Talk:Morchella

Untitled

Hello- I thought Morels were called "Land Fish" not because they taste like fish, rather because when fishermen go fishing they sometimes find Morels INSTEAD of fish... so when they go back home they can say "we only caught Land Fish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.205.130 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pretty sure thats the reason some people call them that. I'm sort of shocked no one has mentioned the name that I Hear them called in Kentucky & Tennessee, "Peckerheads".Paganize (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The image that was formerly up on the Morel page was in fact not a morel, but in the verpa genus, which can be dangerous to consume. I tried to change the image, but it didn't work, so now there's no image! Can someone with more experience post an appropriate image here?

How about the one I've posted, though I ate it already? Was it edible?-ComSpex 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That one doesn't look like any morel I've seen. --Evice 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What is that about Miley Cyrus?? Could we have a source if it is true?

Morchella as a cash crop

Could we add more information about the Value of Morchella Mushrooms, I think I read some place that they can be worth a lot of Money, I think it would be worth addiding what a lb of Morchella Mushrooms cost. Max 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not farmable?

Why not farmable?

Because they are mycorrhizal with trees and the ecology of that relationship is not completely understood. As I understand it. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger of dryland fish

As far as I can tell, the dryland fish is merely a common name for morel, so I would support a merge. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Overhauling

I removed the lengthy section on Gyromitra (false morel) and poisoning therefrom by MMH because this is already covered very nicely in Gyromitra esculenta, plus it's not particularly germaine to the Morchella genus. I also think that M. esculenta (at the very least) should have its own page and not merely a redirect to here; I'll do this later if there's no objections. I also changed the Wikiproject Fungi assessment from start to C.

Comments?

Sasata (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem removing redundant info better located elsewhere. With regards to species-level articles for morels, from what I understand (mainly from Kuo) the traditional, morphologically-based species do not necessarily match the genetic phylogeny. Until this is resolved, I would be hesitant to write species-level articles for fungi that are not clearly distinct species. I suppose if this was explained and the article was written with an explicit focus on the morphological group, that would be fine, but I would be inclined to name it "yellow morel" or something, rather than the soon-to-be (if not already) obsolete "Morchella esculenta". But I'm not a taxonomist, so what do I know? I guess I can't complain about quality content added to Wikipedia, as long as it is located someplace that makes sense. And I'm sure there are multiple ways to go about this. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Update on taxonomy & species:

As briefly explained under "Classification", the longstanding problems with Morchella taxonomy have slowly but surely begun to resolve, where necessary by the molecular testing of holotypes (where these exist and are not too old to be tested), or by the appointment of neotypes or epitypes in cases the types do not exist or are too old to yield molecular data, or by the description of new taxa for phylogenetic lineages not linked to old species.

There is clearly a lot more work to be done, but Kuo's paper (and proposed new species) in 2012 unfortunately suffered from two serious problems: (1) The study did not take into account any previously described European taxa assuming an absolute continental endemism (now proven not to be absolute, see "transcontinental species");

and (2) Clowez's study (which was published a couple of months earlier) takes priority, which has resulted in many of Kuo's species ending up being synonyms either to Clowez's new species (eg M. exuberans, M. ulmaria, M. sceptriformis), or to old European taxa (eg M. tridentina, M. eximia, and most likely M. elata, which is probably the earliest name for Mel-10/importuna, although the latter is not yet resolved).

Most of the revisions, epityfications and neotypifications were published in Richard et al. 2014 (following Clowez's & Kuo's papers) in an international study which resolved the names of 30 of the 68 or so phylospecies so far. M. tridentina (=M. frustrata, =M. quercus-ilicis, =M. elatoides etc) was subsequently resolved in Loizides et al. 2015.

The species not yet phylogenetically resolved are listed in the category "Unresolved classification". Actually M. elata should be there too.

Reg. M. esculenta (the type species for the genus), this has been neotypified in Richard et al. as Mes-8, so that's set in concrete.

Unfortunately, Kuo's site [1] has not been updated to include any of the recent updates/synonymities/revisions since his publication in 2012, which adds to the confusion. Most of these discrepancies are now fixed on the Wikipedia page i believe, and the article is up to date. What remains to be done is to update the individual species pages in tune with current taxonomy/phylogeny and create new ones for the recently proposed taxa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.115.89 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

M.

Introductory Line

I am concerned that the statement in the first line calling morels "mushrooms" will be misleading to scientific laypeople. While it is colloquially acceptable to refer to the fruiting body of the morel as a mushroom, it is technically an ascocarp.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord of Cocytus (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with substituting "fungi" for "mushroom" in the introduction, as the two terms are interchangeable to laypeople but would be more accurate to those of us scientifically inclined. Is the word "mushroom" scientifically defined to be a basidiocarp? -- BlueCanoe (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tone or style may not be appropriate?

Thumperward added the "tone" tag to the article; I am interested to hear what specific concerns they or others may have. To me, this article, while far from perfect, reads more or less like a mid-quality Wikipedia article, balancing between a scientific and a layperson's viewpoint. I don't understand what the "tone" issue is with this article. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cooking section has a decidedly informal tone, and moreover, is unclear and self-contradictory. Should they be canned, or shouldn't they? If not, why not? What should be added to 16oz of water to preserve the color? What's the URL for the morel section of the USDA food preservation website? What do insect eggs have to do specifically with morels? I'm going to eliminate some of this excess verbiage. Keno (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tone seems fine. Tag removed. Morrem (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we add seasonality information?

I read the morchella entry for the sole purpose of determining when fresh morels could be purchased. This would be the time that fruiting bodies appear in North America. I could not find this information.

Becalmed (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?

From the Cooking section: "It has been reported that even cooked morels can sometimes cause mild intoxication symptoms when consumed with alcohol" Wouldn't ANYTHING consumed with alcohol have potential for intoxication?? This sentence seems absurd to me. Kap 7 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Culinary

I read pretty much the entire article, and I still could not find which morels are *most commonly* used for culinary purposes. Yellow ones? Black ones? One of the 80 subspecies listed? 46.254.129.49 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)