Talk:Phellinus ellipsoideus

previous MUCH find
at least ten years ago scientists found an underground fungus west of chicago * they moved a few miles east and again took DNA samples * they were identical * of course i have no references * 184.74.68.171 (talk)grumpy
 * You're probably referring to Armillaria gallica. While that one was larger in terms of the largest individual organism, this one has a far, far larger fruit body than the mushrooms that species produces. A comparison would be that a large oak tree is bigger than a large apple tree, but apples are bigger than acorns. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mushroom or not?
My recent edit calling a polypore a mushroom was reverted with the edit summary "It isn't a type of mushroom- a polypore and a mushroom are both examples of fruit bodies, but they are of different structures."

Well, okay, but I got that mushroom claim by clicking on polypore and reading its opening sentences: "Polypores are a group of tough, leathery poroid mushrooms similar to boletes, but typically lacking a distinct stalk. The technical distinction between the two types of mushrooms is that polypores do not have the spore-bearing tissue continuous along the entire underside of the mushroom." So does that need to be changed?

Also, the edit summary statement that "a polypore and a mushroom are both examples of fruit bodies" seems to conflict with the statement in sentence 2 of this article that "the species produces brown, woody fruit bodies" -- so is a polypore a fruit body, or does it produce them? Duoduoduo (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (tl;dr- Both.) Ok, there are essentially two meanings of "polypore". A "polypore" (type 1) may be any one of a number of species/genera/etc which come under the (non-scientific) umberella term because they produce polypores (type 2) (equally, any number of species may be called "fish", though there is no real scientific definition). A polypore (type 2) is a type of fruit body in a particular shape (see the pictures in the polypore article). For comparison, if I use the term "blackberry", I may be referring to a small berry, or I may be referring to a plant which produces them. However, this question is further complicated by the fact that "mushroom" can mean a number of things (again, none of which are, strictly, technical terms). A mushroom may be a generic name for fungal species (or, more likely, specific fungal species that produce that particular fruit body) or it may be a name for a certain type of fruit body (Amanita muscaria being the architypal "mushroom" shape). It could, alternatively, be a layman's term for a fruit body generally (or perhaps just more generally than just those of the "standard" form), but, for instance, I doubt many would want to call Xylaria hypoxylon fruit bodies "mushrooms". In this last sense of "mushroom", we might call polypores (type 2) mushrooms (and I think anyone who corrected you would be just being picky), but, in the opening line of the article, I was using the term to mean type 1- I was referring to "Fomitiporia ellipsoidea", a species, not "fruit bodies of Fomitiporia ellipsoidea". Hope that clears things up a little. The opening line has now been changed again, and is hopefully more layman friendly :) J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Photograph?
The accompanying photograph looks like the fungus is about six inches long on the underside of a tree trunk; it doesn't look like a 427 inch fruiting body as the caption indicates. Is this the wrong photo? Gruhl (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's the correct photo- the fungus is the orangey-brown mass all the way along the underside of the trunk and extending beyond the edges of the photograph. Are you perhaps mistaking a chunk taken from the fungus (see a close up and one of the researchers holding the chunk) for the fungus itself? Try viewing the photograph at full size to get an idea for how big this thing is! J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that was just exposed wood, that the bark had come off. Thanks. Gruhl (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"One specimen"/"a specimen" (first paragraph)
The version by J Milburn is not optimum. Regardless of how something "reads" (which is entirely subjective) "..a specimen of which.." in general English discourse means "any specimen", while "..one specimen of which.." without further qualification means "one particular specimen", which is the meaning being sought. Meaning is paramount: therefore, I am reverting to my version. Harfarhs (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If I say "Tom Jones has numerous releases; an example is "It's Not Unusual".", I'm not saying "Any example of Tom Jones's releases is "It's Not Unusual"." Would you really say that I was wrong and should instead be saying "Tom Jones has numerous releases; one example is "It's Not Unsual"."? As far as I can see, both work. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your example is OK, but not all English sentences permit each construction to be used with the same clarity. A good example is the one which we are disputing over! Harfarhs (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've honestly not come across the rule to which you're referring. Does it appear in any style guides? J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)