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

	Fungus 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 25, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 22, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
	This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 16, 2006.
Current status: Featured article

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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Microbiology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tree of Life Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Fungus (51 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 8,835 8,835 Etymology 4,464 4,464 Characteristics 6,737 6,737 Diversity 3,353 3,353 Mycology 1,293 3,155 History 1,862 1,862 Morphology 16 4,333 Microscopic structures 2,775 2,775 Macroscopic structures 1,542 1,542 Growth and physiology 3,708 3,708 Reproduction 1,014 13,336 Asexual reproduction 917 917 Sexual reproduction 4,310 4,310 Spore dispersal 4,286 4,286 Homothallism 2,106 2,106 Other sexual processes 703 703 Evolution 9,714 9,714 Taxonomy 13,331 23,708 Taxonomic groups 7,132 7,132 Fungus-like organisms 3,245 3,245 Ecology 740 17,260 Symbiosis 452 14,296 With plants 2,589 2,589 With algae and cyanobacteria 2,190 2,190 With insects 3,787 3,787 As parasites 2,336 2,336 As pathogens 1,831 1,831 As targets of mycoparasites 1,111 1,111 Communication 1,432 1,432 Possible impact on climate 792 792 Mycotoxins 2,127 2,127 Pathogenic mechanisms 2,582 2,582 Human use 4,433 19,279 Therapeutic uses 600 4,496 Modern chemotherapeutics 171 3,896 Antibiotics 1,605 1,605 Other 2,120 2,120 Traditional medicine 1,082 1,082 Cultured foods 1,048 1,048 In food 1,952 1,952 Poisonous fungi 1,979 1,979 Pest control 2,009 2,009 Bioremediation 557 557 Model organisms 1,169 1,169 Others 554 554 See also 256 256 References 15 79,953 Citations 78,452 78,452 Cited literature 1,486 1,486 Further reading 479 479 External links 1,406 1,406 Total 204,685 204,685

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. 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 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, [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]