following text: "If you understand anything written above, you are a genius. This a horribly written definition." which had followed the paragraph which begins "However, inhowfar the difference between toadstools and mushrooms in everyday usage". I'll agree that the definition could probably use some work - it lurches back and forth between highly technical language and vague hints ("like a fly agaric") - can we aim for something more resembling a happy medium? Of course, complaining about it belongs on the talk page rather than the article. Kingdon 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, following the Wikipedia guideline to be bold in one's edits, I just up and deleted the said nonsense paragraph. Again, this whole article needs a lot of work. So much work that I really don't know where to begin. Perhaps a collaborative drive by WikiProject Fungi sometime in the next several months. Unfortunately, this is just how it often goes with Wikipedia articles – lots of little contributions of varying quality eventually add up to one giant mess, requiring a huge effort to set things right. Peter G Werner 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regional Groups

Mushrooms Canada's and American Mushroom Council's website should be added to the regional groups page, as they are non-profit organizations that represent mushroom growers in general. They do not sell products, they promote the proper use, care, handling and growing procedures for commercial mushrooms. The websites are www.mushrooms.ca and www.mushroomcouncil.org. Does anyone feel that these links are inappropriate? I think it has lots of great information on the process of growing commercial mushrooms which would be beneficial links on this page as "mushroom" can refer to both commercially grown and wild mushrooms. This page is very much laking in good mushroom information. --CMGA 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the links are appropriate, as are links to other English-language websites for other trade associations. I've added list of links for all the ones I know of and hopefully that should settle the issue. As for your comment, "This page is very much laking in good mushroom information", if you'd read over the earlier discussion on this talk page, you'd know doubt notice that the members of WikiProject Fungi are aware of this and it is on our "to do" list. However, you should also note that this is simply a general article on "mushrooms" and will only have limited depth – there are numerous other articles that go more into depth about various topics covered here. Also note that, unlike many in the commercial mushroom industry, "mushroom" does not automatically mean Agaricus bisporus – see that article for more in-depth info on that topic. I'll also point out that if you see shortcomings in an article, the very best thing you can do as a Wikipedian is actually help fix the problem by helping with editing. Consider joining WikiProject Fungi, in fact. Peter G Werner 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those Peter! I just want to say that if you need any information on the cultivation of commercial grown mushrooms (whites, crimini, portabellas, enoki, shiitake and oysters) I'm the one to ask. I have a list of resources that can be utilized for this purpose, and there is alot of great information that will help readers understand how commercial mushrooms are grown, as they are in fact very different from wild. Thanks again.--CMGA 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing

I have made a stab at this and it is now looking quite a bit better. I basically stopped after identification. The references look like a reading list for a friend of mine who authored most of the books, rather than a general guide to reading. Others can add references if I don't get back to it soon. Feed-back on the edit will be instructive -- Heliocybe 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Refined definitions and removal of gallery

I refined the definition of mushroom and toadstool & added further historical reference. I also removed the gallery. It was a hodgepodge of poor quality photos, or photos of atypical mushrooms (like polypores) which were poorly identified. It looked messy. I encourage others to add a few better quality images. Heliocybe 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Annulus

It's amazing how things slip by when there is so much blatant vandalism. The comment on the annulus under the heading 'toadstool' looked plausible enough to have gone by unchallenged until once again the paragraph was read for content. There is no way to distinguish so called toadstools from mushrooms let alone using the presence or absence of an annulus. The cultivated mushroom has an annulus and so do deadly Amanitas. Perhaps the author of the statement added it in good faith - but it is definitely incorrect information, hence my deletion of the statement.Heliocybe 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No information on the propagation of mushrooms

I would find this to be just a little important. If people wanted/need to know how mushrooms spread. A little info would be important. I dont have any citations, but I know this to be true.

Mushrooms grow from spores. Spores germinate under the proper conditions, such as temperature, and moisture, and the availability of nutrients. Mushrooms spread their spores in different ways. Puffballs release their spores into the air, this is aided by the wind and animals (animals bump into them and release spores into the air). Other mushrooms have spores underneath the gills, and upon maturity they drop the spores. Wind can carry these spores too. Animals also can eat the spores, and if they arent destroyed by digestion they can be spread through the droppings. Humans aid in the spreading of spores when hunting, although this is a disputed fact. Some people intentionally collect their mushrooms in a mesh sack so the spores will fall and further propagate the species.

When spores have germinated they grow into mycelium. This mycelium runs underneath the earth, colonizing the "substrate". When the mycelium reaches the surface of the earth, it receives signals that it is time to grow into a fruiting body. The signals vary, such as light (showing that it is actually above the earth) concentration of oxygen (instead of co2 beneath the earth's surface).

Mushrooms also can propagate through mycelium, spreading through the earth. Although some people advocate that if spores never germinated, it can lead to a weakening of the strain, and lowered health. I cannot vouch for this completely.

Now some questions for you guys. Can you dig up citations for this, so users can complete the article. And is Stamet's work a citable source. Somewilliepete 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The growth of mycelium (be it for mushrooms or other fungi) is quite another topic and should go under another title. Your paragraph on spores not germinating is a mix of information - some correct some not correct. I suspect you mean viability or fertility of strains via continual transfers versus restarting from spores. Yet another topic.

This article will never be complete becuse it could expand indefinitely to cover all of mycology. It's best to keep it brief and slightly less technicsal than those on taxa such as Basidiomycota etc. and to refer to such pages for greater detail. Cultivation can be addressed under each edible species because each differs in requirements.

Anyway- just some thoughts. As for Stamets' books - yes, certainly they are citable, but there are plenty more references other than them. By the way, his name is spelled Paul Stamets not Paul Stamet. Heliocybe 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This site certainly attracts a lot of negative attention, which I suppose goes along with the whole querky psychology around mushrooms. Anyway, for those correcting such mischief, thanks, you're doing everyone a big favour. Heliocybe 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsoil structure

I came to this article after a brief dispute with my biologist partner about whether the subsoil structure of a mushroom could in common parlance be referred to as a root, or root stalk, or root system, or just as a soil-nutrient exchange system attached to a fungal stalk. MaxEnt 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The subsoil (or substrate inhabiting portion) is a mycelium consisting of hyphae. So it is neither a root or root stalk. it is the thallus.

Some mushroms have a rooting base to the actual fruitbody, but it is not a true root and neither is it the mycelium. It actually is growing upwards from the true substrate.Heliocybe 17:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom production - removal

Unfortunately, although a topic of some interest, the recently added section was too poorly worded to leave in place. Also, the map was difficult to interpret with clusters of dots on both the USA & Canada and no dots on some other locations where mushrooms are produced. The author did not differentiate what kind of mushrooms either (Agaricus vs Lentinula vs what?). Truffle too is rather generalized. Heliocybe 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The section needs expansion not removal. This is a encyclopaedia. Anwar 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The map is virtually useless because it does not explain why dots are clustered and why dots do not appear elsewhere. The caption is poorly written. There is no use adding a section with nothing of value in it. If someone wishes to add useful information, then by all means add the section title. Until then, I hate to see the page become a mess once again.Heliocybe 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop revert warring here? May be you can help expand the production section with volumes and prices from leading commodities markets.Anwar 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to consider any of this a revert war. What you are adding is a map that cannot be easily interpreted and a poorly worded explanation. I have asked that you or others add reasonable data. Otherwise, you are cluttering up the site. Do you have any idea what mushrooms were being tracked by the FAO? It is like comparing apples and oranges, only its Agaricus versus Lentinula or Volvariella. As for prices, I expect someone, perhaps you, to add that sort of information. Please, I invite you to post better information, but to stop insisting upon presenting poorly presented data.Heliocybe 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you have put your image back in. It is still misleading but at least it is smaller. I may stil move it or remove it - I think such information is best put on another page under edible mushrooms. However, for now I moved it down to correspond with the section on human use. The first image that pops up should actualy be a representative of the page topic. i.e. a mushroom.Heliocybe (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom trivia

It has been suggested that mushroom trivia be deleted. Adding Super Mushroom images certainly distracts from the general discussion and deffinition of mushrooms and there is an appropriate page. I see it actually is called Mushroom (Mario) rather than Super mushroom. Under mushroom (disambiguation) there are several other pages on things related to the word mushroom. Everything does not need to go under the page mushroom.Heliocybe 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom head

"Head" is another name for "cap" and should be mentioned in this article (especially since mushroom head redirects here). So what if a link to head is too general? Alternate names must be acknowledged. Links to cap and gill are appropriate as well to provide context. —Remag Kee 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I redirected mushroom head to pileus (mycology). Heliocybe 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes more sense but there still needs to be some correlation between "cap" (or CAP anyway since that's the dab page, which has a link to a more basic, general definition via Wiktionary) and "head" on at least that page then... —Remag Kee 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Armillaria - largest organism

Indeed the information on Armillaria is interesting but it needs better documentation and a rewrite because it is not that clearly written. But I applaud the effort to include the information. Heliocybe 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that change can work. Heliocybe 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar damage

I am not certain how the missing paragraph on identification was lost so far back and not noticed even by me. However, I put it back in, but apparently in a different spot. Heliocybe 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine editing - by Mycologyauthor

Hi - I see a serious attempt to polish the article and didn't comment on the change a few edits back, but the current scattering of edits I think detracts from the article rather than improving it. When I drafted parts of it I anticipated what lay ahead so that it was worded in that way. I find adding comments on truffles upfront too misleading and the changes in other wording obscures meaning. "Powder" tells more that "deposit" for example. I find that too much editing can over polish an article.Heliocybe 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant info

It is not necesary to say they are multicellular organisms. There is a reference to them being fungi. Also, the classification talks about most being Basidiomycota. Discussions there certainly cover this information. One could also say they are eukaryotic but why give such detail under this topic? Heliocybe (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical puffball usage

I removed the addition on puffballs. It can be put back in (with a reference) and correct information and spelling. I don't know if the spores and capillitium have been shown to be antiseptic, but they were used to assist in clotting or staunching blood flow.Heliocybe (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki: Mushroom/Fungus?

I noticed that, amazingly, there were a bunch of missing interwiki links (e.g. Russian), and took the list from the Russian page and pasted it here. Then I realized that there is a distinction between "Mushrooms" and "Fungi" being made. Perhaps the mass importation should be reverted, but the fact that so many languages were missing links was really strange. In almost all languages there is one common word for the kingdom and the visible fruiting body. What does one do? Do interwikis have to map one-to-one? Has this come up already in the past? Curiously yours, Eliezg (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right - not all are equivalent - you cannot equate "mushroom" with "fungus" so mass linking should not be done. Please restrict links to eqivalent definitions on a case by case basis. Heliocybe (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I actually spent an entertaining Sunday afternoon bouncing between Fungus and Mushroom pages in many languages. There was a fair amount of overlap, though obviously not everywhere. Wherever I felt confident that I could tell whether the same word were being used for both, I put those links in here. Specifically, in the Slavic languages a word related to "Gryb", "Hrib", etc. is almost always used for both definitions (exception: cs:Plodnice and pl:Owocnik versus cs:Houby and pl:Grzyby, though in both cases the former has a somewhat narrower resonance - like "fruiting body", while the latter is more commonly used for the food). Similarly, in Scandinavian and south Germanic languages, something like "Svamp" and "Pilz" respectively are the widespread word for both (exception: nl:Paddenstoel (schimmel) versus nl:Schimmel). Interestingly, Romance languages seem to be most consistent about making some distinction (exception: it:Funghi). In some stubby cases (like ga:Fungas, la:Fungi, oc:Mycota) it seems no great disservice is made by linking from mushroom. I cannot vouch at all for the Asian languages, or for hu:Gombák. Also, many of these interwiki links reciprocate to Fungus, and I am not sure if that's going to upset some language Bots. But I think this is an improvement. Best, Eliezg (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort - I won't check each now because I assume you've made appropriate judgement calls. Heliocybe (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ==

First Mushroom Picture

Does anyone think that looks like a power-up? 66.189.8.133 (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Repairs

I found so much vandalism since last checking I went back to an earlier version but some useful info may be deleted. Authors should add the info again. I cannot be responsible for some of the comments under some categories. Heliocybe (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I will then add the information about Rolland Griffith's study on psilocybin. Siliconov (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

Do mushrooms require sunlight to grow? 72.43.45.99 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. But a few are basidiolichens so in nature they wouldn't do well without sunlight. Others are mycorrhizal and therefore in nature if their hosts die, so might they. And finally, the actual fruitbody may require light to initiate or develop properly, just because they evolved to mature above ground.Heliocybe (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Mushrooms

I don't know anything about wikiprojects, but I started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mushrooms because it seems so obvious and useful. Hopefully someone can take control and really get it going.Cosprings (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gang Slang

I removed the paragraph about gang slang. It seems out of place. If you have an issue with me removing it, bring it up here.

--64.173.240.130 (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)