Jump to content

Talk:Mushroom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Is Nutrition data complete ?

Table accounts for only 6.7 % of weight. What is rest ? Water ? whole 93.4 % ? Then it should be very watery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.33.208 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

GA/FA push

I'm going to start working on this important article more actively. I'd like to convert the ref formatting to List-defined references. This will make it easier to edit the main body of the article, and makes it easier to standardize the refs for consistent formatting (a requirement of FAC). Let me know if there's any objections to doing this, otherwise I'll just go ahead and make the changes. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

removal of the 'backlit gills' image

The mushroom pictured is clearly a coprinoid, which means that it's gills dissolve themselves. The mushroom appears to be in quite a late stage of deliquescence, so I'd rather put in an image that shows full gills, instead of mostly-dissolved ones. Kevin (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychoactive mushrooms

Seeing as the mushroom is illegal or at least regulated in most countries, this part of the article appears non-neutral to me with a bias towards legalizing its use or using it to get a spiritual experience. It seems as if the only objection to the positive effects is a quick mention of anxiety in a third of the subjects which is immediately objected as having disappeared quickly afterwards.

It just seems biased that the article doesn't feature any research showing adverse effects of the usage of the mushroom as it may encourage experimenting people to carelessly endorse in its use. Superpronker (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mushrooms are plants

It is surely a lot of nonsense, as this article says, that mushrooms are not plants. They are living things, they are not protozoa and they are not part of the Animal Kingdom - ergo, they are plants. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed this to be more accurate. It is certainly true that mushrooms are not flowering plants, ergo they are not angiosperms, but there are numerous members of the Plant Kingdom which could go in this category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mushrooms are not plants. If I remember from my biology lessons, then cellular structure of mushrooms(fungi) are similar to animals. If they are plants, then with flesh. Probably there are some more differences.195.147.206.144 (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Philips

It was announced on You and Yours on October 19 2011 that the soundest textbook on mushrooms was that by Roger Philips. I have not read the book myself, but any one who does know this book could add it to the list of references. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oil decontamination

I've been fascinated with the idea of using mushrooms to break down oil in soil. Apparently this idea is still somewhat unknown? I was surprised to find it was not here. (This is my first real attempt at editing wiki) Hope I added it correctly. While the Ted Talk I referenced discusses other uses, I felt that one was the most noteworthy as oil-contaminated soil is very common. limbodog (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be ok to add a comment under Other Uses -- you should write a draft first and post it here for input by others. Although Mr. Stamets is a dedicated grower, author and devoted self-described expert on mushrooms, his work is not typically published in scientific journals and has not been peer-reviewed or published by respected independent third-party journalism. Sometimes, he is more than a little off the wall. Example: his writing about how mushrooms "can save the world."[1] Accordingly, his views on mushrooms are not seen as representative of collective scientific thinking and consequently may not be factual; hence, they are not WP:RS.--Zefr (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In History

I plan to expand upon the historical importance of mushrooms, especially in the Middle Ages when humoral theory was important in Europe. I am particularly interested in Rachel Laudan's article, "Birth of the Modern Diet"[1] about humoral theory, the change of diet in Europe in the Middle Ages and the risk of eating mushrooms on the humoral system of humans. Laudan wrote that mushrooms were to be avoided as they were wet and cold and would negatively impact the humans who ate them. sources: The Birth of the Modern Diet -- Rachel Laudan Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice -- Nancy G. Siraisi Beccamiller14 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am hearing about this "science" for the first time, but then again - Middle Ages was time, when people were called witches and burned to death if they had knowledge about medical properties of plants. Since I am from countryside in Europe, I have experienced quite opposite - various delicious dishes of mushrooms: Chanterelles with potatoes, boletus and other less delicate mushrooms from Lactarius gene.195.147.206.144 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Laudan, Rachel (July, 2004). "Birth of the Modern Diet". Scientific American. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Is it worth expanding on the cultural significance of mushrooms, from those used in Super Mario Bros. to the mushroom cloud shapes of extreme explosions (like nuclear detonations)? - Team4Technologies (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture sections are appropriate in articles on pop culture subjects but in most other articles they amount to trivia listings and best left off. Video game references aren't notable either...they have no place except in articles on video games.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely the mushrooms in Mario games, an extremely well-known icon from one of the most popular game series in history, would be notable enough to be included? -download ׀ talk 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Highly doubt it. Do you believe that someone has chosen to write about these as a notable topic beyond a brief mention? Significant coverage per our notability guidelines? If so, could you present it here, please. Even if you found one there would still be the question of due weight.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fungophobia

I think a mushroom phobia needs to be addressed in the article. I think a great resource for mushroom phobia would be David Arora's Mushrooms Demystified, and excellent repository on mushrooms and even some on the culture. Would it be out of the question to add a section on this phobia? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be a specific phobia but not a common one. As you have worded it here, this notion would be a fringe theory held by a very small minority. Are there numerous sources that discuss this? If you could compile substantial commentary in sources then you may have proved enough notability to merit mention. I seriously doubt that we are talking about a sincere phobia but rather peoples' dislikes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I probably wasn't clear enough. Not a specific phobia identified by science, but a general multi-cultural phobia toward mushrooms. In the foreword of Mushrooms Demystified Arora details examples of colorful apprehensive cultural fungophobias in famous works by Witness Shelley, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, D.H. Lawrence, Emily Dickinson, and William Delisle Hays who coins the term as "fungophobia." Arora also notes Alan Snitow and his relationship with mushrooms in a contrary fashion. Arora does note however, that this phobia is not a "universal trait", but is readily apparent in mostly western countries, and in some parts of Europe most notably the UK (and probably Australia too). Leitmotiv (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So far it looks like there is plenty of source material on the internet alone to document fungophobia, many who cite Arora, and plenty that don't. I have read articles on fungophobia in mushroom literature of the US, so it seems feasible to add this to the main article. I think the article would benefit readers, especially non-fungophobic cultures who are unaware of this cultural stigma toward mushrooms and fungi. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's worth a paragraph or two. It might be a good idea to tie this in with the "Mushroom vs. toadstool" section. Sasata (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I will toss in a sentence or three at the end of that paragraph as you suggested. Feel free to edit it and clean it up as you see fit. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the world's biggest mushroom?

Shouldn't the article inform about that? I think so. __meco (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Because I don't feel it adds much to the article. Also, it places too much emphasis on mushrooms being the living creature, when it is actually just the fruit of the fungus. They are a temporary creation of the fungus whose size can change dramatically from region to region, from la nina to el nino... etc. And you will get conflicting reports probably on the claim to whose mushroom is bigger. Maybe if this was a high school newspaper, I'd be right there with you. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel this request is quite as trivial as you make it out as. Perhaps others think differently than you on this, other than me. In that case, I'd like them to voice their opinion. __meco (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think an entire section devoted to the biggest mushroom is not worthwhile, however, a section devoted to oddities like: biggest, smallest, strangest, etc., may be warranted and provide enough material for a separate section. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation for "Medicinal properties" section

The first sentence of the second paragraph in the Medicinal properties section says: "Historically, mushrooms have long been thought to hold medicinal value, especially in traditional Chinese medicine.[citation needed]"

The following citation is the most widely referenced English-language book for students, teachers and practitioners of traditional Chinese medical herbs. Mushrooms and fungi have been used in tonics and herbal prescriptions for thousands of years in China and are still used in modern practice:

^ Bensky, Dan and Gamble, Andrew. (1985). Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica. Eastland Press, Seattle, Washington. ISBN 0-939616-03-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfereric (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

References to be updated

The current reference for "Molds On Food: Are They Dangerous?" has changed url to:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/molds-on-food-are-they-dangerous_/CT_Index — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.116.189.149 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Toadstool

If nobody has any objection, I'd like to offer a rather different explanation of how and why "toadstool" became a word that referred particularly to toxic mushrooms, and the practice of using the A. muscaria to represent such mushrooms.

More specifically, in view of (1) the widespread practice of considering the A. muscaria the consummate example of a toadstool, (2) the fact that stool refers to an evacuation, or a place where an evacuation occurred, as well as to a chair; and (3) the striking resemblance a toad's eggs (like those depicted in the URL below) bears to an A. muscaria's primordium, (like those depicted in the URL further below), it is, imo, very possible that toadstool was coined to compare that primordium to a toad's eggs or evacuation, or even to identify that primordium as something that toads laid. However, because "stool" also referred to a seat, it was natural for people to consider a toadstool something a toad sat on, rather than something a toad evacuated.

Admittedly, this etymology is "original research." But, imo, it explains why people have traditionally referred to toxic mushrooms, particularly the A. muscaria, as toadstools, better than other etymologies, and it is reasonable and provocative enough to deserve consideration.


Frog's eggs: http://frogblogmanchester.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/prezi-eggs.jpg)

Primoridia: http://www.clinicalanthropology.com/Entheogens%20and%20the%20Development%20of%20Culture/Chapter%204%20-%20G%20Keizer%20/23.%20Primordia%20Fly%20Agaric.jpg)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berlant (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mushroom

Aroy is a common name of mushroom.Its the best in Meranau vegetable recipes.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 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:

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. but the links are not useful or are dead. Will modify sources and external links. --Zefr (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Scientific classification table......?

See Apple page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC) and Suillus americanus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fruchtkörper / fruit body / fruiting body

http://www.dict.cc/?s=Fruchtk%C3%B6rper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporocarp_(fungi) 

Xakepxakep (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Google

If you search for Mushroom on google, it pulls up this article in a side bar, and classifies it as "food", which isn't wrong, but is inaccurate. Worse, it shows the first picture on the page, without the caption pointing out that the sample shown is poisonous.

It's a minor point, but how could we correct google's pull? I propose simply getting their sidebar to not say "food", perhaps "fungus" would be better?

HacksawPC (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin D content

The article text describes vitamin D, but it is not listed in the section on nutritional content. Are these two different types of mushrooms? They both seem to refer to Agaricus bisporus. Ies (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If not exposed to sunlight, mushrooms do not produce and contain no vitamin D. When exposed to natural or artificial sunlight, any type of mushroom produces vitamin D abundantly, even after harvesting. See. --Zefr (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I added a short sentence indicating this so the text doesn't seem to contradict the nutritional content text box. Ies (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

The main body of mushrooms is a fibrous composite of mycelium. Depending on the bioenvironment of a mushroom species, the mycelium is made of varying amounts of polysaccharides, lipids, proteins, and chitin. Differences in composition affect the mycelia microstructure and structural/mechanical properties. Mycelia form an interwoven network of fibers and micropores, macroscopically similar to a foam. Their growing conditions influence the length and direction of fiber growth, lending them highly anisotropic mechanical properties. SEM images of Mycelia grown on different substrates are shown in


Figure 1. Flattening of the fibers is observed with thermal treatment.

Figure 1 Mycelium microstructure

Thermomechanical and hydrodynamic analysis reveals how robust and universally applicable mycelia structures are. Their microstructure makes mycelia very hydrophobic and resistant to expansion from moisture uptake; at 85% humidity, water uptake is consistently only 6% of specimen mass, across different species. In addition, once dehydrated, the network structure does not show evidence of mechanical degradation below 225 C.

Figure 2 Tensile testing results of mycelium under different growth conditions Mechanically, mycelia have been characterized using AFM and standard tensile testing procedures. Higher polysaccharide content is correlated with higher elastic stiffness, while increased protein and lipid concentration enable plastic behavior. Mycelia with more interwoven fiber structures display a higher toughness, or fracture energy, as they can take more conformations before fracturing than species with uniformly aligned fibers. The yield and ultimate stresses of mycelia reach 1.4 MPa at a maximum, before further reinforcement with synthetic polymer. In their natural state, they are capable of straining 1/3 of their original length. Figure 2 shows the range of mechanical properties of natural mycelium. Commercial applications for mycelium materials are vast; they are particularly well suited for packaging and structural/acoustic materials. For example, Ecovative Design LLC (in conjunction with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), a startup company in Green Island, NY develops and manufactures reinforced mycelium structural materials as sustainable alternatives to synthetic polymers.


SOURCES:

1. Noble, R., et al. "Influences of compost and casing layer depths on the mechanical properties of mushrooms." Annals of applied biology 131.1 (1997): 79-90. 2. Dravininkas, A., E. Bakaseniene, and E. Gabriunas. "Investigation of physical-mechanical properties of cultivated mushrooms as drying objects." Research papers (1999). 3. McGarry, A. B. K. S., and K. S. Burton. "Mechanical properties of the mushroom, Agaricus bisporus." Mycological research 98.2 (1994): 241-245. 4. Bohdziewicz, Jerzy, Gabriel Czachor, and Paskalis Grzemski. "Anisotropy of mechanical properties of mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus (JE Lange) Imbach)." Inżynieria Rolnicza 17 (2013). 5. Rainey, Paul Barton. "A study of physical, chemical and biological properties of the mushroom casing layer." (1985). 6. Zivanovic, S., R. W. Busher, and K. S. Kim. "Textural changes in mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) associated with tissue ultrastructure and composition." Journal of Food Science 65.8 (2000): 1404-1408. 7. Haneef, Muhammad, et al. "Advanced Materials From Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Properties." Scientific reports 7 (2017). 8. Jiang, Lai, et al. "Manufacturing of mycelium-based biocomposites." SAMPE Conference, Long Beach, CA, May. 2013. Uttharar (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

It would be more representative to put a picture of an edible mushroom as the lead image. The first thing most people think of when they hear the word "mushroom" is the edible type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.248.131 (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the lead picture. The current one is an excellent picture but a picture of an edible mushroom should be first. I will look for one. I guess a taxobox is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User-duck (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As the iconic mushroom, it is the mushroom for mushroom emoji, it is appropriate for the mushroom entry. Hard to imagine a mushroom besides Agaricus bosporus, the mushroom in the grocery stores in countries with European centered cuisines, that most people would know in that same cultural realm. A. muscaria grows through the Northern hemisphere, including throughout Europe, temperate Asia, and North America. I object to the labeling of this mushroom as "toxic." It is "toxic" only the the sense that it is an inebriant of you eat a cap raw, sautéed, dried, or in soup and then both eat the mushroom and drink the soup. The psychoactive properties are water soluble. It has been proven to be a 100% safe esculent if eaten after parboiling in plentiful water. This was proven in the early nineteenth century through careful empirical testing. It is safely eaten by many today. I think a label that identifies it as an esculent if parboiled and an intoxicant if eaten in small doses would be appropriate. There are no fatalities proven to be asserted with this mushroom.William Rubel (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose we change the lead image label to read: The mushroom Amanita muscaria, commonly known as "fly agaric" is edible if parboiled otherwise it is an intoxicant. I do not think I am authorized to edit this page, but as the principle author of the article on muscaria edibility in Economic Botany I would like to be accepted as authorized to edit. William Rubel (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hydrazines

Hydrazines are mentioned but it is not explained why they are significant. Are they poisonous, an allergen, etc.?User-duck (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mushroom exception

I propose adding chlorophyllum molybdites to the spore print part as an exception with green spores. 47.19.4.18 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Add taxobox

There is probably some reason I don't know about that there is no taxobox on this page, but all I know is that many years ago, long before I had a Wikipedia account, I looked on this page, and had to read the whole article to figure out the classification for mushrooms. Thus, I think it would benefit readers to have a taxobox on the page, explaining that mushrooms are part of the subphylum Agaricomycotina. That said, I do realize that there are many species within this subphylum that are not mushrooms. However, I think it would help readers to know what subphylum mushrooms are located in. Like mentioned before, there probably is some reason why there isn't a taxobox on the page already, but if this is not the case and there are no objections to adding a taxobox, I will add this to the page.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been done. Discuss here before reverting please.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 15:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am opposed to the adding of the taxobox. I am not a specialist. And I am French, so I dont know very well the scientific English words. I think that the taxobox is not convenient, because Mushroom is not a botanic concept, but a easy-to-speak concept. It seems that are mushrooms plants in several divisions (and not only Basidiomycota), several subdivisions (and not only Agaricomycotina). Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 02:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

I wish to congratulate this article for treating the words "mushroom" and "toadstool" as synonyms. Sometimes, people think the word "toadstool" only refers to poisonous mushrooms, but that is wrong, the word "toadstool" is just another name for a mushroom. Vorbee (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lamella

The article talks about a mushroom's gill and then says "lamellae: sing. lamella". I am wondering whether it is better to put the word singular in full here. Vorbee (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Mushrooms v. toadstools

This may be just a British English distinction (so I'd appreciate any comments from speakers of English elsewhere), but as far as my own dialect is concerned toadstools are essentially poisonous. Or, to put it another way, some mushrooms may be inedible, but all toadstools are (because they are poisonous). I feel this is a point worth elaborating in the article. -- Picapica (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We'd first need a citation that toadstools are a specific class and that they're always poisonous. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule in British English, 'mushroom' is the term for edible fungi, and 'toadstool' for inedible. The terms are used loosely though, and lots of people have no idea which is which (apart from the ones in supermarkets of course). Edible wild mushrooms like field mushrooms would certainly not be described as toadstools. (Actually, 'toadstools' seems to be fallimg out of use generally, perhaps because most people never encounter wild mushrooms today in the UK). --Ef80 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mushroom/Archive_2&oldid=1142771997"