Talk:Gyromitra esculenta

message: This is inappropriate for the front page because of the grotesque picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.255.234 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Switching the picture to a Nintendo character is inappropriate, yes? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate/Disgusting

message: Unfortunately, I don't have a reference... but I remember a speaker at a talk on wild mushrooms saying that there HAVE been cases of fatal toxicity, apparently associated with eating "properly prepared" Gyromitria spp.  It seems some people can eat them for years with no ill effects, and others will eventually die after eating them several times.  Doesn't seem worth the risk to me.  I am attempting to contact the speaker to ask him to edit the Wiki.  In either case, would someone please include a citation for the assertation that "all toxicities have been associated with eating raw Gyromitria."
PS - dead right on the "false morel."  These can refer to Verpa bohimica or any of at least 3 Gyromitria species:  G. esculenta, G. gigas, and G. infula. 
Revdrace (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better safe

message: Having done a pretty extensive search on the web, it appears that Gyromitra species in particular are NOT edible, although people may not exhibit poisoning symptoms for years. Then they may suddenly keel over dead. The page as it stands is not exactly wrong, but gives the impression that gyromitras are edible and choice, which my reading indicates is not true. In particular, the statement about it being individual sensitivity rather than toxin levels in individual mushrooms is unsubstantiated. What I am finding indicates that scientists are unsure what factor or factors cause this variability, and most sites that include scientific or medical research caution against eating G. species, terming them poisonous. I will change this entry to reflect this if no evidence is forthcoming. Deirdre 23:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've eaten alot of these when I grew up in the northen part of sweden. We always sun drieded them before eating them though. Wouldn't that take care of the poison? - ThrBigD
Not from what I've read. You're eating a substance that turns into rocket fuel after you ingest it. Sun drying may remove some of the toxin, as does cooking, but apparently not all, and it's clearly a carcinogen, among other things. I gather that in some places now in Scandinavia they are starting to warn against eating Gyromitras. It's a hard one to determine, because the results for human beings are so variable. Some people have died of causes that are clearly traceable to the mushroom, but what of others dying of cancer, or organ failure late in life? That's not clearly connected, and it may or may not be due to the mushrooms. I'm of the more cautious persuasion when it comes to mushrooms. Deirdre 01:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems that many people can eat many Gyromitria over many years and not experience any symptoms that they would associate with eating the mushroom.  You can tolerate a considerable amount of kidney and liver damage before you get sick.  There are lots of "unknowns" - how sensitive are you, personally, to the toxin?  How much toxin is in the mushrooms that grow in your area?  How much of it did you remove when you parboiled it?  Since we cannot know the answer to any of these questions, the general recommendation is to avoid them.  While it is certainly true that life is full of risks and for some the pleasure of a good meal may be worth some (probably small) risk of long-term organ failure or cancer, I feel strongly that the Wiki article should advise caution until more is known about the risk presented by the Gyromitria.  How can they sell this mushroom when it is potentially dangerous?  Simple:  there's no law against it (nor should there be, in my opinion, but a warning label wouldn't hurt).  I bet they sell cigarettes too.  ;)  Seriously, the information on toxicity is relatively new and probably hasn't crawled its way into the minds of those who set the food safety rules.  Revdrace (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangerous info here

message: Removed the text: "To that end, it is a very rare mushroom, and not likely to be consumed more than once a year." - just ain't so, as evidenced by the Discussion comment just above this one.  I've certainly found plenty of them in Washington state as well.  Also added some updated information on toxicity in the introduction, so as to give the casual reader the impression that the edibility of this mushroom is strongly disputed.Revdrace (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, I would have done that myself but got well and truly sidetracked. I was musing on getting this article to GA at some point...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Safe pt II

message: Contentwise, great job on tidying toxicity & symptoms. Now:
*issues with chronic consumption (?)
*need to tidy and clarify where this fungus is consumed, just Gt Lakes, Finland and Pyrenees or elsewhere? I'll look into sources.
*One book mentions research into cultivation of gyromitrin-free strains commerically as it is not too hard to cultivate.
*Need to clarify classification. Discinaceae is a redlink and I am not too sure whether it remains in that family.
Add more content issues here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do list 

message: Ive removed the following which I was unable to ref properly, or needed a bit of a rewrite or weren't essential to a WP:GAN. I (or anyone else) can play with and add them later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bits 

message: I'd recommend fixing the first sentence in the lead, which has "by some".  Not only the passive voice, but kind of employs WP:weasel wording.  Is there a concise way to say by whom or in what culture or context it's enjoyed? Or could the sentence be reworded to omit the "by some"? delldot on a public computer talk 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is tricky, I was going to replace 'by some' with where it is eaten, but that is covered in the next para. I think the lead will have to be rejigged but I note there is a GA review happening at the moment, so I will combine changing this with addressing points that come up with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good :-)  I bet there's some way to rewrite the sentence that would make 'by some' unnecessary though.  delldot on a public computer talk 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think you're right. A work in progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor fix 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass, though alot of jargon, medical terminology and complicated language did have to be re-written per WP:Jargon
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Million_Moments (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I am a medical doctor so I will sometimes read jargon forgetting it may not be immediately accessible to others. I am happy for all help in de-jargonising it :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well luckily I live with medics so knew what the words meant lol. Million_Moments (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: General notes:
* many sentences start with "it is [passive verb] by [person or object]", which can sometimes be phrased into "[person or object] [active verb] it" (trying. tell me if I need to do more)
* an IP had resently told me that one of my articles is not authoritative enough since I always said "reviewers interpreted and reported it as such and such" instead of saying "it is such and such". The mushroom article tends to do the same, e.g. "has been described as fruity"
::(I have had the same, but have had the reverse if a study 'x' showed something that wasn't repeated in a monograph or comprehensive review/secondary source - then have been told to say 'the study found 'x' rather than make a blanket statement. requires some discretion and a good level of familiarity and common sense)
Prose improvement possibilities:
* "which can reach 10 cm (4 in) high and 15 cm (6 in) wide, perched on a stout white stalk up to 6 cm (2½ in) high." - awkward reading for me, since I expect(ed) a noun after "(6 in)" (I am not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?)
* "fatal if eaten raw, it is described by aficionados as one of the best of all culinary mushrooms. It is popular in Scandinavia..." - "...aficionados describe it as..." or "...it is one of the most culinary mushrooms..." or just "fatal if eaten raw, it is a popular delicacy in Scandinavia" Good call, I trimmed it and removed an 'it' at the same time, is this what you had in mind?
* "There may be liver and kidney involvement in severe cases" - "Severe cases may affect the liver and kidney" I reworded this entirely as the clauses didn't go logically together on re-reading.
* "when placed in the genus Gyromitra by the Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries in 1849" - "when the Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries placed it in the genus Gyromitra in 1849" done, now where was I....
* "many sources recommend" - I'm not sure whether "source" is the right word It is a bit general so I changed 'sources' to 'guidebooks' as that is what everyone uses and is still consistent with the source (of the info) (authorities/experts a better word?)
* paragraph "Gyromitra esculenta is a member of a group..." suffers from also-itis said alsos excised. Well spotted.
* "Initially smooth" - the text just referred to size, and it is not clear that it now refers to time done. I rejigged this bit a bit
* "Those from California have been reported as often more reddish-brown in colour" - "California specimen often have a more reddish-brown in colour." rejigged
* header "Description" - the whole article is a description, so what does the section really describe? Appearance? Characteristics? (aha, this has been much debated in biology articles, with the consensus settling on Description, which I have then used in bird, fungi, dinosaur and plant articles. In guidebooks it generally means attributes - i.e. physical appearance, and also call (for birds) or smell/taste/bruising with fungi. Adding the adjective physical is cumbersome and is already implied in the noun I find. It is good in that it is a little more encompassing than mere appearance, yet not as diffuse as characteristics. I acknowledge this has been a tricky area and has been the subject of much discussion....)
* "although it prefers the former" - work into the previous subsentence via "most often" and "occasionally" etc. done
* "It is an early mushroom" - not sure what this means or if this is a widely-used phrase. IMO, the following text ("the hunting period is from April to July") already implies it can be found early in the year It was in a book. Tried to tweak it to note that it comes before other fungi (which appear in July/Autumn)
* "Toxic reactions were known from the early 20th century at least, though the wide range in effects meant that some experts speculated the reaction was more of an allergic one related to the consumer, or misidentification, rather than innate toxicity of the fungus." - "Knowledge of toxic reactions dates back to the early 20th century at least, although experts initially speculated that its wide range in effects was caused by allergic reactions related to the consumer, or misidentification, rather than innate toxicity of the fungus." massaged it a bit, and got some input from Tony.
* "Some would suffer" - "Some consumers suffered" now this one is tricky, as consumers (in a noun sense) has come to really mean consumers of goods rather than of food. I am thinking about alternatives but it is tricky to think of a word for 'eater' that doesn't sound odd.
* "At one time up to 23%" - better say the year or the decade for clarity if possible (I'll have to dig that one up again)
::The reference, Lampe, just states: In Poland, for example, 23% of mushroom fatalities each year have been attributed to this species. He references Szepietowski T, Listopad J. 1971. Ostra niewydolnosc nerek po zatruciu piestrzenicta. Pol. Tyg. Lek. 26: 1551. Would need to learn Polish and track down that reference or perhaps before 1971? Mr Bungle | talk 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting comments from sgeureka moved here from my talkpage for convenience to work on 

message: * 
on amazon.de: http://www.amazon.de/Duden-07-Das-Herkunftsw%C3%B6rterbuch-Redewendungen/dp/3411040742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214497237&sr=8-1 (The Duden is the authority on German language.)
* Page 493: Lorchel "Faltenschwamm". Der seit dem 19. Jahrhundert bezeugte Name der Pilzart ist vermutlich nach "Morchel" aus älterem "Lorche" umgestaltet. "Lorche", in niederdeutscher Form "Lorken" (18. Jahrhundert) ist wohl eine der Unterscheidung dienende willkürliche Bildung aus "Morche" (s. Morchel). Lorcheln und Morcheln sind sehr ähnliche Pilzarten und werden häufig verwechselt.
(rough translation, excuse my poor English) Lorchel "wrinkle fungus". The name of this type of mushroom, documented since the 19th century, is presumably derived from the older "Lorche" into something more like "Morchel". "Lorche", in the Low German form "Lorken" (18th century), is presumably a arbitrary word formation from "Morche" (see Morchel) to serve differentiation. Lorcheln and Morcheln are very similar types of mushrooms and are often confused.
* Page 539: Morchel Der Name des zu der Gattung der Schlauchpilze gehörenden Speisepilze geht zurück auf mittelhochdeutsch morchel, späthochdeutsch morhala, -ila "Möhre, Waldrübe", eine Weiterbildung zu dem unter Möhre behandeltem Wort.
(rough translation) Morchel (Morchella) The name of this edible mushroom, belonging to the family of Ascomycota, originates in the Middle High German morchel, late Old High German morhala, -ila "carrot, forrest carrot", see Möhre.
Nothing in the library about any laws when the sale of this mushroom was prohibited in Germany. Some sources said however that "esculenta" means "edible", but that this mushroom must keep this name for taxonomical reasons (I am sure plenty of English sources exist for this statement). – sgeureka t•c 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! Great sleuthing. I will incorporate this in. Much appreciated! As you can see I am working my way through your notes which are very helpful. I have been wrestling with this article for a long time....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Late note: Dating from the 19th century, the German term lorchel "wrinkle fungus" is a result of the older lorche, itself from the 18th century Low German Lorken, aligning with the similar sounding (and similar looking) morchel.[10][11] - I had the impression that the etymology book said that the mushroom is a "wrinkle fungus"/"Faltenschwamm", not that the term meant "wrinkle fungus". Per http://www.zeno.org/Meyers-1905/A/Faltenschwamm , the term Faltenschwamm would align with Cantharellus  and/or Merulius (I didn't note this before as :de:Faltenschwamm brought up nothing). If you want to delve into etymology, I think it its better to approach this more from the Morchel/Morchella angle, not "wrinkle fungus". – sgeureka t•c 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the heads up. I ditched the mention of 'wrinkle fungus' as it reads ok without it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "Lorchel" 

message: The article says on several occasions that gyromitrin is metabolized to monomethylhydrazine (MMH). I don't have a source handy but, looking at the chemistry of gyromitrin, a simple hydrolysis reaction would do the trick to release MMH, without any enzymic process such as is usually implied by "metabolized". Indeed, the "Preparation" section notes that MMH may evaporate off from the parboiling water, which is exactly what you would expect from a hydrolysis of gyromitrin. Can someone with access to the sources check to see what they say? Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep you are right - it is indeed hydrolysis. My bad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolized or hydrolysed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Gyromitra esculenta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308071936/http://www.gencat.cat/salut/depsalut/html/ca/dir2155/csam_6.htm to http://www.gencat.cat/salut/depsalut/html/ca/dir2155/csam_6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225142515/http://egitim.selcuk.edu.tr/fen/yagiz/pdf/mycotaxon08-002.pdf to http://egitim.selcuk.edu.tr/fen/yagiz/pdf/mycotaxon08-002.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323134146/http://mistug.tubitak.gov.tr/bdyim/abs.php?dergi=bot&rak=97069 to http://mistug.tubitak.gov.tr/bdyim/abs.php?dergi=bot&rak=97069
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006105549/http://www.slv.se/templates/SLV_Page.aspx?id=11600&epslanguage=SV to http://www.slv.se/templates/SLV_Page.aspx?id=11600&epslanguage=SV
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706234254/http://www.slv.se/sv/Fragor--svar/Fragor-och-svar/Saker-mat/Stenmurkla---fragor-och-svar/ to http://www.slv.se/sv/Fragor--svar/Fragor-och-svar/Saker-mat/Stenmurkla---fragor-och-svar/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gyromitra esculenta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128174400/http://www.elcargol.com/bolets.htm to http://www.elcargol.com/bolets.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified