Talk:Cordyceps militaris

Paragraph removed
This paragraph under 'Distribution area' did not make sense, and even if it did, it would not belong in this article (but perhaps in the page for the Cordyceps genus).

"The fruit body of Cordyceps orangutan grows on chestnut worm larvae, under the canopy of forest chestnut trees. The fruiting body cluster has up to 15 fruiting bodies that have developed to the sporulation stage, the fruit body clusters are dark orange yellow, the body is hollow. The average size is from 2.5-3cm/body[10]"

Firstly, Cordyceps orangutan is not a thing. Secondly, the description appears to be of some other mushroom besides Cordyceps militaris, as the description for C. militaris has already been given in the appropriate place on this page (under 'Description'). The only reference to a Cordyceps species parasitizing a chestnut worm that I could find was a reference to Cordyceps fumosorosea in the article 'Fungi Associated with Horse-Chestnut Leaf Miner Moth Cameraria ohridella Mortality' on mdpi.com. Anyway, I took out this paragraph because it was confusing to have two descriptions of different species plus an apparent mistranslation.

Commercial Cultivation
Cordyceps militaris is now cultivated by scientists and a few commercial growers, and this should be mentioned in the article, but sourcing on this is thin. There is this article about cultivation in Vietnam and an article about cultivation in Indonesia, but I couldn't find any high quality refs or scholarly review articles.Dialectric (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Organismal Diversity
— Assignment last updated by Monsteramom (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m going to be a little too strict here, partly because it’s a cold morning and I’m hungry (sorry!). Ahem,, some comments:
 * You left a bing link in the ecology section. Not cool, honest mistake though.
 * The ecology and research sections have somewhat borked spelling/formatting/capitalization/italicization of C. militaris.
 * The research section also has some issues with WP:MEDRS — we try to be stricter with medical claims here. But honestly, the other parts of the article also has that issue, so not really your fault if that’s what yours trying to emulate.
 * The ecology section has a great first paragraph. The second is a little bit shaky: the two sources don’t specifically concern this species.
 * I will fix those sometime — right now I’m on a phone. Just don’t have any hope about it being anytime soon, I’m known to procrastinate and forget.
 * Artoria2e5 🌉 03:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)