Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fungi talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Mushroom Picture ID

Found this image on Flickr with a Wiki-friendly CC-Compatible license. But, I have no idea what it is. Help? --Cantthinkofausername 05:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talkcontribs)

Looks like some species of Macrolepiota, but that's just my initial reaction. If you don't know already, a great source for Wikipedia-friendly images of mushrooms and other fungi is the Mushroom Observer. If you're interested in uploading fungi images to Wikimedia Commons and then using them on our articles, that would be a great place to start :) J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not gonna upload said image till positive ID is made. --Cantthinkofausername (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Could be Chlorophyllum molybdites also. de Bivort 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be a lot of things - it's really not possible to form an opinion based on one picture without any attached information. On the subject of submitting photos, I'd urge users to refrain from uploading images of unidentified (edit: as well as unidentifiable) fungi, as these already make a significant portion of available files. They can't be categorised and are of little use.--Paffka (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Chlorophyllum molybdites or Chlorophyllum (Macrolepiota) rhacodes come to mind but agree is tricky without having looked under at the gills to determine whether greenish or not. These are also very common - I concur with Paffka sort of about uploading this one. Casliber (talk contribs) 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for a synonym?

Penicillium candidum is a synonym of Penicillium camemberti, as the first sentence of this article says. I think they should be merged. But are there any (fungi-specific) rules about such situation? (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case for merging. Especially since both articles are stubs. de Bivort 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM • talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposed adjustment to {{Mycomorphbox}}

Currently, the template links "inedible" to mushroom poisoning, which is really not a good idea. It lumps together species who merely have a taste or texture that makes them unpalatable (paper or wood are inedible, but they are not, on average, toxic!) right up with actual toxic species or those who cause non-deadly intestinal symptoms. Circéus (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a sound case for a new parameter. Would you like to propose one? de Bivort 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
My opinion would be to just get rid of the link, possibly also replacing "inedible" with "unpalatable". Circéus (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. My impression of fungal guides is that 'inedible' can also apply to fungi which might give rise to mild gastric symptoms without being too poisonous as such..need to check on it. Agree with the de-link. Casliber (talk contribs) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely the case. If I recall correctly, the Peterson and the Audubon guides both use "inedible" for either not-eatable (i.e. woody) or causing indigestion (i.e. not acute poisoning). de Bivort 23:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that. I suggest adding unliked "unpalatable" and either delinking "inedible" or giving it an in-article link to the Edibility section. Circéus (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New database links

I have created templates to link to {{MycoBank}} and {{IndexFungorum}}. The first template can take two names, but Index Fungorum only one, though I can easily add more. By default the first name displayed in both case is the title of the page. See Geastrum triplex and Spongiforma thailandica for examples. Circéus (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering where those handy templates came from, thanks for making! Sasata (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I was actually amazed such templates did not exist before. Circéus (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Add {{MyB}}, takes only the Mycobank ID and makes it in and unornamented MB###### link: MB138464 . For use in lists, reference addendums etc. Circéus (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with ID?

Hi. I hope this is a good place to ask this. Here are two photos of a fungus I found growing in my back yard last fall. I've been googling around, but can't get a good start on identifying what it is, so I'm posting here. Any help is greatly appreciated. I'm in Denton, Texas, if that helps. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The clustering is honey mushroomesque, but it doesn't look like the stems have rings, and the gills look decurrent. FYI, it is very useful in identifying mushrooms to see their underside all the way to their base, including any subterranean growth. Decurrent gills and white spores suggests clitocybe to me. Maybe an older specimen of Armillaria tabescens, which used to be classified as a clitocybe? de Bivort 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Yeast

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Yeast/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mushroom stubs

I know that there is already Category:Fungus stubs, but I think that there should also be a category called Category:Mushroom stubs. Joe Chill (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year all the categories named "Mushroom" were changed to the more all-encompassing "fungus"; you will probably have better luck finding mushroom stubs to expand if you search Category:Basidiomycota stubs. Sasata (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland...

Find me a home!

Just came across this wonderful image- surely it would fit in somewhere? The only place we really discuss this kind of thing is in our article on fairy rings, and this wouldn't really fit in there. Anyone know of anywhere we could place it? J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about this, at some stage mushroom or something could be worked up and there would be a mushrooms in popular culture/cultural depictions section. I haven't looked at these broader articles for some times (Gilled fungi in popular culture anyone XD ) Casliber (talk contribs) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


New mycologist article here: Robert Delafield Rands Sasata (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rufosity + hypertrichosis? Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on.....

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests - we should try and get one of the amazing-looking fungi mainpaged (the request page can only have five requests at a time, so request have to be placed very quickly after Raul moves them to the TFA queue...) :) Casliber (talk contribs) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had a few FPs recently... Both File:Morelasci.jpg and File:Morchella conica 1 beentree.jpg were on the main page over February- plus the steady stream of DYKs. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate how biology articles have no anniversary.....but I saw a chance as the page was under quota for once. Casliber (talk contribs) 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dang, it got bumped. But nevermind, I'll leave the pale green box here for a later date: Casliber (talk contribs) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Two mushrooms with brown caps and light brown stems growing on the ground, surrounded by fallen leaves and other forest debris. One mushroom has been plucked and lies beside the other; its under-surface is visible, and is a light yellow color.

Boletus edulis, commonly known as porcini or cep, is a basidiomycete fungus, and the type species of the genus Boletus. Widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere across Europe, Asia, and North America, it does not occur naturally in the Southern Hemisphere, although it has been introduced to southern Africa and New Zealand. Several closely-related European mushrooms formerly thought to be varieties or forms of B. edulis have been shown using molecular phylogenetic analysis to be distinct species.

The fungus grows in deciduous and coniferous forests and tree plantations, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with living trees by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots. The fungus produces spore-bearing fruit bodies above ground in summer and autumn. The fruit body consists of a large and imposing brown cap which can reach 25 cm (10 in) in diameter and 1 kg (2.2 lb) in weight. Like other boletes, it has tubes extending downward from the underside of the cap, rather than gills; spores are released at maturity through the tube openings, or pores. The stout stipe, or stem, is white or yellowish in colour, up to 25 cm (10 in) tall and 7 cm (2.8 in) thick, and partially covered with a raised network pattern, or reticulations.

Prized as an ingredient in various foods, B. edulis is an edible mushroom held in high regard in many cuisines, and is commonly prepared and eaten in soups, pasta, or risotto. The mushroom is low in fat and digestible carbohydrates, and high in protein, vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre. Although it is sold commercially, it has not been successfully grown in cultivation. Available fresh in autumn in Central, Southern and Northern Europe, it is most often dried, packaged and distributed worldwide. (more...)

Proposed changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/fungus articles by size

I've been thinking about making this useful page even more so by setting it up as a table, and adding more columns with more information. I use the page as it is fairly often, but the proposed changes would really enhance its value for me, hopefully for others too. Obviously some tweaks are required, like getting the rating and date columns to sort properly. The incoming links column is mostly blank because I didn't want to actually count the highly linked pages. Any additional info that should be included? I'm not sure if there would be issues with have a table that's so big, but that can be figured out later. Does anyone know of other projects that do something similar? Sasata (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it can be done in a table and done automatically, I am all for it. These tables which you can click to change order etc. are fantastic. So go for thy life...Casliber (talk contribs) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the table because it was annoyingly moved to the bottom of this page for some reason. The bot has been written and approved, so it should be only a matter of time before we see the table in action! Sasata (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nattrassia mangiferae and Scytalidium

Hi everyone,
Could someone with journal access have a look at Nattrassia mangiferae and Scytalidium? The PubMed article linked out from Scytalidium is referring to Scytalidium dimidiatum, which I think is some sort of alternative name for Nattrassia mangiferae? I suspect the PubMed reference probably needs to be included into Nattrassia mangiferae (which would rather nicely expand the stub and maybe put it into the category of parasitic fungi?) Thanks Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up the Scytalidium article so it resembles most other fungal taxon stubs. As for Nattrassia mangiferae, according to Fungorum, as of 2006 the current name is Neofusicoccum mangiferae. Unfortunately, that name has been redirected to the outdated name. If I recall correctly, admin intervention is therefore required to swap pages and preserve page histories? Sasata (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct photos for Psilocybe australiana

If Psilocybe australiana is variant of Psilocybe subaeruginosa then the pictures shown look nothing alike, not even in Psilocybe.

They look more like Cortinarius sp. There are several species in that genus that will have a purple tinge, some of which will loose a bit of their purple colouring after it has been picked and is probably confused with blue bruising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMayolicious (talkcontribs) 03:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some Pictures

I haven't had time to take tons this year, but there are a few. IDs may eventually get more specific when I get a chance to visit the local mycologists again. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Stub time...Casliber (talk contribs) 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw these at MO and was wondering when they'd make their appearance here. Podoserpula I found quite interesting and am preparing a GA to house that picture :) Sasata (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on these—It's probably my fault that these journals are showing up as highly cited :) Sasata (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done Stubs made. Sasata (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ID request

Kaldari coprinoid mushrooms.jpg

Unknown mushroom species from Tennessee. Gills dark, no distinct odor, flesh remains white when cut. Kaldari (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Something in the genus Coprinus, I reckon. Looks maybe like atrementarius. de Bivort 03:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful! Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request re : Phytophthora alni

Hello. I realise oomycetes aren't fungi, but I seem to recall a general move to sort of adopt them into the Project a little while back? With that assumption I'm hoping for some feedback on an expansion of Phytophthora alni that I've been working on. I'm pretty much totally ignorant when it comes to oomycetes and fungi and this is my first major expansion so it'd be great to know what you think before inflicting it on the general public(!). My current working text is here: User:Ka Faraq Gatri/sandbox2. Thanks Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed this earlier. I think you have a fine start to the article; I can help you buff it up with some scholarly sources when you move it to mainspace if you're interested. Perhaps GA is possible? Here's a pic of some dead trees killed by this organism file:Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Phytophthora.jpg; I'll keep my eye open and see if there's any microscopy pics to use. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The description on that image says its caused by Phytophthora lateralis. Smartse (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ka Faraq Gatri's sandbox article is about P. lateralis (despite the heading here). Sasata (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should fudge the link. The sandbox did have Phytophthora alni a little while ago but I was bold and moved it in to article space by expanding the article that was already there. If anyone does fancy giving some feedback on that one I'd love that too... I decided to do a bit of work on P. lateralis so that's what's there now. And it is a mess. More a collection of resources than anything else. Hopefully I'll do a bit more on it soon but the thesis is rather getting in the way at the moment. The pic looks lovely, thanks Sasata. I'll do my best to find a spot for that one. Microscopy pics would be lovely.  :) Thanks for the feedback. I really have no mycology experience so it's good to know I'm not making a total hash of things. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, thesis. Most of my very first edits to Wikipedia were a result of me procrastinating working on mine :) Sasata (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm definitely interested in the scholarly sources. :) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
My bad, one of these days something bad will happen when I don't properly read something! A more general point, should we include the Phytophthora in the project? A quick scan shows they aren't tagged at the moment, personally it might make sense to include them here. Regarding the microscope pics, if you can' find any of P. lateralis specifically, you could consider adding File:Phytophtora_reproduction.png, I might well be wrong but I think most Phytophtora look pretty similar. Out of interest, is that a thesis or dissertation? Smartse (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a lifecyle diagram that can be added. Smartse (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thesis in the UK sense of the word. Hopefully it's nearly there but we'll see. Thanks for the lifecycle image. I presume because it's US government agency produced it can go onto Commons with the same permissions as the Bugwood images? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As for including oomycetes in the project, I think it's been proposed before. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pileus images

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycena leaiana var. australis.jpg, I posed the question Why are there no views of real fungi at Pileus (mycology)? Can someone respond?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There definitely should be. Probably just an oversight. Feel free to add one or more. de Bivort 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to disagree, for the reasons I listed there. Tony has a knee-jerk response to any FPC that is in only a single article that it should be in more, and so goes out of his way to find articles that are loosely related. If more images were to be added, I think it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia that they are added by someone with a knowledge of the subject... J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates for external links

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian mushroom

This photo was posted on the species identification board of the German Wikipedia. Unfortunately we do not have any experts on Australian mushrooms there, so I thought you might have more success at identifying this species. The habitat is eucalyptus forest.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I missed this. There is a key to Australian Ramaria somewhere recently published I will try and dig up. Most Australian fungi are undescribed. Casliber (talk contribs) 21:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioned name

Given this is a fairly important concept in mycological nomenclature that is not easily encapsulated within other article, I wrote a quick and dirty stub covering the basics. Circéus (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. I will link to this often. Sasata (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
cool :) Casliber (talk contribs) 21:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


I gave up and just went and added an "unpalatable" parameter to "edibility". It uses the "inedible" icon. See it in action at Amanita citrina.Circéus (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good! I just used it. Is it possible to make it fit on 1 line so that it doesn't make the MMBox longer? Sasata (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on infoboxes, but writing "edibility:" seems redundant except in the case of "edibility: unknown", which could be simplified to "edibility unknown". Would eliminating that make it fit on one line? Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
One might argue the same about "ecology". I think it looks better like this. Circéus (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is that "unpalatable or edible" is not very... workable. I think keeping it as "unpalatable" works best for any mushroom who one would no consider as a good choice for consumption even if completely harmless. The article clearly implies that even with the bitterness removed, it's not a very good mushroom. Maybe a "edible, but palatability debated" is also needed, but that's getting a bit too detailed... Circéus (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mushrooms and animals

None of the WP mushroom articles seem to cover the relationship of animals to mushrooms. Which animals consume mushrooms? How do they know which ones are safe? How often do they make mistakes? What are the consequences? Dogs, cats, pets and mushrooms?

Which animals react to various mushrooms the most similar to humans? Can a human stranded in the wild get useful guidance about safe/edible mushrooms from observing animals?

A mushroom was nibbled at the edge by an animal. The next day, a chipmunk ate the whole thing. Did the chipmunk taste-test the mushroom first, wait a day for a bad reaction, then decide it was safe to consume?

Which WP articles should contain such information?- (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question, I don't know the answer, but if anything can be found it should be added to Fungus#Ecology for starters - that doesn't mention anything about them being eaten at the moment. Smartse (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
These don't really answer your questions, but there are some papers mentioning this: A tortoise eats mushrooms doi:10.1079/PNS19530011 - rabbits, cows and pigs do. This says that poisonings are unknown in nature but that animals learn not to eat foods containg an hallucinogen. Animals more closely related to us, like bonobos and chimpanzees would probably react most similarly. Smartse (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
There's some interesting stuff in specific species articles- Amanita muscaria has some rather sweet information. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Which section? I couldn't find anything... Looking through this search also found deer, bonobos and slugs eat mushrooms. Smartse (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article fungivore is patiently waiting to be expanded. Sasata (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't think of that, it should probably be renamed fungivory though, so that all animals that eat fungi, rather than those that solely eat fungi, could be included. Smartse (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Mycophagy should probably redirect to the same article too, rather than to edible mushroom. There are some really interesting papers out there on this having looked a bit deeper, anyone want to help out writing an article sometime? Smartse (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm making a start with an article in my userspace about the more general topic of fungi being eaten and grown (see User:Smartse/fungivory). Any help would be appreciated, as it is going to be a bit of a monster article, if you want to deal with a section by yourself that might be easiest. If anyone has or knows of any pictures showing mushrooms that have been eaten or are being eaten by animals they would be good to include. Smartse (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree it's a monster topic... I'm glad it's you that's tackling it :) I'll help out here and there. I remember seeing some suitable pics at Mushroom Observer, but it'll take a while to dig through and find them. Will also convert some of those redlinks to blue. Sasata (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked through my PDF library and found a few things. Bettongia (rat kangaroos) are apparently fungivorous. p. 125 looked at nine stomachs of the New Guinea rat Protochromys fellowsi, which contained only fungi. Some species of the Sulawesi rat genus Bunomys also eat fungi; one (undescribed) species is apparently a specialized predator of Auricularia sp. Then there is JSTOR 1383411 about fungus-eating rodents in Panama, primarily Peromyscus mexicanus and Nephelomys devius. I also found refs to:
  • Fogel, R., and J. M. Trappe 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by small animals. Northwest Sci. 52: 1-31.
  • Claridge, A.W., and T.W. May. 1994. Mycophagy among Australian mammals. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 251–275.
  • ... which aren't yet listed in Smartse's draft. Ucucha 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    And then there are rice rat-disperesed mycorrhizae (JSTOR 1940717). Great. Ucucha 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those, hadn't thought too much about mycorrhizae, but animal dispersal appears to be an important of succession: [1] (found here which has more links to papers. Structuring this is going to be interesting... Smartse (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah that reminds me of the rodent food Endogone which I had started in a sandbox but got distracted... so much to do ... Sasata (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages

I just found out about the popular pages toolserver, and am submitting a request to get the Fungi Wikiproject in on the action. Sasata (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Casliber (talk contribs) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be linked from the Wikiproject main page, or not? Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes... it is now. Sasata (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat ganoderma

If anyone knows about this genus of mushrooms, your help at this deletion discussion would be appreciated. Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note about Info shifting

Per discussion, with Circeus at Talk:Gyromitra_infula, I've transferred a bunch of material about gyromitrin biochemistry and toxicity to gyromitrin, with the plan to replace the transferred material with a summary section. At some point, the same should be done with other mushroom toxins. Any objections, comments? Sasata (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense- it saves us repeating the same info everywhere. I note we already have an article on muscarine, for instance, so we don't need to repeat excessive amounts of detail in every article about a species known to contain it. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good to me. Casliber (talk contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, muscarine is a pretty small article compared to its potential. Amanita muscaria makes for a poor comparison point (it has to cover at least three distinct toxins, and muscarine is not the main one), but if you look at the amount that can/is being moved out of Gyromitra esculenta into gyromitrin, I figure muscarine will have to see some improvement by the time a muscarine-based deadly fungus shows up at FAC. Circéus (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fungi articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fungi articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fungi taxonomy on-line

Hi, I am looking for some online taxonomy website, where I can browse fungi taxons. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Try Index Fungorum and MycoBank. The Catalogue of life has the advantage of letting you view the taxons in a tree format, but it's usually not quite up-to date as the first two. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thx. But it seems not to have lot of informations, especially about distribution and etc. But anyway thx.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the first two sites sometimes have a few words about distribution, but otherwise the only places to check are the vast literature or ... here. Sasata (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Earthstar (?) ID

Unknown panamanian earthstar.jpg

Can anyone ID this fungus, which I presume to be an earthstar of some kind that I found in Panama? Smartse (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a strange one. I've never seen one looking like that..but then again I haven't done any mushroom hunting outside Australia :/ Casliber (talk contribs) 23:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not like any earthstar I've ever seen (although I've only seen like 4 of them). Mushroom Observer might be a better bet for an id. I'll look at some literature I've got lying around here and see if any other names come up. Sasata (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, found this which was published this year which says "the ‘pioneer phase’ of mycological exploration in Panama is turning up a wealth of taxa sure to expand the currently known mycota of the country" so maybe there is no ID available... I'll try emailing it to somebody who might know more. Thanks anyway. Smartse (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
After flipping through some books, my best guess is Scleroderma polyrhizum, the "earthstar puffball". Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone have any idea who Cessati was, in the following sentence from Julius von Sachs' History of Botany?:

"Meanwhile, Cessati had published investigations into the Muscardine-fungus of the silkworm-caterpillar...."

The name seems to have no web presence at all, which makes me suspect a typo... but for what?! Hesperian 12:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've seen ([2], doi:10.1007/BF02076216) suggests that the discovery in question is down to Agostino Bassi. No-one with a name like Cessati appears in the index of Ainsworth's Introduction to the History of Mycology (1976). It looks like a severe sort of mistake on the part of Sachs. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How about Vincenzo de Cesati (1806-1883)? Sasata (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it! I just found a paper that begins:

"We can say that Plant Pathology was initiated in Lombardy (northern Italy) by a small group of mycologists which used to meet, during the years 1830-1837, in Milano to discuss their studies (mainly microscope observations) on new fungal species. Among those mycologists it is worth mentioning Giuseppe De Notaris, Giuseppe Balsamo Crivelli, Carlo Vittadini, Vincenzo Cesati, Antonio Venturi and, especially, Agostino Bassi who, in 1835, provided experimental evidence that a disease of the silkworm (“Mal del calcino”) was caused by a fungus (Bauveria bassiana)."

Sachs almost certainly should have written Bassi, but it is clear now that he meant this Cesati, who was up to his elbows in fungal plant pathology, and could easily have been confused with his fellow countryman. Thanks, Sasata; my shout next meetup. ;-) Hesperian 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) And thanks too Stemonitis for taking the trouble here. Hesperian 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference for forest pathology

I was checking some references, when I come across this one at Forest & Shade Tree Pathology This seems to be a fairly large site with lots of good info published by an expert [3]. This page fungi particularly I thought would be of interest to your wikiproject. Blackash have a chat 04:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link; one of the things that would be useful to have on the project page is a section with an annotated list of useful links pertaining to mycology, this will be one of them. Sasata (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Backlit mushroom.jpg

Featured picture delist discussions rarely receive the necessary attemtion, and this one has been contested. Input welcome. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Penicillium Entry in Wikipedia

The Penicillium entry in Wiki says the following: "Sexual reproduction involves the production of ascospores, commencing with the fusion of an archegonium and an antheridium, with sharing of nuclei. The irregularly distributed asci contain eight unicellular ascospores each."

Chittles (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)My textbook and at least one other website source indicates that Penicillium does not have a sexual reproductive cycle. Can someone confirm and make the correction? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chittles (talkcontribs) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm no expert, but I would tend to agree. Dictionary of the Fungi (2008) says that Penicillium is the anamorphic state of Eupenicillium, of the Trichomaceae family (order Eurotiales). If it's an anamorph, by definition it doesn't have a sexual cycle. It's a shame these are redlinks, another weak area that needs some attention. Perhaps Adrian J. Hunter could weigh in? Sasata (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear on this myself, but my understanding is that if Penicillium is the anamorphic state of Eupenicillium, then that implies Eupenicillium is a teleomorph capable of sexual reproduction. Penicillium and Eupenicillium would thus be different states in the lifecycle of the same species, a species which, as a whole, is capable of sexual reproduction (while in the state known as Eupenicillium). So talking about the "sexual cycle of Penicillium" might not be perfect English, but it's not entirely illogical either; arguably, Eupenicillium ought to redirect to Penicillium, which should explain both terms and discuss the sexual cycle. I'm not 100% certain that explanation is correct – I'm really going by analogy with Trichoderma which, despite being an anamorph of Hypocrea, is nevertheless able to undergo sexual recombination. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mycotroph as a disambiguation page?

I changed Mycotroph into a disambiguation page (no content deleted) and got reverted. The page only has short descriptions and links to mycorrhiza and myco-heterotrophy. I think disambiguation makes sense for this page, but would like the biologists and botanist and other plant-whizzes to comment on the article's talk page. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary milestone

We now have 100 selected species at Portal:Fungi- this means we have 100 good articles on a single species of fungi illustrated by a free image of that species. So, how long until we have 100 featured articles? J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

... a while :) I think I'm going to start shifting my focus to more high-profile, high-importance (i.e. more difficult to write articles). I'd like for Wikipedia to become (sometime in my lifetime) a widely used and respected academic resource for mycology, but it'll be hard to convince the academics of that unless for example, our articles on topics like basidiospore, cystidium, mycorrhiza, hyphae, and mycelium (just to name a few of the 100s that need work) are up to par. Sasata (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More IDs

There have been a couple of questions at the science reference desk recently about mushrooms which you lot might be able to help with. This one is about a mushroom from Canada, and this one is probably from Australia. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Auxiliary cell

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! Sasata (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)