Talk:Auricularia auricula-judae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Auricularia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peziza

Is "Peziza" a former name for this? Badagnani 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That only took three years to answer :) Sasata (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Collagen content in the fungi...???

as it can be cooked to jelly like --124.78.208.251 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography section needs reworking

Could someone who knows what they're doing straighten out the Bibliography section? There's an unrelated fragment about some sort of medical tests in there. It is totally out of context, and is obviously not the entire statement anyway.

Thanks

Carolina de Witte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.180.248 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, article still needs a lot of work though. Someday... Sasata (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Towards FAC

I'll jot notes and other random stuff about the article as we prep for FAC: Sasata (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Could use a separate section (or subsection of edibility) for cultivation. A picture of the fungus being grown commerically would be cool. For now, I'll add any info about this into Edibility and we can reorganize later.
• table of nutritional composition would be sweet (like in Boletus edulis)

• ...and I just remembered I own this, which has a nice section on the species, including nutritional content. Will add details soon. Sasata (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to convert to list-defined refs, and standardize reference formatting to the style I use in all other mushroom articles I've been working on; let me know if you instead prefer the current style.
• there's a lot said about medicinal properties of the mushroom in the literature, but I think we should be careful to ensure that any such claims made in this article be backed up by high-quality secondary sources (i.e. following guidelines outlined in medicine-related articles). That said, this shouldn't be a problem, as there's quite a few good review papers to rely on. Sasata (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do prefer my own referencing style (I think it's more familiar to most people, especially as it gives full names where possible) but we can switch if you feel it would be beneficial. I think more on its distribution would be a plus (the tropics issue, and is it found in South America?). The description is currently a little short, but I think it's got everything. Also, I was toying with the idea of sending File:Auricularia auriculajudae 107928.jpg to FPC- it would be the first nomination of my own work, do you think it would have a chance? J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Any objections to list defined refs? About the picture, I'm not sure, tbh. Some might complain that there's not enough of the surface in fine focus, or that the composition isn't eye-catching enough, or that it doesn't look enough like an "ear". I may just be being overly pessimistic though; I thought my last submission (Gyromitra infula) was a shoe-in, but after having it shot down by Noodle, I see imperfections in photos everywhere I look. Don't let my photographic cynicism stop you from taking a run through the gauntlet, though :) Sasata (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Microscopic features needs a bit of expansion, as there's some characteristics are used to distinguish this from other similar species. This has some details that should be summarized in a sentence or three. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sources- J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

• check this out... very interesting. This 500 gram monkey consumes 6 kg of fungus/year. I'll read the paper later and add details. A monkey pic might be justifiable as well... a first for a fungus article?! Sasata (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to sub-section in lead

@J Milburn: Perhaps you have as much right to remove the link as I do to add it. I suppose my thought that the link to the pharmacological section in the lead might be useful was that it would have been helpful to myself when I came across this article and first read it. The arrow link is discreet and links to a section of useful references from an intro that might feel to the reader to be a bold set of claims on first reading. The whole point of wiki pages is that useful links can be embedded in appropriate places. Just because there is no precedence doesn't mean it's not a good idea... 88.111.18.177 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It perhaps is a good idea, but if we were to use it, it seems clear that we would have to do it to every part of the lead, not just the last part. It's not something I'd feel comfortable doing straight off the bat- we have no guidelines on the subject. However, we do have guidelines on lead sections, and lead sections are meant to summarise the content in the article. That's what this lead does. I think your issue may be with lead sections generally rather than this particular lead. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed particularly pertinent in that case, but yes, I suppose that kind of linking in the intro might well be relevant in other articles too. The manuaL of style doesn't mention anything specific as far as I'm aware. It's not a massive problem, I just thought it might be useful. Regarding precedence, there's always got to be a first time! 88.111.18.177 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nutritional values

I assume that at least the value for iron (185mg/100g) is much to high. Other dried mushrooms have much less (0.3-10mg), also the value for the similar species 'Auricularia polytricha', 'Jew's ear, (pepeao), raw' NDB No: 11228 in the usda database

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

for the fresh one is much less. It has 0.56mg iron/100g. A factor of 20 for water loss (look at protein values) gives 11mg/100g for a dried variant.

Since i have no access to the source book i can't check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Büttner (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Folklore; Judas hanging and preference of the fungus for elder

There's a lot of folklore being cited in this article with little qualification. Until I read this article, I'd thought Cercis siliquastrum was the tree that Judas was supposed to have hung himself on. Apparently elder is also a candidate, but no tree is actually specified in the Bible. I've never seen an elder large/stout enough to permit a hanging, but if folklore says that where Judas hung himself, that's what folklore says. Harding's Mushroom Miscellany appears to be the source for most of this, but I'd like to see that reference treated a little more skeptically. Harding is also the source for most of the claims that A. auricula-judae prefers on elder, especially the statement "In up to 90% of cases, the mushroom is found on elder". I'm disputing this. If you expect to find the fungus on a particular species of plant, you probably will find it mostly growing there. Has the preference of the fungus really been demonstrated scientifically? I have a guide to Midwestern US mushrooms that suggests A. auricula-judae prefers shagbark hickory and elms. Elders may also be a favored substrate, but a specific preference for elders exclusively appears to be folklore as well. This article also mentions the prevalence of A. auricula-judae in Eucalyptus forests in Australia.Plantdrew (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly not true that Judas hung himself on elder; that just a piece of European folklore. Harding is probably talking about the prevalence of the species on elder in the UK, but, from a purely anecdotal perspective, I'd say that was untrue. I accept the claim that it's actually found on a great number of substrates, and elder is just one of them; other sources back that up. I'll have a look through the article and see if I can tone down the elder rhetoric at some point. Thanks for your comment! J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Auricularia auricula-judae now split into three species

... see doi:10.1007/s11557-015-1113-4. Sasata (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I'll make incorporating this information an early priority. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

not edible when raw??

not edible when raw

I eat it raw (wet state) all the time, e.g., with ketchup. Jidanni (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The dead Escariot getting his eyes and soft tissues ripped while he begins to rot, dangling from the tree

Hello, i didnt really find the artists impression, of the Escariot corpse, to be particularly informative about the mushroom. In fact, if i wanted any details about Escariot, at all which did not somehow, relate to the mushroom, especially a daydream of how someones eyeballs look when they attract crows, i'd have went to Judas Escariot. 213.233.132.130 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an important part of the story of the fungus, and adds an unusual human-interest aspect to the article. I agree that gore for gore's sake will not be part of a good article, but this is fine art by a famous nineteenth century painter. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Auricularia auricula-judae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311170828/http://www.anancy.org/documents/file_en/40-e-2005-mushrom_screen.pdf to http://www.anancy.org/documents/file_en/40-e-2005-mushrom_screen.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718164609/http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/subnamed/pdf/rapior/Francia1999IJMMCardiovascular.pdf to http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/subnamed/pdf/rapior/Francia1999IJMMCardiovascular.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725153841/http://www.cfc2010.org/2005/CFC%20pdfs/MApetorgbor.pdf to http://www.cfc2010.org/2005/CFC%20pdfs/MApetorgbor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Offensive Name

The name "jew's ear" is offensive and should be flagged as such. The only reference to this contained in the article is buried deep in the naming section, the early 1900s quote that the name is " is a slander on the Jews". Zekelayla (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My worry is that it's far from obvious that the name is offensive. Responses to the claim you mention are included; the point is that "Jew" here refers to Judas, not to Jewish people generally. If we're going to flag something as offensive, we're going to need a clearer scholarly consensus; we can't just assume that it is offensive. Do you have any further references? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

My objection to the name is twofold. First, the name engages in "ethno-racial essentialism" by taking Judas's Jewishness as his most remarkable quality. Second (and more important), this is an example of taking a notorious member of a group as representative or archetype, thus slurring the group. There is an extremely long and bloody history of taking Judas as the archetypal Jew, transferring treacherous qualities and culpability for the death of Jesus onto Jews as a whole. Some of this is covered at Jewish deicide. The terminology perpetuates the bloody association between Judas and Jews as a whole and is thus unseemly. Zekelayla (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear: I'm not really looking for a discussion about the name (what you or I think about it isn't really relevant for the article). I'm asking if you have any reliable sources identifying the name as particularly offensive. We have to follow what the sources say. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This new article on names also quoting Harding from 2023

https://f1000research.com/articles/12-948

this page should be amended (also with the peer reviewed citation) to reflect that the antisemitic name seems to have been in use for longer due to prejudice than "Judasohr" and has fallen out of favor as attitudes towards antisemitism have changed ever so slightly. The word is judged is likely intentionally prejudiced.

Talonx 77.11.41.108 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The following reference makes much the same argument I was making above about the undercurrent of antisemitism which may present in the origin and persistence of the name: Long Island Sporeprint, Summer 2005, "The Tree Ear: Auricularia auricula & Anti-Semitism" http://www.limyco.org/summer05.pdf.

"it is also important to recognize that the common names "Judas's Ear" and "Jew's Ear" have slowly fallen into disfavor, due especially to the anti-Semitic connotation of the latter. (* Editor’s note: Apparently the pejorative, “Jew’s Ear”, remains in use, at least among mushroomers in Great Britain and on the continent, judging from its continued use in mushroom guides published there as late as 1999 ((e.g., The Pocket Guide to Mushrooms, Jean-Marie Polese, 1999, original edition in French; Mushrooms and Toadstools of Great Britain, etc., Marcel Bon, 1987;Mushrooms & Other Fungi of Great Britain, Roger Phillips, 1981.)) It is telling that Phillips’ North American mushroom guide, 1991, avoids this odious epithet. In contrast to the old world, no North American field guide, since the early years of the 20th century, has found it necessary to revive this prejudicial usage, and all use the revised Latin name, Auricularia auricula.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekelayla (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the name discussion, regardless of whether it is found offensive, we shouldn't take the current revision of the article as gospel, and be open to the idea that some terminologies in the article could be obscure or a neologism not worthy of inclusion. The article suggests word bastardizations as follows: Judas's Ear --> Jew Ear --> Jelly Ear. However this is at odds with Japanese etymological dictionaries which suggest it is named kikurage (wood jellyfish) because it tastes like dried Jellyfish. My second point being that the stated etymology of so-called "jelly ear" term coming from "jew ear" is somewhat suspect. I also find the Judas's ear etymology to be suspect. It seems odd to me that a story about a tree is the basis for the naming of a fungus. --Kaledomo (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• I no longer think the term Jew's Ear should be flagged as offensive in wikipedia's voice (due to NPOV). I think it should be stated that the term is avoided by some as offensive or potentially offensive. The quotes from Curtis Gates Lloyd (already in the article) and the Long Island Sporeprint are sufficient to establish this. The rebuttal from Patrick Harding that is currently in the article also belongs there.
• The term "Jelly Ear" is descriptive and not a corruption of "Jew's Ear". If the article suggests this, it should be changed.
• I don't share your skepticism of the Judas's Ear etymology. All sources seem to back it up. Zekelayla (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Why has this change not been made? Why is this unused name prominently displayed in the first paragraphs rather than discussed in an etymological section. I find ot odd that editors would insist that an unused nomenclature get such a prominent place in the article. It is confusing to newcomers to mycology and in bad faith. NPOV here mean removing the unused name from a pedestal and relegating it to a historically oriented section if it deserves mentioning at all. Milburn's not gonna cut it fir this article we need someone with knowledge in the field to mediate talonx 77.11.41.108 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"Jew ear" could be a corruption of "Jelly ear" instead. Elder tree mentioned in the article is not even the same tree as the Judas tree. The only term used frequently enough to register on Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph) was "wood ear". --Kaledomo (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kaledomo "Jew's ear" is also used: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jew%27s+ear%2Cwood+ear%2Cjelly+ear&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJew%20%27s%20ear%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwood%20ear%3B%2Cc0 Zekelayla (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wood ear naming

This article claims the mushroom is called wood ear, but the wood ear article claims that the terminology refers to more mushrooms than just this one. --Kaledomo (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The disambiguation on chinese wikipedia says "木耳通常指的是黑木耳", meaning "Ordinarily, the term `wood ear' refers to the black wood ear (auricularia auricula-judae)". I don't know whether the term "black wood ear" is actually used in English, tho. If it is, it would be good to include it. Zekelayla (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like there is a fair amount of use of the more precise term "black wood ear" in English. Zekelayla (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"Judas's Ear" as common name

The article states

> the common name "Judas's ear" was largely eclipsed by the corruption "Jew's ear"

I have seen no source evidence that the English name "Judas's Ear" predated "Jew's Ear" or was ever widely used. The OED states that "Jew's Ear" was a mistranslation of Latin "auricula-judae", not that the term "Judas's Ear" was ever used in English. If no source indicating this is forthcoming, this section should be changed. Zekelayla (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the equivalent of "Judas's ear" and not "Jew's ear" appears to be the common name in nearly all other languages. That makes it extremely likely that "Judas's ear" is indeed the original version. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zekelayla: an 1884 dictionary of the English names of plants has an entry here under "Exidia Auricula-Judae" which suggests that both names were in use. However, the discussion here from 1887/88 suggests that 'experts' were trying to correct the actual vernacular name "Jew's ear" to "Judas's ear". Interestingly, the earliest entry I could find in BHL, here, uses "Judas's Ear" for the snail Voluta aurisjudae.

The problem with almost all sources that give English names for species is that they often construct them as translations of the scientific names, and I'm always doubtful whether such names are really those in common use. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I got that from the Harding source, which, admittedly, is more pop science than serious scholarship. I didn't add the citation to the OED -- I don't know who did that. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Not edible when raw

The article states not edible when raw, citing a book I do not own as source. However, most books on the subject list it as being either edible raw, or do not comment on its raw edibility at all.

I suggest the source listing it as inedible when raw is an error. 2A02:C7F:68F1:1A00:6D0C:2E66:3D9E:4938 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Does the Chinese language variant describe a different species?

Shouldn't the Chinese language variant be moved to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricularia_heimuer since it describes 黑木耳？ Mykohsu (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)