Talk:Fungus

Suggest moving two paragraphs about taxonomy

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)

Remove Chromista from lead para

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

How about:

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

Reasonably concise and covers the main alternative traditional schemes.—  Jts1882 | talk  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.) Petr Karel (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

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

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

Organization and Writing Quality

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)

Fungi is multicellular or unicellular

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

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)

When was Fungi classified as separate from Plants?

Suggestions:

• 1. Change sentence about mycology "In the past..." to: "Despite Fungi being classified separately from plants as early as 1860, Fungi didn't get their own Kingdom until the Five kingdoms model in 1969."

We don't actually have a source saying Mycology is no longer a part of Botany at all, much less since when, and that is really the problem of the Mycology article, not the Fungus article. For what it's worth, they just cite Whittaker 1969 the same as Fungus and Kingdom (biology) even though that paper doesn't actually say either of the 2 things they say it says... They don't have a source either. Leave the problem in 1 spot so it only has to be fixed 1 time.

• 2. Reduce usage of vague references to past time periods in this article and replace them with dates when possible.
• 3. Restructure #Taxonomy to have a better flow and less repetition. And to put more if it in layman's terms, if possible.
• 4. Improve Kingdom (biology) to make it a little more clear what was going on the the classification of Fungi prior to the 5 Kingdoms model.
• 5. Remove Fungus#Mycology and link to Mycology instead.

Sorry to resurrect this archived topic, but while it did get a couple good responses, the problem with the article was not addressed. Perhaps I was not clear enough: I'm not bringing this up on a Wikipedia talk page just to discuss it, that is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. The sentence in the article SUCKS REALLY BAD and should be improved. Some relevant information was brought to light in the archived topic, but I'm not sure the best way to integrate it, and hoping to get some feedback before I try to make changes.

The sentence: "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."

This sentence is superficially exactly the information I was looking for, so I was quite thankful to find it right at the beginning. "Are fungi plants or animals?" is probably a totally great question to address right at the beginning in simple language. However, this sentence has several problems: 1. "In the past" and "it is now know" are vague and contextual time references. They don't belong in an Encyclopedia and mean almost nothing in the context of a wiki article. 2. It could easily be misinterpreted to mean that fungi are in the animal kingdom. 3. No source cited. No link to further details. Last sentence of a paragraph. It hits a literary dead end before it actually conveys any information.

As it is part of the intro, being superficial could be totally appropriate. And as it is a superficial conclusion of information that is presumably in the article, maybe it doesn't really need a proper citation. But it needs some kind of flow or link to where the information is discussed in detail and there IS a proper citation, and it needs to not be misleading.

Graham Beards pointed out that it is discussed more under Fungus#Taxonomy which leads with a sentence of nearly identical meaning but replaces ambiguous statements about taxonomy with jargon. So all the same problems. It cites a source from 2008. This is not when Fungi got reclassified. This section meanders around and mentions some more dates, but it's really not that well structured and heavy on jargon so you might think that Fungi got it's own kingdom in 2007, which is not true. Actually, none of the dates in this section are when Fungi got it's own kingdom. I don't think the answer is in the Fungus article at all. Considering the Fungi Kingdom was invented right around the same time as the internet, and not "in the past", this seems like a major oversight. Why was this issue archived without being addressed?!

Petr Karel suggested Whittaker's 1969 paper in Science for Fungi getting their own kingdom. I skimmed that paper, agree with Petr's interpretation of it, and subsequently found https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)#Five_kingdoms which states the same. Linking back to that article stub could be a good way to keep Fungus concise and avoid repetition.

---

From archive: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Fungus/Archive_4#h-When_was_Fungi_classified_as_seperate_from_Plants?-20230316103600

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)

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

When did this happen? – I think the first system with Kingdom Fungi separated from plants was the system of R. H. Whittaker from 1969 ([8]; [9]; [10]) but there may be some older reference. --Petr Karel (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Flasher702 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)