Jump to content

Talk:Fungus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,379,830 edits
m Archiving 3 discussions to Talk:Fungus/Archive 4. (BOT)
 
(622 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{annual readership}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Article history|action1=PR
{{ArticleHistory
|action1date=14:36, 25 May 2009
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Fungus/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=290984322

|action2=FAC
|action2date=19:36, 22 August 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fungus/archive1
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=309456908

|aciddate=July 16 2006
|aciddate=July 16 2006
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=November 17, 2009
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Tree of Life|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Fungi|importance=top}}
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Fungi|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Tree of Life|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=high}}
{{FAOL|Lithuanian|lt:Grybų karalystė|nested=yes}}
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{Old moves
| collapse = false
| list =
* RM, Fungus → Fungi, '''Not moved''', 16 December 2007, [[Talk:Fungus/Archive_2#Requested_move|discussion]]
* RM, Fungus → Fungi, '''Not moved''', 24 October 2022, [[Talk:Fungus#Requested_move_24_October_2022|discussion]]
}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=category|core=yes|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{todo|1}}


== Vandalism ==


{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
This page was pretty badly vandalized. I reverted it to the most recent non-vandalized page. I would consider locking this down for awhile.
| age=2160

| archiveprefix=Talk:Fungus/Archive
== Linnaean Taxonomy vs. Biology ==
| numberstart=2

| maxarchsize=75000
Linnaean Taxonomy previously linked to [[Biology]]- surely this subject desrves it's own page? [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]]
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minkeepthreads=5
== Comments ==
| minarchthreads=3

| format= %%i
Someone's been taking information about basidiomycetes and applying it to all fungi.<br>
}}
Please don't use second-level headings in place of top-level headings. See [[Wikipedia:Guide to Layout|Guide to Layout]]. -[[User:Smack|Smack]]
{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Species#The isolation species concept in more detail|biological species concept]]</nowiki> The anchor (#The isolation species concept in more detail) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/351646563|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"The isolation species concept in more detail","appear":{"revid":4263618,"parentid":4236129,"timestamp":"2004-06-23T07:16:58Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Definitions of species","Importance in biological classification","Implications of assignment of species status","The isolation species concept in more detail","The isolation question","The difference question","Historical development of the species concept","External links"]},"disappear":{"revid":351646563,"parentid":350253014,"timestamp":"2010-03-23T21:52:08Z","removed_section_titles":["The isolation species concept in more detail","The isolation question","The difference question"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
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
}}

== 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. -[[User:Smack|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 [[choanoflagellate]]s 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. --[[user:Josh Grosse|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. -- [[User:Jrpowell|Jrpowell]] 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:Achlya and Saprolegnia are [[oomycete]]s, 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. [[User:Malljaja|Malljaja]] 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

== Butt rot ==

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

: Apparently it's real [says [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22butt%20rot%22 Google]]! <s>The medical name is actually [[ganoderma]].</s> --[[User:Menchi|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]]. --[[User:Menchi|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. -[[User:Smack|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? [[User:Shawnb|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. --[[User:Menchi|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. [[User:Josh Grosse|Josh]]

== 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 - [[User:Marshman|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. --[[User:Menchi|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. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4466783.stm]

== 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 [[psilocybe]]s, which contain [[psilocybin]], like many hallucinogens NOT at all poisonous; and c) the [[Amanita muscaria|fly agaric]] or amanita muscaria, now considered to be considerably less poisonous than once thought. Most importantly, many hallucinogens, particularly the [[tryptamine]]s, 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. --[[User:Heah|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".
[[Image:Fungus_on_log.jpg|200px]]

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.
--[[User:Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us|Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us]] 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:This is Wikipedia, so '''everyone''' has the opportunity to [[WP:BB|be bold]] and fix errors that they see!

:[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:A lot of commercial mushroom production begins with sawdust, compost and bullshit. Maybe the colour of [[chanterelle]]s 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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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? [[User:Mycota|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 <u>sight</u>, 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. [[User:Kingerik|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. --[[User:Viriditas|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. [[User:Mycota|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. [[User:Citizen Premier|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 [[International Code of Botanical Nomenclature|Botanical Code]] rather than the [[International Code of Zoological Nomenclature|Zoological Code]]. [[Division (biology)|Division]] is the taxon that is preferred by botanists and mycologists. [[User:Mycota|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 [[User:SirIsaacBrock|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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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. ~ [[User:Booyabazooka|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. [[User:Codex Sinaiticus|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus|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. [[User:Peter G Werner|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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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

[[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|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:
# [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Felixboy|Felixboy]] 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
# --[[User:D-Rock|D-Rock]] ([[User talk:D-Rock|commune with D-Rock]]) 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
# <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]]<span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Wednesday]], [[7 June]] [[2006]] at 22:52 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
#[[User:PDXblazers|PDXblazers]] 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Silence|Silence]] 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Josen|Josen]] 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:EamonnPKeane|EamonnPKeane]] 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Mr. Lefty|Mr. Lefty]] 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Daniel Collins|Daniel Collins]] 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Julienlecomte|Julien]] 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Ravn|Ravn]] 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Gaius Julius Caesar|Gaius Julius Caesar]] 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Peirigill|Peirigill]] 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Starghost|PHF]] 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Mgiganteus1|Mgiganteus1]] 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Sean gorter|'''S''']][[User:Sean gorter/Esperanza|<font color="green>'''e'''</font>]][[User:Sean gorter|'''an gort''']][[User:Sean gorter/Esperanza|<font color="green>'''e'''</font>]][[User:Sean gorter|'''r''']]<sup>[[User talk:Sean gorter|{talk}]] [[User:Sean gorter/Counter-Vandalism Unit|CVU]]</sup> 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:RexNL|RexNL]] 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Gay Cdn|Gay Cdn]] 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
#-- <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora/Esperanza|e]]</font></sub><sup><font color=purple>[[Special:Contributions/CrnaGora|c]]</font></sup> <font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|Go]]</font><font color=black>[[Special:Contributions/CrnaGora|ra]]</font> 17:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
#~ ''' <span style="color: #427D42">&#9658; W</span><span style="color: #498B49">y</span><span style="color: #519951">k</span><span style="color: #58A758">e</span><span style="color: #74B674">b</span><span style="color: #82BD82">j</span><span style="color: #8FC58F">s &#9668;</span>''' <small>([[User:Wykebjs|userpage]] | [[User talk:Wykebjs|talk]])</small> 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
#—[[User:Larry2006|Larry2006]] 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
# - [[User:JoJan|JoJan]] 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

;Removed votes
# [[User:telchacsusan|telchacsusan]] 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC). No such user&mdash;[[User talk:D-Rock|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. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*Is featured on Latvian wiki; German also has a comprehensive article. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|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. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* Relevant to everybody on Earth. [[User:Daniel Collins|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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi|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. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

----

== Spaces are there for a reason? ==

Could you explain? Thanks - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|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. [[User:Peter G Werner|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! - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Give it a try with the tag <nowiki><br clear=left /></nowiki> (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. [[User:JoJan|JoJan]] 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

::: Great. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.26.140.130|70.26.140.130]] ([[User talk:70.26.140.130|talk]]) 20:56, 21 July 2006</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

::::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. [[User:Peter G Werner|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. [[User:Peter G Werner|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. [[User:MidgleyDJ|MidgleyDJ]] 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::See already : [[Arbuscular mycorrhiza]] [[User:JoJan|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.<br> 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. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Indeed, the "wood wide web" refers to mycorrhiza. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|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? [[User:Werothegreat|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?[[User:Werothegreat|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 --[[User:LiquidGhoul|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. [[User:64.251.50.35|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. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Number of species ==

How many species of Fungi are there?--[[User:213.148.27.40|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 [[User:MidgleyDJ|MidgleyDJ]] 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Funguy" or "Funjie" ==

And the correct pronounciation is... (drumroll)--[[User:Azer Red|<font color="Darkred">'''Azer Red'''</font>]] [[User talk:Azer Red|<font color="Red">''Si?''</font>]] 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. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|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''). [[User:Peter G Werner|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. [[User:Gerpictus|Gerpictus]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fungus Merriam-Webster Online entry] cited (ref 2) and it doesn't give the pronunciation indicated. --[[User:Graminophile|Graminophile]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Malljaja|Malljaja]] ([[User talk: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![[User:Gerpictus|Gerpictus]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Malljaja|Malljaja]] ([[User talk:Malljaja|talk]]) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::OK, and thanks for the go-ahead, Malljaja (Mallyaya?). Will make the change now ...[[User:Gerpictus|Gerpictus]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Lesgles|Lesgles]] (<small>[[User_talk:Lesgles|talk]]</small>) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good that the pronunciation has been fixed now! Thanks for the correction, Gerpictus. [[User:Malljaja|Malljaja]] ([[User talk: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?
[[Image:Fungus_collage.jpg|200px]]
[[User:Werothegreat|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. --[[User:BorgQueen|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?? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:12 February 2007|12 February 2007]] ([[User talk:12 February 2007|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/12 February 2007|contribs]]) 66.91.132.126</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: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.
:[[User:Peter G Werner|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.

== [[Aquatic Fungus|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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|Brewhaha@edmc.net]] 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

: No, not acceptable. [[Sponge]]s are not fungi. They are animals. Please read the article. [[User:Debivort|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]]. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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. [[User:Brewhaha@edmc.net|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 [[User:211.30.71.59|211.30.71.59]] 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

== Mating in fungi ==

I recently came across [[Mating in fungi]]. I'm not sure if it covers the same things [[Fungus#Reproduction]], but is it possible to merge it into that section if there is anything to merge? '''''<font color="007575">[[User:Squids and Chips|Squids]]</font>'<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/Squids and Chips|and]]</font>'<font color="FF7700">[[User talk:Squids and Chips|Chips]]</font>''''' 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:I prefer the idea of making [[Fungus#Reproduction]] an overview with a link for "See main article on Reproduction in Fungi (which I think is a better name for the article since it would allow both sexual and asexual reproduction to be covered). I won't change anything until others weigh in though. [[User:Jvbishop|Jvbishop]] 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== ===[[Fungus]] (2 votes) wins May-June Collab=== ==

Support:

#[[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
#[[User:M&NCenarius|M&amp;NCenarius]] 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

*I forgot the original fungus article. As with [[Dinosaur]], I guess there is a case to be made for this one as well to be first cab off the rank...[[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
*"Fungus" actually was the target of an article improvement drive some months back, but which only yielded limited contributions. This article actually needs ''a lot'' of work and there are a lot of important topics that simply aren't covered. Check the "To Do" list and outline I've left on the talk page. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

== Phylogeny and classification ==

Fifth line down on this Heading say "Cutting edge research" This is ambiguous and an opinion, not a concise fact.
Lewis Haycraft 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EST) too lazy to mentally figure the UTC

The cladogram added, apart from the formatting problems, is problematical. Choanozoa appears not to be a clade (Cavalier-Smith doesn't mind paraphyletic taxa). The papers I've read suggests that there are five lineages involved here, icthyosporeans (mesomycetozoa, DRIPS), choanoflagellates, and three amoebiform groups, the nucleariid, capsosporid and ministeriid amoebas, these being respectively, IIRC, the sisters to fungi, mesomycetozoans and animals. I also wonder if there are statements in the text (e.g. presence of flagellae) applied to chytrids which should be applied to the three phyla into which they have been divided. [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

== Microsporidia ==

There ought to be something about microsporidia in the page. BTW, there's a newish paper on fungal classification, Hibbett et al,
[http://www.lutzonilab.net/publications/lutzoni_file410.pdf higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi], Mycological Research 111: 509–547 (2007).
[[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:We've applied the changes described in the paper, except the ones the authors weren't sure about. Microsporidia are still under [[Zygomycota]] here, although they're clearly not related to other members in the phylum. Everything in Zygomycota is really ''[[incertae sedis]]''. [[User:Bendzh|Bendž]]|[[User talk:Bendzh|Ť]] 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I didn't mean to suggest that Microsporidia should be included separately in the list of phyla/divisions. Whether Microsporidia is nested in Zygomycota remains, as far as I know, an open question. My point was intended to be that microsporidia are a distinctive, derived, group of fungi, and have as much right to a mention somewhere in the text as say lichens. [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh, and it seems to me that a category Microsporidia would be a good idea - so if microsporidians are excluded from Zygomycota youall only have to change the category, rather than all the microsporidia pages.


== Suggest moving two paragraphs about taxonomy ==
:I've noticed inconsistencies with taxoboxes relating to microsporidia (and I've probably added to the problem myself); in particular with the ranks. The classification of microsporidia is uncertain enough that a "right" solution is not obviously to hand, but it would be nice if Wikipedia was at least consistent.
([[Zyomycetes]] has Microsporidia as an order; Microsporidia has it as class.) [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


The first two paragraphs under [Taxonomy] should be moved to [Taxonomic groups] (or possibly be deleted). The problem with their current position is that they, and the first paragraph in particular, obfuscate the reclassification of fungi as a separate kingdom.
==Requested move==
12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:Btw, the comprehensive fungal taxonimical system ''Outline of Fungi'' by Wijayawardene et al., 2020 (broad collaboration of mycologists from many research organizations all over the world; [https://dx.doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/11/1/8]) should be mentioned (at least) in the second paragraph. --[[User:Petr Karel|Petr Karel]] ([[User talk:Petr Karel|talk]]) 17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


== Remove Chromista from lead para ==
{{{result|The result of the {{{type|proposal}}} was}}} '''no consensus''' to move the page, per the discussion below. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<font color="darkgreen"><small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small></font> 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
<hr/>
*'''[[Fungus]] → [[:Fungi]]''' — The plural rather than singular form should be used as the article title — -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]]-<small>[[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]</small>- 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Fungus|answered=yes}}
===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''


<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
*'''Oppose''' - we have [[bird]], [[dinosaur]], [[plant]] etc. why should this be different? cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - as already voiced by Casliber, most biology entries are singular, so there's no reason to change to the plural here. Thanks. [[User:Malljaja|Malljaja]] ([[User talk:Malljaja|talk]]) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


* '''These organisms are classified as a kingdom,[4] separately from the other eukaryotic kingdoms, which, by one traditional classification, includes Plantae, Animalia, Protozoa, and Chromista.''':
*'''Oppose''' - other biological Kingdoms e.g. Animalia / Plantae similarly redirect to animal/plant, so no need for Fungi to be different. --[[User:Graminophile|Graminophile]] ([[User talk:Graminophile|talk]]) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Remove Chromista as it is not traditional nor supported by any references in article ''':
* '''No references support its inclusion.''':


[[User:FixitFelixicus|FixitFelixicus]] ([[User talk:FixitFelixicus|talk]]) 03:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. [[Plant]], [[animal]], etc. are all singular and most encyclopedias don't pluralize such entries. [[User:Snocrates|Snocrates]] 04:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->


: Kingdom Chromista is "traditional" (originated 1981 [https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647(81)90050-2] or earlier; then used in "[[Cavalier-Smith]]s" system (e.g. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.07.004]; [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00709-017-1147-3]) and survived at least till his last study published 2022 ([https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00709-021-01665-7]). The same or similar system with 5 eukaryotic kingdoms containing Chromista is applied in many other projects ([https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/#86704 AlgaeBase]; [https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=7 WoRMS]...) The only problem is, that it is (most probably) not a monophyletic taxon (for the death of the "Chromalveolate hypothesis" see e.g. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x and its references). The same problem as Chromista has the "traditional" kingdom Protozoa.
*'''Oppose'''. I'm at a loss to think of any reason for this proposal, and none has been given. On the other hand, Wikipedia official policy at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns]] reads ''In general only create page titles that are in the singular...'', and none of the exceptions listed there seem to fit this case, nor do those mentioned at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 5#SOME article titles should be plural]]. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
: So, I agree either with removing or maintaining of '''both Chromista and Protozoa'''. --[[User:Petr Karel|Petr Karel]] ([[User talk:Petr Karel|talk]]) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:Given the response by [[User:Petr Karel|Petr Karel]], this edit request should probably be marked as responded to. This edit very likely needs a response/decision from someone with specific knowledge of this field (such as Petr Karel). I suggest someone with that knowledge [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and make a decision about Chromista and possibly Protozoa and then implement it. -- [[User:Pinchme123|Pinchme123]] ([[User talk:Pinchme123|talk]]) 03:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
::IMO the "definition" of Fungi as 1 of the 5 eukaryotic kingdoms is OK for lay readers. As a reference, one or more of the refs to Cavalier-Smith's system could be added (see my previous answer). The problem of this approach for phylogenetical taxonomists is that [[Chromista]], even in the modified definition since cca Cavalier-Smith 2015), are probably [[Paraphyly|paraphyletic]] (not a clade inside [[Diaphoretickes]]) and Protista [[Polyphyly|polyphyletic]] taxon, as I mentioned.
::The lead paragraph could be completed by the phylogenetic quasidefinion: Fungi ≈ sister group to [[Cristidiscoidea]] <small>Page, 1987</small> (syn. Nucleariae <small>Tedersoo, Sánchez-Ramírez, Kõljalg, Bahram, Döring, Schigel, T. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov 2018</small> syn. Rotosphaerida <small>Rainer 1968</small>), making together an [[opisthokont]] [[clade]] [[Holomycota]] <small>Liu et al. 2009</small> (syn. Nucletmycea <small>Brown et al. 2009</small>). (''I mentioned most of the significant synonyms to show, that individual approaches in systematics and taxonomy for the basal opisthokont groups vary at least in nomenclature; in the lead paragraph only one taxon name, without authority and year, shoud be presented which equals to the name of the wikipedia article.'') Also for this approach there is a problem of competition: Instead of the broad definition by mycologists (Outline of fungi, 2020, [https://www.mycosphere.org/pdf/MYCOSPHERE_11_1_8-1.pdf]), protistologists would like to rule above the Opisthosporidia (paraphyletic group of [[Rozella|rozellids]], [[Microsporidia|microsporidians]] and [[Aphelida|aphelids]]) so they prefer narrower definition of kingdom Fungi without the whole Opisthosporidia or at least without rozellids and aphelids (see [https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x]); this narrower group/clade is sometimes called true fungi (Eumycota).
::The cladistic definition as another alternative is too complicated for wikipedia: "The smallest crown clade containing ''Rozella allomycis'' <small>F. K. Faust 1937</small>, ''Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis'' <small>Longcore, Pessier and D. K. Nichols 1999</small>, ''Allomyces arbusculus'' <small>E. J. Butler 1911</small>, ''Entomophthora muscae'' <small>(Cohn) Fresen. 1856</small>, ''Coemansia reversa'' <small>Tiegh. and G. Le Monn. 1873</small>, ''Rhizophagus intraradices'' <small>(N. C. Schenck and G. S. Sm.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler 2010</small>, ''Rhizopus oryzae'' <small>Went and Prins. Geerl. 1895</small>, ''Saccharomyces cerevisiae'' <small>Meyen 1838</small>, and ''Coprinopsis cinerea'' <small>(Schaef.) Redhead, Vilgalys and Moncalvo 2001</small>)" (Phylonyms, 2020, ISBN: 978-1-138-33293-5, p. 109).
::I hope my answer could help you to make the decision about the lead paragraph. You can also ask the projects [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life]] for support. I am not a native speaker so I will not implement the decision into the text. [[User:Petr Karel|Petr Karel]] ([[User talk:Petr Karel|talk]]) 14:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
::: How about:
:::<blockquote>These organisms are classified as one of the [[Kingdom_(biology)|traditional eukaryotic kingdoms]], along with Animalia, Plantae and either Protista<ref>Whittaker, R.H. (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms or organisms. Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms". Science. 163 (3863): 150–60.</ref> or Protozoa and Chromista.<ref>Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). "A revised six-kingdom system of life". Biological Reviews. 73 (3): 203–66. </ref></blockquote>
::: Reasonably concise and covers the main alternative traditional schemes.—&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Perfect for the intro paragraph, thank you.
::::(But IMO any featured article about a higher taxon should also have a precise taxon definition based on recent knowledge - I'm missing a paragraph on the phylogenetic position of fungi e. g. between the paragraphs Evolution and Taxonomy.) [[User:Petr Karel|Petr Karel]] ([[User talk:Petr Karel|talk]]) 04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023 ==
*'''Oppose''' - Per Casliber. Stick to the singular, it makes more sense. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] ([[User talk:Reginmund|talk]]) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Fungus|answered=yes}}
===Discussion===
Please add the missing hatnote: <nowiki>{{Redirect-distinguish|Fugus|Fugu}}</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/134.199.113.124|134.199.113.124]] ([[User talk:134.199.113.124|talk]]) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
:''Any additional comments:''
:: I'm not happy with the grammar of the first sentence though - "fungi are..." but surely "Fungi (Kingdom) is..." --[[User:Graminophile|Graminophile]] ([[User talk:Graminophile|talk]]) 01:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->


== Organization and Writing Quality ==
== fungus ==


The article is detailed yet brief enough to read and comprehend. It is well-written for both the public and experts. The content is very well-organized into sections, as well as related groups. [[User:Mr21782|Mr21782]] ([[User talk:Mr21782|talk]]) 04:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
fungus is your basic way to die <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.215.133.96|74.215.133.96]] ([[User talk:74.215.133.96|talk]]) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Fungi is multicellular or unicellular ==
== fungi do not devise ==


Both because it depends it's condition [[Special:Contributions/2409:4089:AA81:D197:0:0:FF08:AF12|2409:4089:AA81:D197:0:0:FF08:AF12]] ([[User talk:2409:4089:AA81:D197:0:0:FF08:AF12|talk]]) 14:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The article reads: Some fungi are predators of nematodes, which they capture using an array of devices such as constricting rings or adhesive nets.


:This is in the article where it says "and morphologies ranging from unicellular aquatic chytrids to large mushrooms." [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 14:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Fungi do not use devices. Fungi use structures. Please correct.

Latest revision as of 15:24, 30 November 2024

Featured articleFungus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 22, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 16, 2006.
Current status: Featured article


Suggest moving two paragraphs about taxonomy

[edit]

The first two paragraphs under [Taxonomy] should be moved to [Taxonomic groups] (or possibly be deleted). The problem with their current position is that they, and the first paragraph in particular, obfuscate the reclassification of fungi as a separate kingdom. 12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Btw, the comprehensive fungal taxonimical system Outline of Fungi by Wijayawardene et al., 2020 (broad collaboration of mycologists from many research organizations all over the world; [1]) should be mentioned (at least) in the second paragraph. --Petr Karel (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Chromista from lead para

[edit]


  • These organisms are classified as a kingdom,[4] separately from the other eukaryotic kingdoms, which, by one traditional classification, includes Plantae, Animalia, Protozoa, and Chromista.:
  • Remove Chromista as it is not traditional nor supported by any references in article :
  • No references support its inclusion.:

FixitFelixicus (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Chromista is "traditional" (originated 1981 [2] or earlier; then used in "Cavalier-Smiths" system (e.g. [3]; [4]) and survived at least till his last study published 2022 ([5]). The same or similar system with 5 eukaryotic kingdoms containing Chromista is applied in many other projects (AlgaeBase; WoRMS...) The only problem is, that it is (most probably) not a monophyletic taxon (for the death of the "Chromalveolate hypothesis" see e.g. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x and its references). The same problem as Chromista has the "traditional" kingdom Protozoa.
So, I agree either with removing or maintaining of both Chromista and Protozoa. --Petr Karel (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the response by Petr Karel, this edit request should probably be marked as responded to. This edit very likely needs a response/decision from someone with specific knowledge of this field (such as Petr Karel). I suggest someone with that knowledge be bold and make a decision about Chromista and possibly Protozoa and then implement it. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the "definition" of Fungi as 1 of the 5 eukaryotic kingdoms is OK for lay readers. As a reference, one or more of the refs to Cavalier-Smith's system could be added (see my previous answer). The problem of this approach for phylogenetical taxonomists is that Chromista, even in the modified definition since cca Cavalier-Smith 2015), are probably paraphyletic (not a clade inside Diaphoretickes) and Protista polyphyletic taxon, as I mentioned.
The lead paragraph could be completed by the phylogenetic quasidefinion: Fungi ≈ sister group to Cristidiscoidea Page, 1987 (syn. Nucleariae Tedersoo, Sánchez-Ramírez, Kõljalg, Bahram, Döring, Schigel, T. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov 2018 syn. Rotosphaerida Rainer 1968), making together an opisthokont clade Holomycota Liu et al. 2009 (syn. Nucletmycea Brown et al. 2009). (I mentioned most of the significant synonyms to show, that individual approaches in systematics and taxonomy for the basal opisthokont groups vary at least in nomenclature; in the lead paragraph only one taxon name, without authority and year, shoud be presented which equals to the name of the wikipedia article.) Also for this approach there is a problem of competition: Instead of the broad definition by mycologists (Outline of fungi, 2020, [6]), protistologists would like to rule above the Opisthosporidia (paraphyletic group of rozellids, microsporidians and aphelids) so they prefer narrower definition of kingdom Fungi without the whole Opisthosporidia or at least without rozellids and aphelids (see [7]); this narrower group/clade is sometimes called true fungi (Eumycota).
The cladistic definition as another alternative is too complicated for wikipedia: "The smallest crown clade containing Rozella allomycis F. K. Faust 1937, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Longcore, Pessier and D. K. Nichols 1999, Allomyces arbusculus E. J. Butler 1911, Entomophthora muscae (Cohn) Fresen. 1856, Coemansia reversa Tiegh. and G. Le Monn. 1873, Rhizophagus intraradices (N. C. Schenck and G. S. Sm.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler 2010, Rhizopus oryzae Went and Prins. Geerl. 1895, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Meyen 1838, and Coprinopsis cinerea (Schaef.) Redhead, Vilgalys and Moncalvo 2001)" (Phylonyms, 2020, ISBN: 978-1-138-33293-5, p. 109).
I hope my answer could help you to make the decision about the lead paragraph. You can also ask the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life for support. I am not a native speaker so I will not implement the decision into the text. Petr Karel (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about:

These organisms are classified as one of the traditional eukaryotic kingdoms, along with Animalia, Plantae and either Protista[1] or Protozoa and Chromista.[2]

Reasonably concise and covers the main alternative traditional schemes.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect for the intro paragraph, thank you.
(But IMO any featured article about a higher taxon should also have a precise taxon definition based on recent knowledge - I'm missing a paragraph on the phylogenetic position of fungi e. g. between the paragraphs Evolution and Taxonomy.) Petr Karel (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Whittaker, R.H. (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms or organisms. Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms". Science. 163 (3863): 150–60.
  2. ^ Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). "A revised six-kingdom system of life". Biological Reviews. 73 (3): 203–66.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

[edit]

Please add the missing hatnote: {{Redirect-distinguish|Fugus|Fugu}} 134.199.113.124 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and Writing Quality

[edit]

The article is detailed yet brief enough to read and comprehend. It is well-written for both the public and experts. The content is very well-organized into sections, as well as related groups. Mr21782 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi is multicellular or unicellular

[edit]

Both because it depends it's condition 2409:4089:AA81:D197:0:0:FF08:AF12 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the article where it says "and morphologies ranging from unicellular aquatic chytrids to large mushrooms." Graham Beards (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fungus&oldid=1260399741"