Talk:Edible mushroom/Archive 1

Production figures

I think the production figures are interesting, but they are also something of a moving target. In particular, the title of most extensively cultivated mushroom in the world seems likely to change soon, if it has not already, judging from these numbers. What do other people think about the best way to handle this? — Pekinensis 19:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone add a section on their nutritional info?

I do agree. Oyster mushroom doesn't really comprise 25% of world production right now. The attached .pdf file is way outdated actually.

There is a lot of information about wild edible fungi available in a book I wrote for FAO in 2004. I can't see any reference to this anywhere in the current article. The book includes production figures, lists of species for all countries (thus removing the heavy Northern bias of the current article), history of use and so on. There is an extensive bibliography, again world-wide.

The book is available online in English, Spanish and French. Mmmm. I still have copies availble: contact me at <eric_boa (at) hotmail.com>. Over to you guys and gals. Globalplantdoctor (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eating raw mushrooms

I've eaten raw mushrooms of many varieties throughout my life, but I've recently encountered numerous resources claiming any consumption of raw mushrooms should be avoided. I'm wondering if this is a false rumor extending the properties of the False_Morel to other mushrooms, or if there is some truth to these claims. I'd love to see this article include a few published references regarding this subject. Here's what I found so far online.

• cascade mycological society - Never eat raw mushrooms.
• mykoweb - cooks guide - Eating Raw Mushrooms: With a few exceptions, such as the common store mushroom, we do not recommend that mushrooms be eaten raw.
• raw foods forum thread - concensus ok.
• BULLETIN OF THE PUGET SOUND MYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY find: EATING RAW MUSHROOMS CAUSES PROBLEMS Jan Lindgren / MushRumors, Oregon Myco. Soc., March–April 1997

Excepting the common store bought mushroom (button?), seems like the more reputable sources advise wholly against. Anyone have access to futher information and specifics? ∴ here…♠ 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it since if this was true, Japanese media would be all over this since mushrooms are very commonly eaten in Japan but I have yet to encounter any significant news report. However, eating any "unwashed" raw mushroom will and could cause a problem for various reasons and that could be why references could be cautioning people. Naturally grown and harvested mushrooms can come in contact with anything in nature (including human and animal waste) and even commercially grown mushrooms could not guarantee the 100% contamination free status. It is entirely possible for people to use a unwashed cooking knife contaminated by salmonella and others to cut a mushroom. It is better to caution rather than assume that necessary precautions are taken. --Revth 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be wild species that are OK to eat raw in Japan. My understanding is that some wild mushrooms are toxic when raw, and most are not very digestible when raw. Those aren't really poisonous, but will give you "indigestion" if eaten in quantity. This may be a bias from hunting in the Pacific Northwest, but it's still probably better to cook it unless you know specifically that it's OK to eat raw. Revdrace 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Edible mushroom and mushroom hunting

Theroetically a large amount of material overlaps. Question is which page should bear the titleCas Liber 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the mushroom hunting page repeats itself - and the idea of a list of edible fungi and then another list of confusing species is a bit of overkill. I'd Support a merge, with the possible separation of cultivation into a separate article if it grew too big. Cas Liber 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you about the merge as the hunting and/or gathering are part of the whole identification experience, and mushrooms are an unusual subject in that the edibility of each species is an important element of its description. --Matt 07:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect, though I'm not an expert that mushroom hunting is a pasttime that is quit worthy of its own article. I'd say, put in a summary on edibility and link to the full article. Basically it should be cleaned up. Since mushroom hunting is not that familiar a term (at least not for me), I recommend putting things at Edible mushroom should they get merged despite my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I say keep the articles separate. People hunt for mushrooms they don't intend to eat (such as decorative polypores) or medicinal mushrooms or mushrooms for dyes. Furthermore many (if not most) edible mushrooms are grown rather than hunted. The two topics seem largely separate, even if their article content has overlap. Debivort 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll keep 'em separate. Cas Liber 03:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

More on the topic of merging articles: perhaps this article should be renamed "Edible fungi" and then mycellial foods like tempeh and corn smut could be added. Thibbs 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dried Mushrooms

I have been seeing a lot of dried mushrooms in grocery stores lately. It should be mentioned somewhere in this article that many mushrooms are sold dry and are rehydrated, and maybe the benefits and downside of drying mushrooms. (I don't know enough about these dried mushrooms to write anything). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Rotting mushrooms

Not sure the answer to this question belongs here, but perhaps there could be a link. Given an edible mushroom (in my case, one I've bought in the store), how do you tell when it's gone bad? I don't suppose they rot in the same way that vegetables rot, but I don't know what they do do. Mcswell (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that rotten mushrooms should have a reference. I glossed over this fact in my last edit. I have included this info there, because occasional gatherers have been known to stuff wild mushrooms into plastic bags, which they may leave in the sun while picnicking or in the fridge for a few days, and then, after becoming sick from the meal, they show up in the ER because of "mushroom poisoning". I'd say if your mushrooms are bruised and squishy and funny smelling then you probably want to throw them to the fungi, ie. the compost or garbage. I'll see if I can find a more authoritative source here. Malljaja (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional value?

There's no information about the nutritional value of mushrooms on this page. I think it'd make a very good addition so if anyone has any knowledge on the subject I'd be very grateful if they could add it.83.216.157.38 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

deRoman, Boa and Woodward published an article on nutrition of wild-gathered fungi a few years back. Click here to read the PDF.

There are numerous references in the original book I wrote for FAO on Wild Edible Fungi. Globalplantdoctor (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a question that needs to be addressed here. Are mushrooms protein? Carbohydrate? And if so by what percentage? A better description of their makeup is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.161.77 (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rearranging the lists

Moving Tuber brumale to list of wild species. Not commercially cultivated yet as far as I can tell (although they're working on cultivating it and several other species).
Moving Gyromitra esculenta - while commonly harvested from the wild I don't think it's cultivated, I can find no evidence that it is.
Added Verpa bohemica to the conditional edibles. I know many people in the Seattle, WA area that eat it, and have even seen it for sale in markets there!
Added a short section on dried mushrooms, per request.
Split "wild edibles" into two lists - commercially harvested wild edibles and other wild edibles. I realize this distinction is a little arbitrary, but I think it is important to have mushrooms like B. edulis and C. cibarius easily visible, not buried in an A-Z list of Tested Toadstools. I left in the first list only those mushrooms which I have either seen in the market or have heard are commonly found in markets somewhere in the world.
There is one small problem - if complete, the Other Wild Edibles list would be literally hundreds of lines long. It would also be kind of useless. Perhaps having separate pages for lists of edible fungi in a particular region would be useful? I can imagine wanting a canonical list of all kind-of vaguely edible fungi to be found in a particular region, but I can't imagine much other point to this section nor consensus on which mushrooms belong in it. I'll post this same sentiment to the WikiProject Fungi Talk page. If I get no further comments in the next few weeks I'll probably start a Pacific Northwest Edibles list and link to it.
Also, could someone please confirm or deny the "History" section of this page? I have done some research and have been unable to confirm any of it (except the bit about Romans eating mushrooms, but not about them testing them with their food tasters... that would be a hopelessly inaccurate way of testing the Amanitas), although the same claims are widely made on the 'net I haven't found ONE page that sites a source. If we can't confirm it we should just get rid of it. Revdrace 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your edits, Revdrace, however I disagree about the placement of P. cubensis as an edible mushroom. Most fungal/mushroom field-guides I have read define edibility most closely to comestibility and the Psilocybe spp. are well known to contain liberal doses of the mycotoxins psilocybin and psilocin. These mushrooms (as well as the A. Muscaria which is also harvested for similar effects) cannot be well-placed under the Conditionally Edible category either since it is doubtful that they would be consumed if de-toxified. I understand your reasoning for placing them under commercially cultivated species, but I disagree that they are edible. Perhaps a new section called something like "Mycological Black Market" would be a good last addition for the Psilocybes and Amanitas used recreationally, but an intro paragraphe could be inserted in this section to explain that they are not considered edible per se yet are consumed for ritualistic or recreational reasons. Either way they should not remain where they are. Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to say that I feel Lactarius spp. to be too broad a term to go under Conditionally edible species as the section Deliciosi are all unconditionally edible. Perhaps a note could be added after "Lactarius spp." to except the Deliciosi? I see the Deliciosi are included higher up as well, but the way it stands now it is a little misleading. Oh, and just one more minor thing: I know the L. deliciosus are prized in parts of New England as well as Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibbs (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which Lactarius spp. are pickled in the Slavic countries, certainly many Lactarius are NOT unconditionally edible. P. cubensis and a few other species are cultivated commercially here in the Netherlands, where they are (for now anyway) legal. While they are "edible" in the sense of non-poisonous, they are certainly not "food," so I'll be content with leaving them off this list. Revdrace (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What food group?

Since edible mushrooms are a fungus, what food group would they go into? They are not vegetables, fruit, meat, bread, or milk. So where do mushrooms fit into the food pyramid. 164.113.135.56 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, hello? 4.244.198.2 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The food pyramid is an outdated concept. It has been replaced by the MyPyramid. Mushrooms fit under the vegetable portion of the MyPyramid according to this mypyramid.gov link.

This is also where they previously fit under the food pyramid according to this older usda.gov publication.

-Thibbs (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for History to change

The history section has been making unverified claims for WAY too long. Unfortunately, history is not my strong subject, so all I can do is a bit of surfing and add "fact" tags.

Removed: "The pharaohs of Egypt enjoyed mushrooms so much that they decreed mushrooms could only be eaten by royalty and that no commoner could even touch them, thus giving the royal family the entire available supply." I've searched for an hour in Google Scholar and I can find no reliable source that points to mushroom consumption happening at all in ancient Egypt, not to mention this grand claim. If someone finds a *reliable* reference (and newspaper articles that were probably quoting this very Wikipedia article don't count!) then it can come back. Something pointing to archaeological evidence would be nice. There is a reference that indicates that Egyptians considered *fermentation* sacred: but that's a yeast, which is a fungus but not a mushroom.

Changed: "There is evidence of mushroom use 13,000 years ago in Chile (Rojas and Mansur, 1995), although China has the first reliable evidence of wild fungi consumption, several hundred years BC (Aaronson, 2000)." This is nearly a direct quote from the FAO page, and questionable in terms of plagiarism. The reference is the FAO article, not the references cited within it (Rojas and Mansur, Aaronson, etc).

Removed: "Many countries eat or grow mushrooms for commerce. In some parts of Eurasia, especially in Russia and Nordic countries, mushrooms are an important part of the diet. Several mushrooms are especially tasty and many are rich in nutrients." This doesn't belong in "History". A section on attitudes and culinary use of mushrooms by region would be lovely.

Removed: "Some species such as death cap are extremely poisonous and have been deliberately used as instruments of assassination." Has nothing to do with the topic Edible mushroom. This is addressed in Mushroom poisoning. -- Revdrace (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a "black market"

Changed the title "Mushroom Black Market" to "Hallucinogenic Species." Sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms is not (yet) a black market in all countries, and very likely most of the hallucinogenic mushrooms which are collected from the wild are for personal use, not for sale on the "black market." Revdrace (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the future...

I would like to do something about the "Other edible wild species" list. In theory this list could be expanded to include thousands of species worldwide. Multiple lists by region will have a lot of duplicates, but one huge worldwide list is too big and nearly useless. The best solution I can think of is to make regional lists and link them from this page, and perhaps include a VERY few examples of wild edibles found worldwide (Coprinus comatus, for example) directly in this section. Does anyone have a better idea?

I think this article gives pretty good coverage to the topic of edible mushrooms from a scientific standpoint, but is pretty slim on coverage from a cultural and culinary standpoint. Which cultures prize different mushrooms? What do they cook with them? What about "fungiphobic" cultures such as the English?

I think Thibbs suggestion of making this section "edible fungi" and including corn smut and tempeh and such is an interesting idea. The yeast should get their own page, though. Opinions? Revdrace (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A section on the nutritional value of mushrooms would also be good.

I've combed through the list of "Other wild edible species" today and found a number of problems. Some species are NOT edible according to my references, and one is an old name for a species that is already listed. I know the "correct" Genus-species name changes faster than politicians' promises, but please try to use the most up-to-date name.

There's already a mix of American northwestern, eastern, and European species. I think regional lists are useful to readers ("What wild edibles grow in my region?"), while a giant worldwide list is not useful ("Gee, there sure are a lot of edible mushrooms in the world..."). Next time I have time, I will split this list into regions and add citations for all claims of edibility than I can confirm... unless someone has a better idea. Revdrace (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of mushroom is the round ones in the first picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.71.186 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other wild species

This is a list of other wild species; of which many haven't been mentioned in article:

fistulina hepatica, polyporus sulphureus, polyporus squamosus, pleurotus ostreatus, armillaria mellea, lycoperdon giantea, cantharellus cibarius, craterellus cornucopioides, agaricus arvensis, agaricus augustus, agaricus campestris, agaricus silvaticus, agaricus xanthodermus, lepiota procera, coprinus comatus, tricholoma nudum, boletus edulis,

list obtained from SAS Survival Handbook by John Wiseman

Cardoncelli

What is the species of the cardoncelli mushroom (from Apulia, Italy)? Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallucinogenic species

I've removed the entire section about hallucinogenic species. Speaking frankly, I judge someone who adds such a section to this entry as being utterly ignorant of the potential readership that maybe drawn to this article—many of these readers will be kids trying to learn more about edible mushrooms. So including species such as the fly agaric here is extremely thoughtless and irresponsible. I also question the section on medicinal mushrooms; it's as if someone adds St John's Wort to a list of foods. I'll leave it in for now, but would welcome some discussion whether medicinal mushrooms (which already have a dedicated entry) should be included here. Malljaja (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added the section in 2007 after discussing it in talk. See above. At the time when I created the hallucinogenic species subsection it was to avoid the problem of having members of genus Psilocybe listed under normal edible mushrooms. I suggest that you revisit your tone in the future as I am in fact neither "utterly ignorant of the potential readership" nor "extremely thoughtless and irresponsible," and such expressions appear to be quite antithetical to consensus-building discussion. While your desire to protect children from drugs is admirable, this line of argument is a poor one as the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is still in full effect. Your arguments regarding the disparity between the content of this section and the topic of the article as a whole are much more sound, and to an extent I agree with your position.

What does "edible" mean?

At its most basic level, the word "edible" means "capable of being eaten." Thus, tangible objects that fit through the esophagus are edible. In normal common usage, the meaning is clearly different. Thus rat poison, capable as it is of being eaten, is still not considered "edible" for reasons that go beyond mere ingestion. The more restrictive common use definition of "edible" that excludes rat poison is: "that can be eaten without harm." Of course this still includes things like dirt and arguably psychedelic mushrooms. This common usage is the usage that I believe those who have added psychedelic mushrooms to this article are employing, and to the extent that the term "edible" is vague and open to interpretation, there is a legitimate argument that psychedelic mushrooms are "edible." What one person considers a harm may be a blessing to another. My hope was that by providing a subsection for hallucinogenic species, there would be a place for people who wished to add new hallucinogens to the list without confusing readers of the main article that these species were actually comestibles. Although the text has changed since I originally wrote it, I had originally included the following disclaimer at the top of the hallucinogen subsection:

"Several mushroom species are cultivated or collected for use in a recreational or ritualistic context. These mushrooms all have hallucinogenic properties and for this reason they are typically not considered edible. Whereas edible mushrooms are commonly defined by their comestibility and hallucinogenic mushrooms are not comestibles, they are nevertheless eaten and when taken in appropriate doses, the mycotoxins present in the mushrooms will be metabolized by the eater and their effects will disappear within several hours."

(See this 2007 version)

As far as I can see there are three possible solutions to this problem.

1. )We could employ the common usage definition of "edible" and retain the subsection on hallucinogenic species.
2. )We could rename the article "mushroom comestibles" (or "fungal comestibles") and remove the subsections on hallucinogenic and medicinal species. In this case the definition of "a comestible" as "food" would have the effect of excluding those items which are not consumed for nutritional content.
3. )We could rework the lede to explain that throughout the article we would be employing the term "edible" in the manner in which it is commonly employed by mycologists (i.e. as "a comestible"). Then we could remove the psychedelic and medicinal mushroom subsections for the nutritional reasons just discussed.

I believe that Option 2 most likely violates WP:UCN, so that would be the worst solution for me. I wouldn't be opposed to Option 3 if anybody is interested in rewriting the lede. As things stand now, however, I'm going to again restore the subsection as a default to Option 1 above until such time as the lede is rewritten or the article's name changes. Let's discuss things here in talk before we revert anything any more. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we Germans use to say "ALL mushrooms are edible, some of them only for ONE time". Ok, reading all this I HAD to write this. Couldn't avoid it, sorry... ;) --FK1954 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the talk page and your detailed explanation and suggestions for a solution. I apologise for the tone, though not for the content of my complaint. My aim is not to protect anyone from drugs, but simply and forcefully draw attention to the fact that it is extremely problematic to list a mushroom like fly agaric in an entry on edible mushrooms. The fine distinctions you have just made are not within the grasp of everyone who may visit this article. So I think it wise to err on the side of caution. The phrase "Although they are not consumed for food, these mushrooms are "edible" in the sense that for most people they can be safely eaten", is one that also raised my ire, violating NOR, and for obvious reasons and leaving dosage and mental state aside, it is quite unsafe to eat such mushrooms in the most situations, say, while operating a motorvehicle or during work. I concur that "comestible mushrooms" is not a viable option (until today I've not even been aware that such word exists); so I think your third point is an excellent way forward, and I suggest to work on the lede to include this more narrow definition with the view to remove psychedelic and medicinal specimens from this entry. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Proposed new lede

• Edible mushrooms are fleshy and edible macrofungi with distinctive fruiting bodies which can be either epigous or hypogeous and large enough to be seen with the naked eye and to be picked by hand. Unlike medicinal and hallucinogenic mushrooms which are also consumed by humans for other reasons, edible mushrooms are consumed by humans for their nutritional value as comestibles. Although many edible mushrooms are prized for their pleasant flavors, some edible mushrooms have an extremely bad taste, such as the Bitter bolete mushroom. Edible mushrooms include a multitude of species of mushrooms that are either harvested wild or cultivated. The more common wild edible mushrooms and those that are more easily cultivated are often available commercially, and those that are more difficult to obtain (such as the prized truffle and matsutake) may be collected on a smaller scale by private persons. Some mushrooms that are traditionally considered Poisonous mushrooms may be prepared in such a way as to detoxify them for consumption. Before assuming that any wild mushroom is edible, it should be identified. There is no "test" for edibility other than identifying the species. Even mushrooms that are edible for most people can cause allergic reactions in some individuals. The most common deadly mushrooms are in the Amanita genus, particularly Amanita phalloides or "death cap", which can be confused with edible varieties.

If that looks good then I suggest we replace the lede with this and cut out the two subcategories that are not used for food (hallucinogenic and medicinal). Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at your draft for a new lede and made some changes, mainly to explain technical terms (epigous, hypogous, etc) to a lay audience. Also I had a look around the lit to see if there are some usable definitions out there and inserted a small section that explains why the hallucinogenic species are not commonly considered edible. I've included those refs that I consider useful at this point. Most of them include medicinal mushrooms, although this may be because especially the pubmed literature is biased towards medical aspects. So I'd suggest to retain the medicinal mushroom section, albeit in a shorter version. Here is my proposed revised lead:

Proposed new lede—revised 1

• Edible mushrooms are the fleshy and edible fruiting bodies of several species of fungi. They belong to the macrofungi, because their fruiting structures are large enough to be seen with the naked eye. They can appear either above (epigous) or below ground (hypogeous) where they may be picked by hand. Edibility may be defined by criteria that include absence of poisonous effects on humans and desirable taste and aroma. By some accounts, less than 10% of all mushrooms may be edible. Edible mushrooms are consumed by humans for their nutritional and occasionally medicinal value as comestibles. While hallucinogenic mushrooms are also occasionally consumed by humans for recreational purposes, they contain compounds that can cause poisoning and are not commonly considered as edible mushrooms. Although many edible mushrooms are prized for their pleasant flavors, some edible mushrooms have an extremely bad taste, such as the Bitter bolete mushroom. Edible mushrooms include a multitude of species of mushrooms that are either harvested wild or cultivated. The more common wild edible mushrooms and those that are more easily cultivated are often available commercially, and those that are more difficult to obtain (such as the prized truffle and matsutake) may be collected on a smaller scale by private persons. Some mushrooms that are traditionally considered Poisonous mushrooms may be prepared in such a way as to detoxify them for consumption. Before assuming that any wild mushroom is edible, it should be identified. There is no "test" for edibility other than identifying the species. Even mushrooms that are edible for most people can cause allergic reactions in some individuals. The most common deadly mushrooms are in the Amanita genus, particularly Amanita phalloides or "death cap", which can be confused with edible varieties.

Feel free to revise again, especially if you have some additional sources. Malljaja (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me for now. I'll go ahead and make the changes. I'm fine leaving the medical mushrooms section there for now, however I still feel that it's a bit inappropriate under the "culinary" subsection. I'll reword and restructure this as well. Tell me what you think. -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

References

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?-96.237.78.13 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "Choice" mean?

I find this designation (Edibility: Choice) very confusing. It suggests that you can "choose" to eat it or not, but upon further study no further information can be found. This site for example states

"Use the following link to view all the well known edible mushrooms: 1. Edible mushrooms 2. Choice mushrooms"

Things are not getting better when this Wikipage states "There are a number of fungi that are considered choice by some and toxic by others." This doesn't make sense to me; should "choice" be replaced by "edible" then the logic is clear. Even the related pages of mushrooms mentioned in this section are not consistent: Amanita muscaria is defined as "poisonous or psychoactive", but for Gyromitra esculenta it is "choice or deadly" and for Coprinopsis atramentaria it is "edible or poisonous".

So based on this reading I cannot even conclude that "choice" means "edible but not recommended".

P.S.: As someone above already stated in the section: "What does edibility mean?", "edibility" or "toxicity" is perhaps too vague for many, and in fact, Paracelsus stated in the 16th century: "Dosis solem facit venenum" (Only the dose makes the poison).

DiederikH (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"choice" means the very highest level of tastiness. See adjective form here: [1]. Standard terminology for wild edibles. de Bivort 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I too was confused by 'choice' and am a native english speaker with an decent vocabulary. I recognized the word immediately as *most likely meaning* the same as in, 'a choice cut of meat', but seeing as we are talking about potentially poisonous mushrooms that may lead to death, I'd prefer much less ambiguity. I'd rather it be labeled "edible (highly valued)", or else make "choice" link to list of Wikipedia's edibility terms and their description, rather than a generic article on edibility. I very rarely edit wikipedia. Is this something y'all would be willing to give more thought to? ForgotMyLoginCredentials & TooLazyToLookThemUp 19:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Domestic Species?

May suggest a link to Agaricus bisporus under "Commercially cultivated"? Kortoso (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edible mushroom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070409172134/http://www.fda.gov:80/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia2502.html to http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia2502.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edible mushroom. 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/20120415015935/http://www.williamrubel.com/wp-content/uploads/Rubel_Arora_Muscaria_Economic_Botany3.pdf to http://www.williamrubel.com/wp-content/uploads/Rubel_Arora_Muscaria_Economic_Botany3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)