Talk:Ophiocordyceps sinensis

Fungi C‑class Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tibet Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Redirect

This page should redirect to a Cordyceps sinensis, not the other way round. Nemetona 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

ǎǍǎÁ----To improve the web site. I think that you should have a bit more about the enivorment and that have pictures to show what you are talking about a lable them to.This is just a idea from ten year old Reshma Ratti. Great Idea Ratti! Daniel Winkler (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the fruiting body sprouting out of the ground would be nice. What color is it fresh? Drutt (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Vegetable Caterpillar is a really bad name. Must be "Chinglish" or some other poor translation. Caterpillar Fungus is the generally accepted name. It should be listed straight under Cordyceps sinensis or Caterpillar Fungus, but not this vegetable worm. What is vegetable about it? The caterpillar, the fungus? Actually caterpillar and Cordyceps are closer related to each other than either to any mysterious vegetable.

Where does this Yatsa gunbu come from instead of Yartsa gunbu? I have not seen a single scientific article using Yatsa. This should be eliminated.

Used for breaking world record?

"he fungus is so popular because two female Chinese athletes (Wang Junxia and Qu Yunxia) beat the world records for 1500, 3000 and 10000 meters. Their coach said this fungus -that is already known for 2000 years- helped the athletes."

Some people are too naive to beleive what the coach (Ma Junren) said. I just could not help laughing when reading this. It was just a smart trick to hide his real systematic, scientific way in training his atheletes. I would not tell more here in case I may leak some of his training methods. :-) --Leo 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as it turned out, involved performance enhancing drugs.David notMD (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable

I don't think there is any contradiction here in calling it 'vegetable' since the term does not necessarily imply a plant organism and is not strictly a scientific term denoting members of the plant kingdom. Vegetable could refer to fungi as well as plants; after all most people consider edible mushrooms as vegetables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Are we here to perpetuate misconceptions or to correct them? Daniel Winkler (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I propose moving the info from Vegetable caterpillar into this article for seemingly obvious reasons. --ThujaSol∆ 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to support! Perhaps we should make Cordyceps sinesis a redirect to that (if it isn't already). - Vianello (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article name

I think it would make sense to change the article name to Caterpillar fungus, it is a more logical name. How do other people feel about it?

Sounds logical to me! - Vianello (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Fungus is such a bad name. I never use it and everytime I visit Wikipedia I am puzzled how this ended up here. I don't even know the root of that misnomer and I have been looking for it for years. Caterpillar fungus or its original Tibetan name Yartsa gunbu is much better. I work on the role of yartsa gunbu in tibet since ten years and I really can not find a single reason for this odd name. Vegetables are plants. Fungi are NOT plants at all, at least if you follow DNA research. I do not think we should base Wikipedia on supermaket catergorizations. This vegetable nonsense needs to be composted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Winkler (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page is specifically about Cordyceps sinensis, and the name Caterpillar Fungus is used to refer to most caterpillar-infecting species of Cordyceps, I suggest it should be renamed to its scientific name, Cordyceps sinensis, which has no ambiguity. In Europe and North America, the names Vegetable Caterpillar and Caterpillar Fungus are used to refer principally to Cordyceps militaris, and in Australia to various undescribed species. Thus the name of the article is ambiguous and in certain parts of the world, wrong. MFdeS (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

Cordyceps sinensis has been transfered to Ophiocordyceps sinensis and is now even in a new family Ophiocordycipitaceae acc. to Sung et al. 2007. Cordyceps militaris is still in Cordycipitaceae. This needs to be reflected in the header, but it seems to be locked here the source: ^ Sung G-H, Hywel-Jones NL, Sung J-M, Luangsa-ard JJ, Shrestha B, Spatafora JW. (2007). "Phylogenetic classification of Cordyceps and the clavicipitaceous fungi". Studies in Mycology 57: 5–59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Winkler (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article in Mycology titled, What is the Chinese caterpillar fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis, the scientific name of the Caterpillar fungus seems to have been renamed from Cordyceps sinensis to Ophiocrodyceps sinensis in 2007. Therefore, I think a name change (with a short explanation) may be in order. Shu ster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It is confusing thatCordyceps sinensis was renamed. Wikipedia has various pages covering Cordyceps, Ophiocordyceps, Ophiocordyceps sinensis. Some of them are better than others and there is overlap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes; removal of trivia section

I'm going to try and update this article based on recent changes on taxonomy and classification (per the above messages). Have moved the unsourced trivia section here. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Pokémon games there are two species of bug Pokémon, Paras & Parasect that are host to tōchūkasō (the mushrooms are referred to by their Japanese name in the English versions of the game as well as the Japanese version) mushrooms. Paras are born with tiny spores covering their body, which grow into tochukaso mushrooms as the Pokémon feeds. It is noted in that the relationship between the host and the mushrooms is a symbiotic relationship: the mushrooms will sap energy from the host, causing the Paras to continuously burrow underground in forest areas to gnaw on tree roots, since the tochukaso draws most of the energy from the roots. In return, the mushrooms defend the host by spraying toxic spores at enemies. The mushrooms themselves have strong healing properties, and are valued for their life extending properties. In the case of Paras' evolved form, Parasect the two mushrooms become one and completely take over its bug host. Parasect resides in dark and damp places, a preference of the mushroom, not the bug. There are also two items that resemble Paras' and Parasect's tōchūkasō mushrooms called "TinyMushroom" (which resembles Paras' mushrooms) and the "Big Mushroom" (which resembles Parasect's mushroom). It can be assumed they are both tōchūkasō mushrooms do to their design, rarity, value, and are quite popular among collectors (aka Mushroom Maniacs)."

NPOV and what is 'evidence'

Seems the alt. med. crazies have been all over this article. Several members of my family went through years of chemo and eventually died of cancer, but apparently this stuff cures it! GASP. Maybe a regular wiki editor could take a look at and rectify this pseudoscientific nonsense and get the POV out? 114.76.167.183 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure there are a few studies but nothing like a clinical trial. I agree that saying a substance "is used for X" can be misleading; we should always give the scientific state of play no matter what popular usage is. After adding a bit to the lede (three-edit-diff), it now says (additions italicized): "it is used as an aphrodisiac and treatment for ailments such as fatigue and cancer, although such use is mainly based on traditional Chinese medicine, anecdote, and a limited amount of research. Clinical trials have not established its efficacy." That may do the trick. I removed the tag but might have been too hasty. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about clinical trials not having established efficacy is a false conclusion (because you don't know that) and wrong (search pubmed for `cordyceps` with limit to clinical trials). Effect of Cs-4 (Cordyceps sinensis) on exercise performance in healthy older subjects: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PMID: 20804368). Xkit (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Also, the part claiming that lead wire and twigs are never used and that the producers "perpetuate this myth" seems to be lacking in a NPOV to me. Andrei Bolkonsky (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several notable research articles (in vitro and animal testing) have been removed from the page. Someone was maybe too overzealous to get rid of pseudoscience and cut a good portion of science uith it. A confirmed in vitro effect is far from a clinical trial, but more than anecdote and tradition... Eg.: [1] 37.76.2.114 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia standards are that for health/medical topics, secondary sources, i.e., reviews, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, published in peer-reviewed journals, are the accepted references. This means NOT in vitro, NOT animal, and NOT clinical trials. All of that considered primary sources, and NOT valid as refs. For many topics, there are many clinical trials - some with positive results and some not - so the intent of relying on secondary sources is to use the conclusions of experts in the field. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenic and heavy metals?

The article says: "it usually contains high amount of arsenic and other heavy metals." How could it accumulate these elements if it feeds on caterpillars? Are the caterpillars also rich in arsenic and heavy metals? It makes no sense to me. --Polinizador (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure when it started to happen but Ophiocordyceps sinensis has been cultivated, contrary to the article.

I am not sure when it started to happen but Ophiocordyceps sinensis is in cultivation, while the article says that it is not, based on a 2013 source. I am not sure if my source (https://www.terramatergardens.com/product/cordyceps-ophiocordyceps-sinensis/) is appropriately academic, otherwise I would have changed the article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.22.81 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Caterpillar Fungus in Tibet

A book which should probably be cited here - though not sure where - Emilia Roza Sulek, Trading Caterpillar Fungus in Tibet: When Economic Boom Hits Rural Area (Amsterdam University Press, 2019).