Talk:Phallus impudicus

Comments
I removed the word 'amazingly' from the start of the sentence: "Amazingly, the immature stinkhorn 'egg' is enjoyed and eaten in France...". That doesn't strike me as particularly amazing, and Wikipedia should avoid sensationalist language where possible. Terraxos 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC) It may be amazing for people who do not know that immature stinkhorn egg does not stink; it has a faint odour which is not unplesant.--Georgius (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edibility & odour
Has something gone wrong with the layers in the following text, which I have replaced in the article? Are there not too many layers here?


 * Sometimes called the witch's egg, the immature stinkhorn is whitish and egg-shaped and up to 6 cm (2 in) in diameter. On the outside is a thick whitish volva, also known as the peridium, covering the brown/green gelatinous layer. Immediately underneath is a thin white inner layer known as the receptaculum, under which lies the olive coloured gleba. It is this which later stinks and attracts the flies; inside this layer is a green layer which will become the 'head' of the expanded fruit body; and inside this is a white structure (the stalk when expanded), which is hard, but with an airy structure like a sponge. The eggs become fully grown stinkhorns very rapidly, over a day or two.

Or have I misunderstood it?

I don't think that the smell is that of dung - it is much less pleasant. It is sickly sweet, sharp and stinging. I understand that it is the same as the stink of very rotten meat/carrion, but I must admit that I have never smelt meat in such an advanced state of putrefaction.

Strobilomyces 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

17th century names
while not being offensive to general readers, it strikes me that it would be interesting to know what these strange and wondrous fungi were called in the past, however bawdy their names. To allude to the names and not give them seems teasing.

The image in the tax box was of Phallus ravenelii, not P. impudicus
I took a good picture of a Phallus impudicus fruiting in my garden, and have taken the liberty of replacing the P. ravenelii image (which, incidentally, graces all of the articles regarding this Genus which I have viewed). (Note the ridge network on the upper surface of the cap, distinguishing it from the P. ravenelii; also, this specimen fruited in north-central Colorado, further confirming its identity as P. impudicus.) JFH78 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that the previous image was taken in France, where Phallus ravenelii doesn't occur, I think your morphological analysis isn't quite specific enough to convince me. Your image is obviously P. impudicus, but I think the previous one was also, albeit a young sporocarp that hadn't shed it's slime yet. By the way, you should add some information to your image (such as that it was photographed in Colorado) in order to give readers more details. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I apologize for misidentifying the species pictured in the original image, and for not bothering to check out the image's details (i.e., that it was taken in France).  Nevertheless, I think my photo is good for the tax box because it distinctly shows the fruit body's morphology, but perhaps the original image should also be included elsewhere in the article. I'm also going to add a caption to the image per your advice, DJLayton4. Thanks!  JFH78 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that your image is probably preferable as it shows the typical pits on the cap. I would just leave the article with the photos it currently has and the old one (or others) can be added once the article is expanded. No need to apologise ;) DJLayton4 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Red-topped stinkhorn
Here in Finland we have a red-topped stinkhorn, also called Phallus Impudicus. The top is a very bright carmine red. Is it a variety of this, or maybe a separate species? --Janke | Talk 07:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm by no means an expert, but given the fact that some very small differences are used within the genus to seperate species, I would imagine that a deep red cap would probably indicate a seperate species. What is your source calling the carmine-capped mushroom Phallus impudicus? Have you seen the mushroom recently or do you have a photograph? DJLayton4 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fungi books here call them that. Furthermore, they don't have a prominent "head" like in the texobox here, they're almost the same width at the top. There is a dark goo on the very top, though. Here's a photo I googled, another here, which looks more like the ones I've seen here in southern Finland, in different locations, but that was many years ago. I may have an old 35 mm slide somewhere... --Janke | Talk 17:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more googling, it appears to be Mutinus elegans... --Janke | Talk 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it might have been. The genus Mutinus is distinguished from Phallus by not having a true cap, instead the stalk is simply covered with slime towards the top. :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, case closed. --Janke | Talk 09:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

enough for one mushroom to support 133 kg?!
This is nonsense

"Phallus impudicus is able to exert enough pressure to grow through asphalt and have been calculated to produce a force of up to 1.33 kN/m2 (enough for one mushroom to support 133 kg).[7]"

"a force of up to 1.33 kN/m2" - Newton per square meter is a pressure, not a force. One mushroom could provide 1330 N of lift only if it had lifting surface area of 1m^2; which it does not. The article it links to contains this mistake too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.220.130 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Badgers?
I'm not sure what the second-to-last sentence of the "spore dispersal" paragraph means - it currently reads "the proximity to badger carcasses entices the flies to lay their eggs and help ensure that they are more quickly eliminated, removing a potential source of disease." Specifically, what does "they" refer to in "they are more quickly eliminated"? The carcasses? The flies? The eggs? Presumably not the fungi. Similarly, what would get the disease if this elimination didn't occur? Badgers, flies or fungi? Finally, "help" should be "helps" if the subject of the sentence is "proximity", but I can't say for certain whether it is as things stand. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Answered on WP:RD/S. Tevildo (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)