Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi

The article seems to be written largely about the disease, Dothistroma/red band needle blight (DNB) and not about D. septosporum. Furthermore, several sources D. septosporum and D. pini seem to mention that both are causal agents of DNB. However, the article lacks a mention of D. pini. I wonder as to what action should be taken or whether I've mistook something as an outsider with no experience in mycology. Hope I wa clear. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC).

As a bit of context, @EnIRtpf09b responded to my reward board request for improving the D. septosporum article. We're unsure if DNB should get its own article or if it's fine to discuss it under its most notorious agent. Barbalalaika 🐌 07:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was directed here from the Teahouse, and I think this may be the place I need. In reviewing recent changes earlier, I came across a TA making questionable edits to various articles, including several fungi articles. I don't know nearly enough about fungi or how articles about them are typically structured on Wikipedia, so I could only evaluate the edits so much. What concerned me the most was that in some instances, the TA was adding information about edibility without citing any sources or trying to explain what support they had for making the edits. The TA is blocked now and all of their edits have been reverted, but some of the article histories had identical edits from another TA, and some of those are still current.

Would it be possible for editors with this project to review the edits of the other TA and either support them or remove them appropriately? Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

(Just wanted to update and say that both of the TA accounts in question have been blocked and their edits reverted, so reviewing affected pages may no longer be necessary at the moment.) Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 23:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Gymnopilus, usually pronounced gym-nop-ih-lus, had previously been placed into the families Agaricaceae, Cortinariaceae, Strophariaceae, and Hymenogastraceae at different times. It has also been referred to as a clade called Gymnopilae. There is also a plural form rarely utilized for this genus called Gymnopoli. In April, 2026, it's taxonomic position changed again, moving it into the family Galerinaceae. Please see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13081892/ ~2026-29847-68 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for this. This paper has much larger implications than just Gymnopilus, but for a number of other taxa in the Agaricales. In terms of my own opinions on fungal taxonomy, this publication seems to continue the trend of excessive splitting that characterizes so much taxonomic work (my own bias is, in situations where the actual phylogenetics don't demand reclassification, to maintain nomenclatural continuity). But that's neither here nor there. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The redirects sulphur lichen and sulfur lichen currently target different articles (Gyalolechia bracteata and Fulgensia respectively). At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 1#Sulfur lichen there is a proposal to synchronise them so they lead to the same article, but input from those with subject matter knowledge is required to determine what the best target is (or whether they should be kept as is). Please leave your comments at the linked discussion rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw Engyodontium aranearum on WP:POPULARSTUBS and tried to expand it slightly, but it'd benefit from attention from somebody who knows what they're doing in this area. Somebody must have linked to it on Reddit or something - it got 77k views a few days ago. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia (not to reading articles, I have done that for ages—I only just started a new account and have no idea how to get around through this). I was recommended to check WikiProject Fungi by a user on the Teahouse—and everyone there was so kind.

I was only wondering how this WikiProject worked, and if there was anyway I could help? Thank you to anyone who could share some tips and information! (: AnglophileMycologist (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Disclaimer : I do want to state that, despite my misleading username, I am in no way an authority in mycology or any associated science. I am just a teenager who really likes fungi and is only mildly obsessed with citations. AnglophileMycologist (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a WikiProject where people categorize, contribute to, and collaborate on articles relating to the kingdom Fungi. This WikiProject is not as active as it was in the 2000s and the 2010s, but there still are a few users (including myself) keeping it alive. You can help by contributing to this WikiProject by editing Fungi-related articles, either by fixing grammar mistakes or creating new articles. You might enjoy working on Fungi you have seen in-person. In my case, that was Pholiota multicingulata, a mushroom species found in my local area. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch Thank you! I hope I do get the chance to contribute to this project! ~2026-40811-89 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

How to contribute is very much up to you. The most useful thing you could do would probably be to write new articles for species, or expand short existing articles for species. But not everybody wants to write/expand articles; I don't do that very much myself.

I saw you asked about Commons images at the Teahouse; any images on Commons are fair game to use on Wikipedia. I don't really have the workflow figured out myself, but it should be possible to figure out an efficient way to determine which articles lack images, but have an image available on Commons. A prerequisite to adding images efficiently would be making sure that Category:Wikipedia requested images of fungi is up-to-date; there are surely articles in that category that already have images, and there is a tool to find articles that are marked as needing images but already have them.

There are genus articles with outdated or incomplete lists of species. There are categories that could be refined. This report shows a variety of issues in articles that should be addressed.

If there any particular tasks you are interested in working on, people should be able to provide some advice on how to accomplish them efficiently, but you will need to decide what you want to be doing. Plantdrew (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thank you too! ~2026-40811-89 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Once you feel confident enough, there's a lot of work to be done regarding recent taxonomical changes resulting from genetic sequencing. Sometimes it's simply updating species names; in other cases multiple new articles need to be created when a single former species is split into multiple. I've got some work planned for PNW species of Agaricus and Xerocomellus (I created the stub for Agaricus deardorffensis as my first article because it was very simple to do). There's also the question of what to do about Amanita cf. chrysoblema, née muscaria var. flavivolvata. I'm still waiting for the dust to settle before I attempt anything on that one! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way - assuming you're AnglophileMycologist, please try to remember to log in to your account before replying. It helps everyone keep track of who they're talking to. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

To start, I'm not a mycologist so I have no clue why there's two stages. Sphaceloma sacchari is the asexual stage of Elsinoë sacchari. Do they need two different articles? I'm assuming they're the same species? And if only one article is needed, which one should be kept? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ARandomName123:, there should only be one article. Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph#One fungus, one name is an over view of what's going on with these names. Per Index Fungorum, the article should be at Elsinoë sacchari (Mycobank says both names are accepted, which is no help).

My brain breaks every time I try to figure out how the one fungus, one name principle is supposed to actually work. On the one hand, "all names now compete on an equal footing for priority"; one the other hand "no anamorph-typified name should be taken up to displace a widely used teleomorph-typified name". There are also supposed to be lists published specifying which name to use, but these lists basically don't exist yet.

Sphaceloma sacchari was published in 1957, Elsinoë sacchari was published in 1964. By priority, the name should be Sphaceloma sacchari, but that is an anamorph (asexual) name, not a teleomorph (sexual) name. If the teleomorph name was published first, it is pretty clear that it is the name to use. It is not clear to me how to resolve things when the anamorph name was published first.

In this case, I think we can follow Index Fungorum and have the article at Elsinoë sacchari. Plantdrew (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'll BLAR the Sphaceloma sacchari article to Elsinoe sacchari. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Question on where this now-defunct name should redirect. It currently links to the precedent name of A. moelleri - however, that is the European species. As I understand it praeclaresquamosus was initially defined as the North American counterpart, when they first started to realize that our doppelgangers are not in fact the same things, but since then the similar NA versions have been split into at least four different species, and praeclaresquamosus was abandoned entirely for reasons I don't understand. Anyone have a better idea for how to handle it? Most of the mushrooms I've previously heard called that are now A. buckmacadooi or deardorffensis, but it may have also been used in different regions where those don't occur. A. placomyces is the east coast version. Would a dab be useful? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It appears to have been published as a replacement name for a European species that initially was named as a homonym (protologue on BHL). A disambiguation page could be useful; you can tag it with the template {{Species Latin name disambiguation}}. 02:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. If I'm reading it correctly that publication describes North American specimens, but claims to be synonymous with the European A. meleagris as described in 1925, but NOT the collection from 1860, but our article for A. moelleri lists meleagris from 1946 (and placomyces from 1878). Based on either of those dates meleagris should take priority over both moelleri (1976) and praeclaresquamosus (1979). Unless that original collection was actually Macropsalliota meleagris, née Leucoagaricus meleagris,

née Agaricus meleagris. In either case it appears praeclaresquamosus was actually a synonym for placomyces, given the location specimens were from, though clearly no one knew that at the time (and placomyces should have taken priority for all of them until they were differentiated...)

And this is why I'm not a biologist. My head hurts. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the synonyms on Species Fungorum, my interpretation is as follows:

• The redirect to Agaricus moelleri is correct as the synonyms of Agaricus moelleri Wasser include Agaricus praeclaresquamosus A.E. Freeman 1979 and Agaricus meleagris (Jul. Schäff.) Imbach 1946, i.e. Freeman's replacement name and the name being replaced.
• The synonyms of Agaricus moelleri also include Agaricus placomyces var. meleagris (Jul. Schäff.) M.M. Moser 1967 and Agaricus placomyces var. meleagris (Jul. Schäff.) R. Pascual 1987, but not other varieties of Agaricus placomyces, which are synonymised with Agaricus placomyces Peck (1878) [1876], which is an accepted species excluding the meleagris variety.
• The epithet meleagris doesn't take priority over moelleri (1976) and praeclaresquamosus (1979) because it it was used earlier for Agaricus meleagris Sowerby 1799, which is why Freeman created the replacement name. Agaricus meleagris Sowerby 1799 is now a synonym of Mesopsalliota meleagris .

 —  Jts1882 | talk  07:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My original concern regarding the redirect is the disconnect between the true synonyms now that speciation is more or less settled vs how the name was actually used in practice, prior to sequencing clearing things up. People who used it for North American specimens would likely want to find the correct species for their region. Dab is probably the best way to handle that - the rest is just my brain getting bogged down in the mud.

I'll also note that Agaricus meleagris currently redirects to A. moelleri as well, and if we're going to maintain that we should probably at least add a {{Did you mean}} for Macropsalliota meleagris, which appears to need updating (AGAIN) to Mesopsalliota instead, and while we're at it we should check on the dozen or so other synonyms that exist for some dang reason. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And I still don't understand where the 1860 and 1925 references Freeman mentioned fit in! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

1925 is Schäffer's original description of Psalliota meleagris Jul. Schäff., Z. Pilzk. 4(2): 28 (1925)  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The other publication listed Agaricus for both dates - 1925 as a synonym, 1860 as the now-reclassified homonym. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The 1860 is A. meleagris Sow., ex Berkeley Outl. Brit. Fung. 101. 1860 The "ex." indicates that Sowerby's 1799 description wasn't properly published and that Berkeley (1860) rectified this. Not sure if Sowerby's description is now considered valid or if Species Fungorum doesn't use the ex. convention.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Still confused by some of the other discrepancies, but none are actually relevant to the redirect - just yet another of my futile attempts to make sense of taxonomical logic. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)