Talk:Russula firmula

This article refers to a taxon that doesn't have its type locality listed. If you can, please provide it.

Species type

@Quisqualis: I had changed the nature of the species from "fungus" to "mushroom" to match the other Russula spp. pages, but I noticed you changed it to "mushroom-producing fungus." Is there something unique about this species that it cannot be called a mushroom?Would appreciate any clarity.Cheers -10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I myself often hunt mushrooms, seldom thinking about the fact that a mushroom is just the ephemeral reproductive organ of the species underground. I prefer not to promote the ignorant point of view that a mushroom is the fungus, or is somehow independent of it, when the fungal species is a vast network of (often) subterranean mycelium which can live for years and organizes to produce fruiting bodies when conditions permit. Being a picky editor, I feel the urge to change those other Russula species articles to match the lead of R. firmula, but I don't expect you to do so. By the way, I copied that wording from some other Basidiomycete article; I don't remember which one.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Ah I see where you are coming from. Is is strictly necessary to refer to a species of Russula as "mushroom-producing fungus" though? Like, can "mushroom" just be used to mean the same thing? I worry that it makes things unnecessarily confusing, especially to a lay reader, and just a quick glance at the reference list for the page on Russula shows academic papers that simply use "mushroom":

Takahashi A, Agatsuma T, Matsuda M, Ohta T, Nunozawa T, Endo T, Nozoe S (1992). "Russuphelin A, a new cytotoxic substance from the mushroom Russula subnigricans Hongo"

Zhang G, Sun, J, Wang H, Ng TB. (2010). "First isolation and characterization of a novel lectin with potent antitumor activity from a Russula mushroom".

Let me know what you think. - Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have R. firmula be a species of mushroom.--Quisqualis (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Just saw this will do. Thanks by the way, I learned way more about mushrooms than I expected. If the page on Mushrooms doesn't mention the whole fungus-mushroom-toadstool thing might help to put a blurb in. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about we run it by WikiProject:Mycology as a proposal and set it in concrete? I don't find the usage you suggest to be objectionable.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be best before editing all the Russula articles. I'll try to include you, but if you don't get a notification let me know (still figuring out editing language). Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly mushroom gets used both narrowly for the fruiting body and more broadly to refer to the species in both common English and scientific works (albeit the example is a chemical work rather than a biological one). The meaning is usually apparent from the context. I think it more encyclopaedic to use "mushroom-producing fungus" when stating what a Russula species is. This is more accurate and unambiguous, so I'd favour that in the lede. It might also get the reader to ask what a mushroom is and help inform. On the other hand we shouldn't proscribe using mushroom in the broader sense elsewhere in the article. — Jts1882 | talk 10:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely would "vote" for this.--Quisqualis (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]