Talk:Fungus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fungus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

	This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Fungi Top‑importance project's importance scale .

	Environment High‑importance
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Fungus (50 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 8,677 8,677 Etymology 4,469 4,469 Characteristics 6,710 6,710 Diversity 3,447 3,447 Mycology 1,291 3,174 History 1,883 1,883 Morphology 18 4,370 Microscopic structures 2,808 2,808 Macroscopic structures 1,544 1,544 Growth and physiology 3,781 3,781 Reproduction 1,016 13,378 Asexual reproduction 928 928 Sexual reproduction 4,321 4,321 Spore dispersal 4,302 4,302 Homothallism 2,106 2,106 Other sexual processes 705 705 Evolution 9,841 9,841 Taxonomy 13,359 23,860 Taxonomic groups 7,259 7,259 Fungus-like organisms 3,242 3,242 Ecology 742 17,103 Symbiosis 454 14,134 With plants 2,552 2,552 With algae and cyanobacteria 2,220 2,220 With insects 3,852 3,852 As pathogens and parasites 3,928 3,928 As targets of mycoparasites 1,128 1,128 Communication 1,433 1,433 Possible impact on climate 794 794 Mycotoxins 2,139 2,139 Pathogenic mechanisms 2,585 2,585 Human use 4,478 19,575 Therapeutic uses 26 4,579 Modern chemotherapeutics 755 4,553 Antibiotics 1,653 1,653 Other 2,145 2,145 Traditional medicine 1,123 1,123 Cultured foods 1,078 1,078 In food 1,954 1,954 Poisonous fungi 2,062 2,062 Pest control 1,998 1,998 Bioremediation 577 577 Model organisms 1,171 1,171 Others 555 555 See also 258 258 References 17 79,849 Citations 78,344 78,344 Cited literature 1,488 1,488 Further reading 497 497 External links 991 991 Total 204,704 204,704

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: RM, Fungus → Fungi, Not moved, 16 December 2007, discussion RM, Fungus → Fungi, Not moved, 24 October 2022, discussion

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Species#The isolation species concept in more detail|biological species concept]] The anchor (#The isolation species concept in more detail) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

In article: "In the past, mycology was regarded as a branch of botany, although it is now known fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants." Soucre? And when did this happen? Flasher702 (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article! It's under Taxonomy and a source is given.Graham Beards (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When did this happen? – I think the first system with Kingdom Fungi separated from plants was the system of R. H. Whittaker from 1969 ([1]; [2]; [3]) but there may be some older reference. --Petr Karel (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chromista article itself describes chromista as a proposed kingdom. Is it really appropriate to reference it here as part of a "traditional" classification? 2601:282:1780:1AEA:4E36:758F:40D2:E997 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This concerns the last sentence of the first paragraph under the headline "etymology". The sentence in question:

> […] the root is also used in other languages, such as the German Schwamm ('sponge') and Schimmel ('mold').

The hyperlinks of Schwamm and Schimmel both point here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schwamm#German

Presumably, the latter link (Schimmel) should point here instead: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schimmel#German

Much obliged, hh3k0 Hh3k0 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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; [4]) should be mentioned (at least) in the second paragraph. --Petr Karel (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• 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 [5] or earlier; then used in "

Cavalier-Smiths" system (e.g. [6]; [7]) and survived at least till his last study published 2022 ([8]). 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

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, [9]), 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 [10]); 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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

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]