Talk:Mushroom

Fruit boobies

A lot more people know what "mushroom" means than what "fruit body" means; therefore, it doesn't actually help very much for purposes of explanation to a lay audience to say that the mushroom is the fruit body of a fungus. So, could we have an explanation of what "fruit body" means in this context? --LMS

Done. I would create a proper page for fruiting body, but I don't know enough to make anything more than a dictionary definition. -Smack 07:15 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, marshman

Thanks, Marshman, for your contribution of more mushroom photographs  :) Most of mine aren't digital (although a few are, such as my sulphur shelf photo).

And that is quite a picture! (sulphur shelf) - Marshman 02:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Appropriate

Hey, if you want to move Nintendo/Mario stuff to the least signifiant place on the page, be my guest. It might even be suggested that the entry is inappropriate for this article - Marshman 21:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toadstool

Toadstool redirects to Mushroom now? Er, but the word doesn't even occur on the page. It was much better redirecting to Amanita muscaria - would anyone object to this being changed back? Suitov 14:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Only if that is the common name of A. muscaria. I did not think "toadstool" was that specific, but I do not use the word, so I may not be any kind of authority. Another solution is to prepare a brief paragraph explaining just what a "toadstool" is within the Mushroom article; it could then link to A. muscaria - Marshman 16:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I came to this talk page with the sme idea. Many people in England use the word toadstool to refer to the poisonous types and mushrooms for the edible types. To anyone with no interest in mycology mushrooms are the things you by in supermarkets and all the others are toadstools! I have never heard any suggestion that toadstool refers only to fly agaric before reading the wikipedia article.217.17.114.253 18:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've never had a "working" definition for 'toadstool' other than synonymous with mushroom - Marshman 03:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Toadstool redirects to Mushroom now? Er, but the word doesn't even occur on the page." / "I came to this talk page with the same idea." Sorry if this me-too-ism, but... Me too! Of course "toadstool" means something different from "mushroom". According to the Collins English Dictionary: "Any basidiomycetous fungus with a capped spore-producing body that is poisonous" (my emphasis). -- Picapica 22:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems like we all agree that toadstool is not used uniformly. I was always told that any mushroom growing in the ground could be poisonous and I think my parents just called them al toadstools so I wouldn't eat them. --Gbleem 23:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the dictionary definition. That should be mentioned in this article. Beyond that, I see no reason to redirect "Toadstool" anywhere but to mushroom - Marshman 00:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite, and thanks for that edit, Marshman. I think the only thing that people found odd before was that having searched for "toadstool", one was previously directed to a page which had no mention of the word. That problem's now solved. -- Picapica 11:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

basidiocarp

"The technical term for the spore-producing structure of "true" mushrooms is the basidiocarp. The term "toadstool" is used typically to designate a basidiocarp that is poisonous to eat."

This confuses me. Is the basidiocarp the entire fungus, the cap and stem or the cap alone? Which parts of a toadstool are poisonous. --Gbleem 23:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not for Druggies

An external page on the use of mushrooms for drug users is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article, as the site appears commercial in nature and out of context for the Mushroom article. You may want to try and get it listed or linked from a drug use article. - Marshman 23:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternative images

Additional images that can be used on this page once there is more text to support it

• 
  The most overlooked, but common edible mushroom, this is sometimes used in soups.
• 
  This image is the cleaned up version of the image to the right.

Removed disambiguation stuff at bottom

I removed all the disambiguation junk at the bottom. My feeling is that kind of thing should go into a disambiguation article -- unless someone planned to develop it into something bigger? — FJ | hello 06:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly an improvement. Thanks - Marshman

Mushrooms or what?

Hey guys, shouldn't stinkhorns be removed from the list of edible mushrooms? Also a mushroom is an edible toadstool so truffles aren't mushrooms just fungi. Toadstools are the bits that grow out and look like umbrella's. - Wikk

If no one eats stinkhorns anywhere, they should be removed from the edibles list. And, although there seems to be a fair bit of disagreement as to what people have learned as the difference between mushrooms and toadstools, your interpretation may be a bit towards the fringe. The idea that a mushroom is an edible toadstool seems to be a reasonable but perhaps too literal interpretation of having a shape matching something a toad could or would sit upon. I may be wrong, but majority opinion might be closer to: mushrooms "are the bits that grow out and look like umbrellas" and toadstools are just poisonous mushrooms. You can see how the latter interpretations (reflecting the present article) are incompatible with your suggested changes. - Marshman 17:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A warning?

As of Turkish wikipedia (vikipedi), we decided to put a warning to all edible wild mushroom articles. We dont want anyone try to identify mushrooms by wikipedia and poison themselves. Here is a sample page and template Warning reads something like this: "Important warning: Wikipedia mushroom articles are only for information purposes, do not try to identify mushrooms using this info. Since it can be very difficult to distinguish edible and poisonous mushrooms, only experienced and specialist people should identify them" Maybe English wikipedia and others should consider putting this kind of warnings to potentialy dangerous articles.

Perhaps we should. Be bold!Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Name?

Just wondering if there was a single scientific name for all mushrooms in general, or only for specific types of mushroom. Anyone know? - Impulse 360 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. By "scientific name", do you mean a "species name"? Or do you mean a taxonomic name or classification for a group of species? Rather than go into an explanation, I direct you to the article on Fungus. "Mushroom" refers to just certain fungi with the only common property that of a more or less similar fruiting body (and a good deal of latitude applied there), so the name you are looking for might be Basidiomycota, although some Ascomycota are also called mushrooms - Marshman 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that just about answered it. Thanks! - Impulse 360 03:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

pov and us-centric points

The section headed "history" contains much pov.

• What is the justification for referring to hallucinagenics as "super human journey".
• Also, no sources for the stuff about women.
• Finally, the usda and what it did or didn't do (i don't even know what it is let alone why it is relevant) should not be in this article (neither should which mushroom is most eaten in the US).Necessaryx 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it could use a rewrite towards a more encyclopedic entry. Also, it is a "History of Mushroom Use" and not a History of mushrooms - Marshman 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) So I moved it to Edible mushroom - 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Berserkers & 'shrooms

Strolling over Wikipedia to correct this factiod, but it doesn't seem appropriate to go into lengths about that in this article. I've put more details and references in over at Amanita_muscaria. Amphis 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

rumour or fact?

I just heard there is some theory that 95% of a mushrooms mass is below the surface. The mushroom is named something like mycorhizza or something. Is this true? Does anyone know where I can find this? - JamieJones ^talk 12:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if you just read the article at Wikipedia you would know that to be a fact. Mycorhizae refers to the relationship between fungal mycelia and the roots of certain plants - Marshman 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But is there data on the 95% figure? Can you verify that? JamieJones ^talk 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A figure like 95% is just a "gee-whiz" number. The fact is that a majority of biomass of any fungal organism is going to be present as a mycelium in the soil, in a substrate of some kind (like an old log), etc. As the mycelium grows it will, from time to time in response to favorable conditions, produce a fruiting structure (the mushroom). But the only thing important about what percentage of the total organism comprises the visible mushroom versus the less visible mycelium in the soil or log, is that the latter is likely to be a much bigger number. The mycelium can get very large, can grow and die back, can produce a few to a lot of mushrooms. I doubt there is any fixed relationship. Maybe think of it like the fruit on a tree. At the right time of year, it can be the case that there is a lot of fruit present, maybe more than leaves in some species. But the fruit hangs around for only a short time. The tree has a trunk, branches, leaves, and a lkarge, not-visible root mass that together far exceed the mass of fruit if considered both in time and space. But what good would it be to known just how much biomass of fruit there is for what biomass of everything else that is the tree. It is going to be different for each species and for each individual of each species. And there are plants that in their lifetime produce a lot more fruit than anything else, so in the world of plants any percentage can be encountered depending on species, growing conditions, and whether you want to consider time in the calculation. - Marshman 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. Last thing: the person told me that someone (forget the name) has hypothesized that different organisms in the forest, such as the trees, communicate via fungal mycelium. Is that true? Thanks for a thorough reply. 64.235.102.2 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone can hypothesize anything. The term means to come up with a guess or idea that is then subjected to testing. It does help to have some facts first, but not necessary. The biggest problem as I see it is in the term "communicate." In the usual (common) sense of the term, I would suspect the hypothesis is saying that trees pass information back and forth to each other. That seems highly unlikely as trees lack any means of processing information; like having phone lines (the mycelium), but no phones. Is there communication at some more basic level? Well living organisms must respond to changes in the environment, so the cells have to respond to the "information" the environment provides (like the soil is now moist, grow new roots and take up water, grow new leaves, etc.) Fungal myclia could be part of this "communication." I find it hard to reconcile this form of communication with what is being implied by the statement. Either you are pulling my leg, or someone is pulling yours. - Marshman 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Chitin?

Alton Brown of food network said that the shell of mushrooms is made up of chitin, the same material that composes insect exoskeletons. Can somebody add this in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.243.34 (talk • contribs)

ethymology

In the article it is said:

Old English muscheron, from the Old French mouscheron, French mousseron —same name in English as a common kind of mushroom— itself perhaps a diminutive of mousse, meaning moss

Perhaps someone should look at this: http://ec.grec.net/lexicx.jsp?GECART=0090688

This is a Catalan dictionair entry about "moixernó", a kind of mushroom (Tricholoma georgii), in French mousseron de printemps or vrai mousseron. The proposed ethymology is:

d'origen incert, probablement d'una base *muksernon- (amb la variant *muksarion, base del mateix mot en altres llengües), preromana, potser cèlt., emparentat amb el gr. mýkes 'bolet', mýxa 'mucositat' i mýxos 'peix viscós'

That is:

non clear origin, probably from a root *muksernon- (with the variant *muksarion, root of the same word in other languages), preroman, maybe celtic, related with the Greek mýkes 'mushroom', mýxa 'mucosity' and mýxos 'viscous fish'

--80.39.155.111 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It may be relevant to include the etymology in the body of the article, if it adds to our understanding of mushrooms, but including an in-depth etymology at the start of the article just makes things difficult for the reader. Since the origin is disputed, and it doesn't really add to our knowledge of mushrooms that ancient Greeks or medieval Frenchmen saw them as mucous or moss-like, I've deleted; the information can always be moved to Wictionary. --Blisco 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What about truffles?

The statement in the first sentence A mushroom is an above-ground fruiting body is not really appropriate i suppose, as truffles are also mushrooms, but the fruiting body of the truffle mycellium grows under-ground.