Talk:Fungus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vandalism

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 vs. Biology

Linnaean Taxonomy previously linked to Biology- surely this subject desrves it's own page? quercus robur

Comments

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)

Chytrids

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)

The bit about their exclusion was meant to be past tense. There's both genetic and biochemical evidence linking the chytrids to the other fungi, but this in and of itself doesn't determine how they are classified. Many systems have treated the chytrids as protists which gave rise to the other fungi, just as choanoflagellates gave rise to the animals and green algae to the plants. The shift has more to do with the move towards phylogenetic rather than structural kingdoms. --Josh

Aquatic Phycomycetes

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)

Achlya and Saprolegnia are oomycetes, so they are not true (eumycotic) fungi, and thus they do not belong in this article. Phycomycetes is an outdated class of fungi (see http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059850/Phycomycetes). Hope this clarifies why they are not found in this article. Malljaja 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Butt rot

Is "butt rot" a real fungi disease or vandalism? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Apparently it's real [says Google]! The medical name is actually ganoderma. --Menchi 02:55, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Correction: Ganoderma is a genus of fungus (of the family Ganodermataceae, order Aphyllophorales, subclass Holobasidiomycetidae, class Hymenomycetes), one of its species causes butt rot. Another, G. applanatum, causes heart rot. --Menchi 06:00, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is very much real. While doing research for a biology paper, I dug up a study of windfall trees in Denmark, and that's how I learned of this phenomenon. Thanks Menchi, I will work the other term into the article. -Smack 05:46, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Division vs. Phylum

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)

I think division was used traditionally for fungi because of fungus' vegetative characteristics. However, the 800-page Introductory Mycology by Alexopoulos et al uses phylum for all fungal major groups. --Menchi 23:41, 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

Josh is right; the zoological code uses 'phylum' instead of 'division' to mean basically the same thing. The zoological ranks of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus Species is probably the scheme that most students with high school biology are most familiar with, although I suppose that would depend on where the individual was educated! :-)

In the case of fungi, I think that using the zoological or botanical code to give taxonomic rank would depend primarily on the personal preference of the author/editor since there is actually considerable debate over what general label to give fungi. Fungi are so difficult to deal with since they are neither truly plants nor 'animals'. Rikku (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fungal taxonomy is covered by the botanical code, so while both division / phylum can be used (for plants also) the rules that apply are those of the botanical code. Although, there have been proposals that there should be an independent mycological code so that may change. See this--Graminophile (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to Kill

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

I think you are correct. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not the one to write that up, but consider that many if not most antibiotics (= anti-bacteria) come from fungi - Marshman 04:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since many stuff that can kill fungal cells effectively can also kill human cells, it's hard to find one that is only fungicidal and not homocidal. --Menchi 08:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note that fungi belong to the domain Eukarya (humans are also Eukaryotes).

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.

Rice fungus

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]

poisonous mushrooms

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)

Innocent saprophyte accused of parasitism!

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)

This is Wikipedia, so everyone has the opportunity to be bold and fix errors that they see!

Atlant 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A lot of commercial mushroom production begins with sawdust, compost and bullshit. Maybe the colour of chanterelles tells you it's ripe. I would put the stump in water to speed up the metabolism of the fungus. Hmmm. I've never seen bracket fungus on Birch, but I hav seen Birch seriously attacked, as in soft enough to yield to a pink-belted (a rank usually reserved for WP:BALLS) karate chop. Maybe I should cut some bracket out of another tree and try to graft it into my experiment (currently making fertilized aquarium water into more acidic tree fertilizer). Nah. The starfish sponge experiment calls more loudly. Then again, if I don't hav room for two aquariums in front of my window, I do hav room for two small barrels under my table. Brewhaha@edmc.net 10:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

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)

Without having seen the before, I cannot comment on the matter. I, as a complete laymen in terms of science, would like to see some of the "technical jargon" more accessible (note, I do understand how difficult it is to do without making the reading very laborious). More importantly, I would like to see some picture examples of some of the Types of fungus. I think it would be nice for people like me to be able to differentiate various types by sight, directly linking the definition to an image. ie. what is a prototypical zoospore, and how does it differentiate from a zygosphore, or a Chytridiomycota versus Zygomycota. Kingerik 19:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Antibiotics

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)

Reproduction

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)

glitch

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)

Division vs. phylum

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)

Category:Flora of Antarctica

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)

ingestion link

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).

It looks to me like someone cut that redirection since this was posted. I think the division will persist betweeen eating in humans and ingestion in forms of life. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Classification as plants

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)

I was going to ask exactly the same thing - when and by whom? I was never taught that mushrooms for example are not vegetables, one thing that could be mentioned that they have more in common with plants than with animals, is that they are grown in the ground, in dirt, and remain stationary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Egads – the idea that fungi are in some way closer to plants simply because they "are vegetables" and "grown in the ground, in dirt, and remain stationary" is an utterly ancient piece of folk taxonomy that has abolutely nothing to do with modern evolutionary taxonomy. The evidence from molecular phylogenetic study and physiological comparison is that fungi are closer to animals than plants. They are united by the fact that both are heterotrophs and have a number of physiological processes in common with animals that they do not share with plants. Peter G Werner 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether fungus is more like a plant or an animal is like whether the tomato is more a fruit or a vejtable. Being not sweet, but emanating from a flower, I say it's both. Someone defined bananas as berrys, but the strawberry and the pineapple, with their seeds on the outside, don't seem to fit. To me, they're all tasty, and I scarcely giv a rat's diaphragm. Fungus supports both animal and plant. It has characteristics of both. As for phylogenetics, the fruiting organ of a fungus is prone to be invaded by bacteria that photosynthesize. All it would take is diatoms that don't make the body of a fungus decay. That would drive it towards the plant. Hopefully, that's about as easy as creating an anemone or something else that moves. Fungus fits between plant and animal. Maybe bacteria and diatoms should be underneath it. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's see. I hav this birch stump at the bottom of a barrel. I'm aerating the water, so it smells better. If I light it up once in a while, that should preserve photosynthetic bacteria when I don't light it up. Three hours with the light on. Three hours with the aeration on. Staggered, that means 1.5 hours with both of them on, and 1.5 hours with both of them off. I wonder what will grow in there if I figure out where to put the body of a fungus, and maybe some PFA (Bee Mop). I wonder if Daphnia would grow in that. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wood wide web

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)

Fungus (25 votes, stays until July 22)

Nominated June 3, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by July 22, 2006

Support

1. BorgQueen 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Felixboy 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 22:52 UTC
6. PDXblazers 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Silence 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Josen 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
9. EamonnPKeane 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Mr. Lefty 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Daniel Collins 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Julien 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Ravn 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
14. --Gaius Julius Caesar 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Peirigill 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
16. PHF 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Lukobe 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Mgiganteus1 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Ian¹³/t 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Sean gorter^{{talk} CVU} 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
21. RexNL 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
22. --Gay Cdn 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
23. -- Crna ^t_e^c Gora 17:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
24. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
25. —Larry2006 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
26. - JoJan 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed votes

1. telchacsusan 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC). No such user—D-Rock 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• According to Talk:Fungus, This popular page is linked to by over 500 sites, and the pending tasks have been well mentioned along. Certainly this is one of the basic topics that has a lot to improve. --BorgQueen 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is featured on Latvian wiki; German also has a comprehensive article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• After Animal, Plant and Bacteria, this is the most widely-known Kingdom of life. Having it Featured (or at least high-quality) would be a big boost to Wikipedia's credibility as a resource. Of course, the aforementioned three would also make great AIDs. -Silence 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relevant to everybody on Earth. Daniel Collins 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wow – I never got any word about this article improvement drive, but I want to tell everybody who's interested, that I've started a WikiProject on Fungi and that there's a whole lot of room for improvement for mycological content in general on Wikipedia. The project doesn't have nearly enough participants, so if you're interested in the topic, come on over and lend a hand. Peter G Werner 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Spaces are there for a reason?

Could you explain? Thanks - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I explained the spaces the first time I reverted them back in (though anonymous user 67.181.63.245 promptly reverted out the spaces without a word of discussion). I said "In case you didn't notice, the extra space helps illustrations and taxabox fit much better. Please do not remove spaces without good reason." I've subsequently added enough text to the fungal ecology section that it doesn't need extra spaces, but the introductory section definitely needs them, otherwise the taxobox breaks part of the way into the next section, and IMO, looks really crappy. At present, Wikipedia doesn't really offer many options for placement of boxes and illustrations other than manipulation of text. Please keep this in mind before automatically removing extra lines. Peter G Werner 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. Now you've put it in a place where everyone can read it, even months later, if necessary! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Give it a try with the tag <br clear=left /> (behind the introduction) and by putting each sentence of the introduction into a different paragraph. Perhaps by adding a short word of their different habitats and their shape, structure and colour in the introduction will make the introduction somewhat longer and look less awkward. I gave it a try and it looked OK to me. But I'll leave it up to you to decide. JoJan 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.140.130 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2006

I've added a little text to the introduction and done some of the things you suggested, and therefore was able to take most of the extra spaces out of the intro. Peter G Werner 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure (under "Pending Tasks") and alternatives

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

• Introduction
• General features
  • Size range and diversity of structure
  • Distribution and abundance
  • Importance
• Natural history
  • Asexual reproduction
  • Sexual reproduction
    • Incompatibility
    • Sexual pheromones (hormones)
  • Life cycle
  • Ecology
  • Associations
• Form and function
  • Structure of the thallus
  • Sporophores and spores
  • Growth
  • Nutrition
    • Saprobiosis
    • Parasitism
    • Predation
  • Lichens
    • General features
    • Form and function
• Evolution and phylogeny
• Classification
  • Distinguishing taxonomic features
  • Annotated classification
  • Critical appraisal

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)

Much better. Mycorrhiza, in my biased opinion, should also be included (as one of the most important symbioses on Earth). I'd be happy to write about briefly about arbuscular, ecto, ericoid and orchid mycorrhizal biology - which can them be expanded on in a revised Mycorrhiza page. MidgleyDJ 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See already : Arbuscular mycorrhiza JoJan 08:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. The subject of "mycorrhizas" should be a sub-topic of "ecology" (with a little bit of discussion of that topic under "nutrition"). I've already added a paragraph on mycorrhiza to "ecology". I also think that's where the subject of "lichens" belongs there, in contrast to the way the Encyclopedia Britannica article is outlined. I realize that the topic of mycorrhizas is only covered in a very cursory manner in this article; however, I think the whole topic of fungal symbiosis and fungal ecology is a huge topic and really should get its own breakout article. I still haven't finished writing the ecology section of this article, and its already getting long when compared to the rest of the article.
As for the mycorrhiza article, of course that needs expansion and probably will ultimately need some breakout articles of its own. The biggest gap is the topic of "ectomycorrhiza". This is an extremely important topic, but so far there's about zero coverage of the topic in Wikipedia – not a standalone article on the topic and not even a good section in the "mycorrhiza" article. By contrast, the article on "arbuscular mycorrhiza", that's one of the few articles on Wikipedia where I think there's too much detail. I'm a senior graduate student who's had an entire one-semester course in "Fungal Symbiosis" and I find the article dense – I can only imagine that members of the general public would be completely lost. My recommendation in that case would be to move most of the super-detailed content to their own breakout topics (such as "Physiology of arbuscular mycorrhizas") and have the article itself give a more basic introduction. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter; like all mycological topics on Wikipedia, its going to take a lot of work and will probably take a long time since there's only a few people contributing on theses subjects. Much thanks and gratitude to those of you who are contributing to mycological articles. Peter G Werner 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the "wood wide web" refers to mycorrhiza. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deuteromycota

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:

"This Fungi is a division form of fungi, it uses sexual reproduction.it is more recentyl known as mitosporic fungi. the common forn of this fungi is a mushroom. the DNA based technology we can clarify the difference between other fungi. Fungi is mold and can be found on many things sunch as bread in he form of mold. this articel was written by a 15 year old boy.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deuteromycota"

Comments? Edits? Werothegreat 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

People change taxobox colours all the time when they don't understand it. Just revert it, and if they continue, have a word to them on their talk page. They usually understand if you say there is a standard for colours. Thanks --liquidGhoul 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eumycota

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)

Images

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)

Number of species

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)

"Funguy" or "Funjie"

And the correct pronounciation is... (drumroll)--Azer Red Si? 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want it to be, academics certainly haven't agreed. I have had heard both versions used in uni lectures. I personally say "fungee" (hard g), which seems to be the most common in Australia. --liquidGhoul 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the vernacular English "fungi" (with a small f), "funguy", "funjuy", "fungee", and "funjee" are all equally correct. If you're talking about botanical latin Fungi, as in Kingdom Fungi, than "fungee" (hard g, long e) is correct, as that's the closest pronunciation to the Latin root (which was probably pronounced similarly to modern Italian funghi). Peter G Werner 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The current IPA for the plural represents "fun - yie", 'yie' as in 'pie', which is none of these. Any ideas on where to go from here? I'm a "fun - guy" person, but "fun - ghee" (hard g) is just fine for me. Oh, and I'm from the UK. Gerpictus (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody pronounce it "fun - yie" - maybe the IPA should be changed. I looked at and listened to the Merriam-Webster Online entry cited (ref 2) and it doesn't give the pronunciation indicated. --Graminophile (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The current IPA in this entry gives "fungi" as "fʌnjaɪ", which, if I got my phonetics right, is pronounced "funjay" (with a soft "j" and a slightly protracted "ay", as in "all in favour?" Ay!)--this is the most common pronunciation used among those who work with fungi, i.e. mycologists and microbiologists. But I've also heard it uttered "fungai" "fungee", and so forth--its pronunciation is evolving, so it's probably futile to try to mandate any particular form. A few edits ago there were more IPA pronunciations to choose from, so perhaps they should be revived. Malljaja (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

'j' in the IPA is a 'y', the initial sound in English 'yes', so we're a bit off here. The English j ('jay') in the IPA is represented by dʒ, so we need to go for ˈfʌndʒaɪ. The variations of the pronunciation of the plural are represented in note 2 and I have no problem with them (I'm a fʌŋgaɪ user), it's just that the sounds here are stated in terms of the IPA and so, wrongly. Merriam-Webster may be using j for the English j, but this is not IPA practice. I'm a linguist, by the way, hoping to help and not sound like a geek with a problem!Gerpictus (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gerpictus--that's very useful info! I'd suggest to go ahead and change the spelling as you've suggested. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the go-ahead, Malljaja (Mallyaya?). Will make the change now ...Gerpictus (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely right. I was the one who put that it in, and I usually don't make mistakes like that. Thanks for noticing it! Lesgles (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good that the pronunciation has been fixed now! Thanks for the correction, Gerpictus. Malljaja (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fungus Collage

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)

Your idea was brilliant but it appears to have been deleted. I suppose it was deleted due to licensing concern? I've made another collage using only public domain images and one creative commons image. --BorgQueen 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy source for fungi

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

Actually, most fungi don't grow in complete darkness and don't live on dung, so your premise is flawed. Fungi are heterotrophs (like humans), so they don't engage in photosynthesis and don't need the sun's energy to make food. They get food typically as decomposers (or often as symbionts or parasites), breaking down various different kinds of organic matter (depending on the species that could be wood, soil organic matter, dung, or any number of other kinds of dead organic matter), all of which contains lots of available chemical energy and nutrients.

All of which is to say, the article needs more on fungal nutrition.

Peter G Werner 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

Sponge

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)

No, not acceptable. Sponges are not fungi. They are animals. Please read the article. Debivort 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the article. I also saw a blue sponge that looks distinctly like a starfish. If I treated it as a fungus (or a barnacle for that matter) and put it on a bed of bananas, would it regain locomotion? I wouldn't mind seeing the whole deal come through. Legend haz it they can grow entire from a single limb. Trouble is that I hav neither a salt aquarium nor room for one. It would hav to live by itself in a barrel until I could sell it, or maybe I could talk someone at Aquarium Illusions into doing the experiment. Ah. Then it wouldn't be my research, so they could publish it, and I could mention it here without treading very heavily on WP:NOR. Brewhaha@edmc.net 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pressure variations of projections of the water vascular system allow starfish to move, despite their descent from sessile organisms." I got that from the article on echinoderms. Maybe whoever wrote it can clue me in on how anyone knows they descended from sessile organisms like sponges. Brewhaha@edmc.net 08:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concrete layering fungi

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4