This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page was pretty badly vandalized. I reverted it to the most recent non-vandalized page. I would consider locking this down for awhile.
Linnaean Taxonomy previously linked to Biology- surely this subject desrves it's own page? quercus robur
Someone's been taking information about basidiomycetes and applying it to all fungi.
Please don't use second-level headings in place of top-level headings. See
Guide to Layout. -
Smack
This is great for people that already know something about fungi, with all the scientific names and precise differences between slime molds and whatever. If I knew all the terms I could follow te links down to the specific fungus I wanted. However, unless I missed it, I diidn't see anything for non-techies to identify a mushroom we saw in the wild. Either (1) a tree structure, like starting with a choice, is it "mushroom shaped", shelf fungus shaped, grows flat (like lichen), you would click on one of those, then choose color, then size, maybe whether it grows out of the ground or from dead trees. I don't know in which order those should be entered. Or (2) it could be a page like a custom search engine: enter a bunch of fields for color, size, shape, etc, then click search and get thumbnail pictures of the possibilities. --Square and Folk Dancer
Yeh!! just tick the boxes, and press 'suggestions'...like a key for us non scientists, who only look for fungi in Wiki if they've found one they cannot id. Luridiformis ( talk) 07:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Or a key to take you to 'genus' level, and a following one to help with 'species'. Of course this will not include micro-information because most amateur fungi enthusiasts do not own a scope. I hate 'keys' in fungi books, because i get lost, but this could be better. Someone do it. Luridiformis ( talk) 07:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My biology book explicitly says that the chytrids have been included on the strength of some new evidence, but I don't remember whether it was genetic or biochemical. - Smack 17:14 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
So far I have not found a significant group of fungi in this article --- the aquatic phycomycetes. This would include, among others, species of Achlya and Saprolegnia. These fungi are multikaryotic and reproduce asexually as well as sexually. They have been included as fungi in earlier editions of Alexopolous. Significantly, a large monograph on the aquatic phycomycetes was published some years ago by Dr. Sparrow at the University of Michigan. -- Jrpowell 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is "butt rot" a real fungi disease or vandalism? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
My freshman book (Campbell's Biology) uses phylum over division for fungi. I'm not 100% sure of what to use, but considering that this kingdom is more closely related to animals than to plants and the definition of division is (from m-w.com) "a group of organisms forming part of a larger group; specifically : a primary category of the plant kingdom", phylum would seem to make more sense. Any ideas? Shawnb 23:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because fungi were originally considered plants, their classification follows the botanical code, which traditionally uses divisions. This still applies to them, even though they're recognized as a separate group. However, newer versions of the botanical code allow division and phylum to be used interchangeably, to make things more compatable with the other codes. So either one is appropriate. Josh
It has been my impression that fungal infections (in humans at least) are much harder to treat, in general, than bacterial infections. Assuming this is true, can someone add something to this article explaining why this is? -- User:Orporg, March 2005
Bacteria are characterized by the presence of peptidoglycan in their cell walls and many antibiotics interfere with structural integration of the peptidoglycan making the antibiotics specific to bacteria. Fungi have cell walls composed of chitin.
I have searched around for Rice fungus article it and seem none currently exist. This article can supplies lots of information when one of get a chance to scribe one. [1]
i'm about to revert after this post; the "other" referred to a)edible mushrooms which are certainly not poisonous; b)psychedelic hallucinogenic mushrooms such as the psilocybes, which contain psilocybin, like many hallucinogens NOT at all poisonous; and c) the fly agaric or amanita muscaria, now considered to be considerably less poisonous than once thought. Most importantly, many hallucinogens, particularly the tryptamines, which include psilocybin as well as, say, serotonin, are not at all poisonous in any quantity that a human could actually consume. Please do some independent research before buying into War on drugs propaganda and misinformation. Many drugs are very poisonous; hallucinogenic tryptamines simply are not. thank you. -- Heah 03:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The image at the top right of Fungus claims to portray an "Orange parasitic fungus".
The tree was obviously felled by humans, not the fungus.
The fungus pictured looks to me like a Pycnoporus (possibly P. cinnabarinus), a genus of saprophytic fungi, feeding exclusively on dead wood. This fungus is just cleaning up another mess left by humans.
I don't know the ettiquette for redressing this deep injustice, so I thought I'd solicit someone else to make a socially acceptable correction. -- Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started making the changes listed in the to-do list. What do you think about the new format? Mycota 06:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there isn't any mention of antibiotics in this article. I see that it's on the to-do list, so perhaps I'll help out when I have a chance. -- Viriditas 13:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I added more on sexual reproduction in zygos, ascos, and basidios. I don't remember much about sex in chytrids. The wording is much too technical for a non-biologist audience, but I had a hard time simplifying it. Mycota 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Two [edit] boxes appear in the middle-right of the overview section. They shouldn't be there, should they? I'm using firefox by the way. Citizen Premier 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted back to the use of division rather than phylum. First, phylum is singular, so phyla should be used when talking about more than one phylum. Second, mycology originated as a branch of botany, so mycologists tend to use the Botanical Code rather than the Zoological Code. Division is the taxon that is preferred by botanists and mycologists. Mycota 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I used this main article for the above +cat however, I believe something called "Macro-Fungi" is what lives in Antarctica. If you know the correct species please change it. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The ingestion link isn't very good, I think, because ingestion is introduced as contrasted with absorption, but the ingestion link just gets redirected to eating, which is a very general article (eating disorders, etc).
Anyone know when, and by whom, fungi were classified under their own kingdom? Perhaps this history could be expanded upon. ~ Booyabazooka 01:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Should be discussed: e.g. http://www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2003-04/0502/18.shtml
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain? Thanks - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not enthusiastic about the proposed structure of the article given about – 2 sections about the natural history of fungi and 5 about various aspects of human uses seems more than a little imbalanced. An alternative structure would be the one used by Encyclopedia Brittanica. Its not without its problems and I don't think it should be followed slavishly. Nonetheless, it at least balances a bit more on the side of natural history.
Fungus
I'll also note that of the major topics listed above, the topics of "growth" and "nutrition" are most conspicuously absent. That's something that should be remedied. Peter G Werner 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The deuteromycota page, linked to from this page, needs some serious work. It states, in its discussion page, with many orthographic errors, that it was written by a 15 year old boy. It has a list of characteristics of deuteromycetes, starting with the number 2, and a reference that doesn't even link properly. This page needs a lot of work. I am posting this on the fungi discussion page because, as stated before, the only thing on the deuteromycota discussion page is, and I quote:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deuteromycota"
Comments? Edits? Werothegreat 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, someone decided to change the color of the info box to pink (which I promptly changed back). Has this happened before? Werothegreat 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that there should be some mention of the fact that some scientists use the term "eumycota" rather than "fungi" when referring to the kingdom as a whole. 64.251.50.35 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There are some wonderful pictures of different fungi in the article, but a diagram showing the general structure of fungi would help tremendously. Having a diagram showing where all the parts of fungi described fit together is of much use to readers unfamiliar with the structure of fungi, and without it the terms lack somewhat in context. If anyone could make a generalized diagram and upload to commons it would improve the article greatly. Richard001 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How many species of Fungi are there?-- 213.148.27.40 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hawksworth (2001) estimates 1.5 million species of fungi.
see: Hawksworth, D. L. (2001) The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million. species estimate revisited. Mycological Research 105: 1422–1432 MidgleyDJ 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And the correct pronounciation is... (drumroll)-- Azer Red Si? 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good that the pronunciation has been fixed now! Thanks for the correction, Gerpictus. Malljaja ( talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have come up with a fungus collage picture for the taxobox, similar to the one for animals. Thoughts? Comments? Improvements? File:Fungus collage.jpg Werothegreat 20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since fungi can grow in complete darkness, and live off feces (which has presumably already been energy-extracted by its extruder), where do fungi get their source of energy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12 February 2007 ( talk • contribs) 66.91.132.126
Jenerally, Fungus lives on dead plants, but not strictly (bracket fungi, for example, is parasitic). Somewhere, I read that we are apt to identify the fruiting bodies as the whole fungus, when that is only where fungi meet to become diploid tissue -- fungus spends most of its life in the haploid form similar to an egg or sperm in animals.
Is that an acceptable definition? It is something I hav gleaned from observation, and I would appreciate pointers on a source. If someone cuts the redirect I will install, then I'll eventually come up with a source, but it seems obvious from a collection of sponges that sponges are aquatic fungi. Brewhaha@edmc.net 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon a cluster of rocks in the mountainside which appeared to be weathering naturally into oblivion that had been saved by what appeared to be a fungal layer wrapped around it holding it all together. The fungus appeared to be thriving atop dead fungus which, for all intents and purposes, on death hardened almost like stone. Is this common? If so, what fungi die into a rock or concrete like layering that are that hard? I'd like to grow my own fungi house. Beats paying builders, just wait a few hundred years. :D 211.30.71.59 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page was pretty badly vandalized. I reverted it to the most recent non-vandalized page. I would consider locking this down for awhile.
Linnaean Taxonomy previously linked to Biology- surely this subject desrves it's own page? quercus robur
Someone's been taking information about basidiomycetes and applying it to all fungi.
Please don't use second-level headings in place of top-level headings. See
Guide to Layout. -
Smack
This is great for people that already know something about fungi, with all the scientific names and precise differences between slime molds and whatever. If I knew all the terms I could follow te links down to the specific fungus I wanted. However, unless I missed it, I diidn't see anything for non-techies to identify a mushroom we saw in the wild. Either (1) a tree structure, like starting with a choice, is it "mushroom shaped", shelf fungus shaped, grows flat (like lichen), you would click on one of those, then choose color, then size, maybe whether it grows out of the ground or from dead trees. I don't know in which order those should be entered. Or (2) it could be a page like a custom search engine: enter a bunch of fields for color, size, shape, etc, then click search and get thumbnail pictures of the possibilities. --Square and Folk Dancer
Yeh!! just tick the boxes, and press 'suggestions'...like a key for us non scientists, who only look for fungi in Wiki if they've found one they cannot id. Luridiformis ( talk) 07:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Or a key to take you to 'genus' level, and a following one to help with 'species'. Of course this will not include micro-information because most amateur fungi enthusiasts do not own a scope. I hate 'keys' in fungi books, because i get lost, but this could be better. Someone do it. Luridiformis ( talk) 07:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My biology book explicitly says that the chytrids have been included on the strength of some new evidence, but I don't remember whether it was genetic or biochemical. - Smack 17:14 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
So far I have not found a significant group of fungi in this article --- the aquatic phycomycetes. This would include, among others, species of Achlya and Saprolegnia. These fungi are multikaryotic and reproduce asexually as well as sexually. They have been included as fungi in earlier editions of Alexopolous. Significantly, a large monograph on the aquatic phycomycetes was published some years ago by Dr. Sparrow at the University of Michigan. -- Jrpowell 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is "butt rot" a real fungi disease or vandalism? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
My freshman book (Campbell's Biology) uses phylum over division for fungi. I'm not 100% sure of what to use, but considering that this kingdom is more closely related to animals than to plants and the definition of division is (from m-w.com) "a group of organisms forming part of a larger group; specifically : a primary category of the plant kingdom", phylum would seem to make more sense. Any ideas? Shawnb 23:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because fungi were originally considered plants, their classification follows the botanical code, which traditionally uses divisions. This still applies to them, even though they're recognized as a separate group. However, newer versions of the botanical code allow division and phylum to be used interchangeably, to make things more compatable with the other codes. So either one is appropriate. Josh
It has been my impression that fungal infections (in humans at least) are much harder to treat, in general, than bacterial infections. Assuming this is true, can someone add something to this article explaining why this is? -- User:Orporg, March 2005
Bacteria are characterized by the presence of peptidoglycan in their cell walls and many antibiotics interfere with structural integration of the peptidoglycan making the antibiotics specific to bacteria. Fungi have cell walls composed of chitin.
I have searched around for Rice fungus article it and seem none currently exist. This article can supplies lots of information when one of get a chance to scribe one. [1]
i'm about to revert after this post; the "other" referred to a)edible mushrooms which are certainly not poisonous; b)psychedelic hallucinogenic mushrooms such as the psilocybes, which contain psilocybin, like many hallucinogens NOT at all poisonous; and c) the fly agaric or amanita muscaria, now considered to be considerably less poisonous than once thought. Most importantly, many hallucinogens, particularly the tryptamines, which include psilocybin as well as, say, serotonin, are not at all poisonous in any quantity that a human could actually consume. Please do some independent research before buying into War on drugs propaganda and misinformation. Many drugs are very poisonous; hallucinogenic tryptamines simply are not. thank you. -- Heah 03:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The image at the top right of Fungus claims to portray an "Orange parasitic fungus".
The tree was obviously felled by humans, not the fungus.
The fungus pictured looks to me like a Pycnoporus (possibly P. cinnabarinus), a genus of saprophytic fungi, feeding exclusively on dead wood. This fungus is just cleaning up another mess left by humans.
I don't know the ettiquette for redressing this deep injustice, so I thought I'd solicit someone else to make a socially acceptable correction. -- Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started making the changes listed in the to-do list. What do you think about the new format? Mycota 06:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there isn't any mention of antibiotics in this article. I see that it's on the to-do list, so perhaps I'll help out when I have a chance. -- Viriditas 13:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I added more on sexual reproduction in zygos, ascos, and basidios. I don't remember much about sex in chytrids. The wording is much too technical for a non-biologist audience, but I had a hard time simplifying it. Mycota 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Two [edit] boxes appear in the middle-right of the overview section. They shouldn't be there, should they? I'm using firefox by the way. Citizen Premier 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted back to the use of division rather than phylum. First, phylum is singular, so phyla should be used when talking about more than one phylum. Second, mycology originated as a branch of botany, so mycologists tend to use the Botanical Code rather than the Zoological Code. Division is the taxon that is preferred by botanists and mycologists. Mycota 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I used this main article for the above +cat however, I believe something called "Macro-Fungi" is what lives in Antarctica. If you know the correct species please change it. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The ingestion link isn't very good, I think, because ingestion is introduced as contrasted with absorption, but the ingestion link just gets redirected to eating, which is a very general article (eating disorders, etc).
Anyone know when, and by whom, fungi were classified under their own kingdom? Perhaps this history could be expanded upon. ~ Booyabazooka 01:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Should be discussed: e.g. http://www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2003-04/0502/18.shtml
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain? Thanks - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not enthusiastic about the proposed structure of the article given about – 2 sections about the natural history of fungi and 5 about various aspects of human uses seems more than a little imbalanced. An alternative structure would be the one used by Encyclopedia Brittanica. Its not without its problems and I don't think it should be followed slavishly. Nonetheless, it at least balances a bit more on the side of natural history.
Fungus
I'll also note that of the major topics listed above, the topics of "growth" and "nutrition" are most conspicuously absent. That's something that should be remedied. Peter G Werner 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The deuteromycota page, linked to from this page, needs some serious work. It states, in its discussion page, with many orthographic errors, that it was written by a 15 year old boy. It has a list of characteristics of deuteromycetes, starting with the number 2, and a reference that doesn't even link properly. This page needs a lot of work. I am posting this on the fungi discussion page because, as stated before, the only thing on the deuteromycota discussion page is, and I quote:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deuteromycota"
Comments? Edits? Werothegreat 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, someone decided to change the color of the info box to pink (which I promptly changed back). Has this happened before? Werothegreat 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that there should be some mention of the fact that some scientists use the term "eumycota" rather than "fungi" when referring to the kingdom as a whole. 64.251.50.35 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There are some wonderful pictures of different fungi in the article, but a diagram showing the general structure of fungi would help tremendously. Having a diagram showing where all the parts of fungi described fit together is of much use to readers unfamiliar with the structure of fungi, and without it the terms lack somewhat in context. If anyone could make a generalized diagram and upload to commons it would improve the article greatly. Richard001 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How many species of Fungi are there?-- 213.148.27.40 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hawksworth (2001) estimates 1.5 million species of fungi.
see: Hawksworth, D. L. (2001) The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million. species estimate revisited. Mycological Research 105: 1422–1432 MidgleyDJ 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And the correct pronounciation is... (drumroll)-- Azer Red Si? 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good that the pronunciation has been fixed now! Thanks for the correction, Gerpictus. Malljaja ( talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have come up with a fungus collage picture for the taxobox, similar to the one for animals. Thoughts? Comments? Improvements? File:Fungus collage.jpg Werothegreat 20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since fungi can grow in complete darkness, and live off feces (which has presumably already been energy-extracted by its extruder), where do fungi get their source of energy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12 February 2007 ( talk • contribs) 66.91.132.126
Jenerally, Fungus lives on dead plants, but not strictly (bracket fungi, for example, is parasitic). Somewhere, I read that we are apt to identify the fruiting bodies as the whole fungus, when that is only where fungi meet to become diploid tissue -- fungus spends most of its life in the haploid form similar to an egg or sperm in animals.
Is that an acceptable definition? It is something I hav gleaned from observation, and I would appreciate pointers on a source. If someone cuts the redirect I will install, then I'll eventually come up with a source, but it seems obvious from a collection of sponges that sponges are aquatic fungi. Brewhaha@edmc.net 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon a cluster of rocks in the mountainside which appeared to be weathering naturally into oblivion that had been saved by what appeared to be a fungal layer wrapped around it holding it all together. The fungus appeared to be thriving atop dead fungus which, for all intents and purposes, on death hardened almost like stone. Is this common? If so, what fungi die into a rock or concrete like layering that are that hard? I'd like to grow my own fungi house. Beats paying builders, just wait a few hundred years. :D 211.30.71.59 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |