Talk:Amanita phalloides

Conservation status

"Status: Secure" could be misparsed as "it's secure to eat" .

.. which could prove fatal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.62.245.170 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 July 2004.

IMO anyone dumb enough to eat something called a "Death Cap" simply because the word "secure" appears on the page should probably be genetically deselected anyway... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.44.39.104 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 June 2005.

It says "Conservation status", not just "status", and as far as I can tell it has always said that, so I don't see the room for confusion. - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I was confused because old versions in edit history use a taxobox template (as do current versions of course) and it was showing the current taxobox template, not the one used back then. - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One comment. I know the 'status' indicator is to tell whether it's a endangered species/plant, but in this case there is room for misunderstandings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 January 2007

I have to agree on this -- this could especially be a problem for readers who are not fluent in English. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that other plant articles have suffered dispute at FAC for even including the "secure" status without an explicit source, it could reasonably go. Circeus (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sad Example

In 1918, 40 German boys were sent on holiday to Poland. A Polish cook on a farm cooked them a dish of Amanita phalloides. 33 boys ate it, 2 survived, 31 died. They were buried in a communal grave and are still called "mushroom children" today.

https://www.derwesten.de/staedte/castrop-rauxel/das-traurige-schicksal-der-pilzekinder-id7293421.html

Poisonous plants?

Should articles on poisonous mushrooms like (Lethal Webcaps, Death cap, destroying angel, etc) be categorized under poisonous plants? Personally, I don't think so as mushrooms do not belong to the kingdom of plants (plantae) at all, but a completely different kingdom (fungi).

So, should we remove the added categories or let them be? Comments appreciated.

Michaelll 00:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Michaelll

Rewording

I think the following section should be reworded because the first sentence and last sentence seem to be in conflict:

The poison particularly affects the liver and kidneys; frequently the only treatment for death cap poisoning is liver transplant. It is estimated that 50 grams (2 oz) of this mushroom are enough to kill a human. Poisoning can be treated by intravenous injection of silibinin dihydrogen disuccinate disodium.

Proposed revision:

The poison particularly affects the liver and kidneys. Frequently the only treatment for death cap poisoning is liver transplant; however, poisoning can be treated by intravenous injection of silibinin dihydrogen disuccinate disodium. It is estimated that 50 grams (2 oz) of this mushroom are enough to kill a human.

Comments? --HunterZ 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

90% of all deaths?

article claims that "death cap mushroom causes 90% of all mushroom poisoning related deaths in the world", but I just read a BBC article that claims it only 50%. Can someone verify the statistic? Thanks Alex --Alex333sh 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say they're probably both pulled out of the same hat as 64.5% of all statistics. I find it hard to believe that anyone has up-to-date and accurate statistics on mushroom poisonings everywhere in the world. Now, if it said "in the U.S." or "in Europe and North America" or "as reported to the WHO", that'd be more believable, but "in the world", total, is a pretty tall order. Anyway, over what period would that be? It could well make a difference whether it's 1900-1960 or 1980-2000.

Anyway, if you do find a good source of mushroom poisoning statistics, please let me know. I'd be particularly interested in an authoritative source on gyromitrin poisoning cases in Finland and Scandinavia, for the False morel article (which currently cites a secondary source in Finnish that doesn't itself cite any sources). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a Death Cap?

Hey, does anyone know if this is a Death Cap. It was in my front yard, and if it is one, it would be a good picture to put in the article. Newnam^(talk) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mushroom that may be a Death Cap

Well, there's an easy way to find out, but you may want to have someone else try it. --Bobak 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about mushrooms, but it doesn't seem anything like the picture in the article page. It seems completely white, to begin with. Rbarreira 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a Destroying angel or a False death cap. Since there seem to be flakes on the top I'd opt for the second (nontoxic) one, but you'd have to smell it to be (more) sure. Han-Kwang 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If I am to be asked, that is not Death Cap but its close relative, Destroying Angel (Amanita virosa). It is about as deadly as Death Cap.194.89.192.24 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like Amanita virosa either. Amanita echinocephala ? What country are you in? There is a detailed amanita genus page - maybe email them as there are 600 species (link on main Amanita page. cheers,Cas Liber 12:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like one of the "Lepidellas" – Amanita smithiana, or something like that. And to reemphsize, stating what part of the world "your front yard" is in, what kind of habitat it is, etc. is extremely important in identifying anything. As with any organism, different places get very different sets of mushroom species. Peter G Werner 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a parasol mushroom to me.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that 194.89.192.24 is right. I went to check on the destroying angel and that photo looks extremely similar. Really!--Rory666 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this section is still active, but it's not a death cap, as it has those warts on the cap. Maybe it's amanita solitaria. Don't eat it. de Bivort 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible treatment

In Romania intoxication with A. phalloides is common. Romanian doctors observed that by giving huge amounts of penicillin (more than 10 times the normal dose) to the intoxicated pacients might live. This has been explained later by hungarian doctors. Penicillin and the toxin from Amanita take action on the same receptors on the membrane of the liver cells. So penicillin creates bonds with the receptors and stops the amanita toxin to enter the liver cells. But there still remains the kidney problem, which can only be solved through hemodialysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor bogdi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 17 November 2006

Sounds interesting (hopefully I never have to use it personally :)). Has it been published in a scientific journal? cheers, Cas Liber 12:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets get the Milk Thistle info up on this page. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/January/14/local/stories/01local.htm

We have earlier clinical trials found in Google Scholar. Now we have an emergency drug trial that proved successful for a large number of the patients admitted. And we have a newspaper article on the subject. Seems like it's time to update the cure to encyclopedic knowledge level. - 24.118.119.14 08:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i don`t think it has been published anywhere yet......

i`m a medical student and i know this from Prof. Dr. Florescu Petre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor bogdi (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 February 2007

Actually, its been published in many places – do a PubMed search with "silymarin amanita" or "silibinin amanita" and you'll find quite a bit. Here is a particularly notable reference. Note that its typically not "milkthistle" (like you'd buy in the health food store) that's used in treatment, but rather silymarin, a crude extract of milkthistle, or pure flavinoid silibinin. Peter G Werner 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping to get a chance soon - got the book by Benjamin which is really interesting and has lots on all this stuff Cas Liber 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deadly white cap?

I have never heard of this common name, has anyone else? cheers Cas Liber 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Death Cap → Amanita phalloides — copied from WP:RM. Request made by User:Peter G Werner Scientific names are preferential for article titles, especially in articles like this one about a single discrete species. Bobblehead 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - support move. Cas Liber 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Peter G Werner 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support gotta have the redirect, though, 'cause most folks haven't heard of Amanita phalloides and will look at Death Cap (like me). Lindsay 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Including the redirect is a given. Peter G Werner 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NC(flora).--Bobblehead 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose - Actually, WP:NC(CN) says the exact opposite. Last I check Carcharodon carcharias wasn't an article title. Death Cap is a common name for the subject of this article and the preferred location is that name, not it's scientific name. --Bobblehead 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's true for most articles, but it is not true for the naming conventions for plants and other organisms following the botanical code (eg, fungi). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) and it explains this quite clearly. Peter G Werner 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for pointing out the naming convention for plants.;) I shall now strike out my oppose vote. Not that I necessarily agree with the naming convention. Although, you may wish to include a link to the naming convention in the reason for the move. (flora) is a relatively new convention and most people going to WP:RM will probably be in the same boat as I was and not be aware of the convention.--Bobblehead 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the use of common names over scientific names in fauna does my head in the other way :) Cas Liber 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amanita phalloides (3 votes, stays until May 1st)

Support:

1. Cas Liber 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
2. M&NCenarius 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Peter G Werner 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• The other quintessential toadstool and most infamous one to boot. Done a bit on it and it is shaping up rather nicely. In some ways I feel it may be more coherent than Amanita muscaria. Cas Liber 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review on hold

The article is very nicely written, and is close to good article status. I believe the following needs to be done before the article can achieve good article status:

1. Factually accurate: - On hold The article contains numerous references. Unfortunately some statements/sections are unreferenced: eg. the lead, the description, several points in "similar species", the occurrence of the species in countries other than Australia etc.
2. Broad in coverage: - On hold The article is very heavily slanted towards the toxins produced by the species - further emphasis on it's ecology and natural biology is requried. Remember also that it's the sporocarps that are known to contain these toxins: The article sometimes seems to suggest "the fungus is the sporocarp" something we should be most anxious to clarify.
3. Well written: - On hold The article is reasonably well written. The prose works well most of the time and is certainly close to good article status. Recommend a check for grammar.

1. NPOV: The article is written in a neutral fashion. Nice work. - Passed
2. Stable: The article appears stable and not subject to editorial disputes. - Passed
3. Images: Images given are fine. - Passed

Specific recommendations

Lead section

1. The lead section has choppy prose and some unusual usages "dangerousness" etc.
2. It's a fungus (and a basidiomycete) this isnt mentioned in the lead. Replace its classification as a "mushroom". (check)
3. It's an ectomycorrhizal species, mention this in the lead also, along with its common symbionts. (check)
4. Remove distribution and detailed toxin information from lead. (Not sure I agree with this. The toxicity is the main reason why this fungus is well known)
5. The species may be the most poisonous fungus examined - but we know very little about the vast majority of fungi - so it's important to point out this distinction. (Have started adding qualifiers where I can)

Description and classification'

1. Clarify that the description is for the fruiting body. (Um, it does so in hte first sentence. I can add some reminder of fungus anatomy I guess)
2. This statement Phalloideae, a group that contains all of the deadly amatoxin-containing Amanita species, including the destroying angels. is unreferenced (amongst others). Given we know little about Amanita species outside the northern hemisphere this seems like a very strong statement. (Qualifier added)
3. Move emphasis on "collecting mushrooms for eating" elsewhere -- perhaps into similar species. (will look into it)

Notable victims

1. A number of references are missing.

I hope these concerns can be addressed in time to pass the article as a good article. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 08:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for the input David, really is much appreciated as I have left this article for a while - someone else beat me to nominating it for GA....) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PS" I know dangerousness is an odd word but I was trying to think of a suitable synonym. All others, such as lethality, toxicity to me refer directly to the toxins whereas I was adding importance of the similarity. I f you can think of a synonym I'm all ears....:) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Casliber, meant to reply - I reworded the lead section slightly. I still think it could use a few more references. MidgleyDJ 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have been looking for them but have been otherwise distracted. There is alot of debate about whether there should be any refs at all in the lead as it is a summary of what appears elsewhere in the article. Anyway it is a fairly minor problem which can be rectified later if/when this article ever makes to FAC. I can see the GA nom has been good for a bit of activity and have been impressed at the dislodging of the mental block I had. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The concern about the statement about Amanita section Phalloideae containing all known amatoxin-containing Amanita species is quite established – check the Tulloss website, check any monograph, such as Jenkins, check the recent molecular studies of genus Amanita (such as Drehmel, et al. 1999) which confirm section Phalloideae as a natural group, and you'll see this is the case. Keep in mind that one could easily view Amanita as seven different genera just as easily as one could see it as one genus, and the idea that all groups of Amanita across the board are all likely to contain amatoxins is an anachronistic view. Peter G Werner 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful references?

Pringle A, Vellinga EC Last chance to know? Using literature to explore the biogeography and invasion biology of the death cap mushroom Amanita phalloides (Vaill. Ex fr. : Fr.) link BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS 8 (5): 1131-1144 JUL 2006

Enjalbert F, Cassanas G, Salhi SL, et al. Distribution of the amatoxins and phallotoxins in Amanita phalloides. Influence of the tissues and the collection site COMPTES RENDUS DE L ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES SERIE III-SCIENCES DE LA VIE-LIFE SCIENCES 322 (10): 855-862 OCT 1999

Yang ZL, Oberwinkler F Fruit body development of Amanita muscaria (Basidiomycetes) NOVA HEDWIGIA 68 (3-4): 441-468 1999

Vetter J Toxins of Amanita phalloides TOXICON 36 (1): 13-24 JAN 1998

aha...maybe...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article's on hold expired five days ago. I have failed it per the issues above and the expiration of the on hold. IvoShandor 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some further points

I think the article on Amanita phalloides is much improved. Well done! I'd renominated it soon for a GA Review.

Here are some points you may want to consider:

• I dont like "introduction via oak" in the lead. "via" is an odd choice in my view. I also dont like "poisoning but proving fruitful" but these are both minor concerns :). (ok, done. They were straightforward to address). cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about further about the benefits of mycorrhiza formed with A. phalloides?
• Do we know anything about the mycelium of the fungus?
• Do we know anything about the population biology of this species?
• Have parts of the genome of A. phalloides been sequenced?

• Do we know anything more about the intraspecific variability in production of toxins by the species? (from: Enjalbert F, Cassanas G, Salhi SL, et al. Distribution of the amatoxins and phallotoxins in Amanita phalloides. Influence of the tissues and the collection site COMPTES RENDUS DE L ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES SERIE III-SCIENCES DE LA VIE-LIFE SCIENCES 322 (10): 855-862 OCT 1999)
• I dont like "The death cap has a large and distinctive fungal fruiting body". In my view "death caps" are the large fruiting bodies :D!

• Recent mentions of poisonings in the media?

It's very close now. For the sake of fairness I wont review it again. I think many of the fungal articles tend to infere that the fruiting body is the fungus, rather than being part of the organism. MidgleyDJ 09:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and address the questions one by one:

2) We know a lot in general about the benefits of ectomycorrhiza to ectotrophic plants, but not about what particular benefits, roles, or niches may be taken on by a particular species of ectomycorrhizal fungus, such as A. phalloides. This is a more appropriate topic for an article on ectomycorrhiza (which Wikipedia still needs).

3) That's kind of an off-the-wall question. Its like reviewing the article on the Bengal tiger and asking "is there anything known the cells of Bengal tigers?"

4) Population biology of this species is an area of active research by Anne Pringle at Harvard. I'm not sure if there's been any publications on the subject yet.

5) Yes, small parts of the genome have been sequenced as part of molecular phylogenetic studies of Amanita. But what is the relevance of the mere fact that part of the genome has been sequenced?

6) That article sounds interesting and the findings would make a good contribution to this article. I'll look for it, but are you sure its in English and not French? If its the latter, we'll have to find someone who understands the topic and reads French.

8) Every year, in California and Europe, there are several cases of A. phalloides poisonings, which always get media attention. Over the years, these add up to scores of cases and hundreds of articles. Do you have some kind of criteria for inclusion of such information? Peter G Werner 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - They were points you may want to consider - it was partly brainstorming :-). I disagree with your third point, this article is about a fungus - not the solely the fruiting bodies of that fungus. To continue your earlier analogy we dont want the article to read as if it's only about the genitals of the tiger. Pictures of A. phalloides growing in axenic culture would be nice, for example. It doesnt grow around Sydney, otherwise I'd be happy to attempt to culture it. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the vegetative phase of its life cycle, even though, yes, that's most of the life cycle of this and all other fleshy fungi, there's not much to discuss because so little is known about that part of the life cycle for the vast majority of species. Like most ectomycorrhizal species, its probably not even possible to get mycelium to grow in culture. Peter G Werner 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I come from a lab in which considerable ectomycorrhizal research was done. My wife did her PhD in Amanita ecology and ecophysiology. While some Amanita spp. do not appear to grow in culture (most of section Vaginatae, for example) Amanita muscaria - and many other species of Amanita can be readily grown in pure culture. The same applies to numerous other ectomycorrhizal genera such as Pisolithus, Cenococcum etc. many of which are quite amenable to axenic culture. While there may be relatively little known, it is important to discuss the major phase of the life cycle of this fungus, even if only to say just that. To misrepresent this species (and other fungi) as "just a poisonous mushroom" is a much worse outcome in my view. MidgleyDJ 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable victims and language editing.

So I was going through the article, starting from bottom and started editing the language. Meanwhile, it startled me that this section is more or less about Amanita poisoning, not Amanita phalloides which I think it should solely focus upon. It's not even clear whether Natalia was eating Amanitas, not to mention poisonous fungi. I dunno, I just don't like how it is right now, but I'll continue fixing the grammar wherever I can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paffka (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).--Paffka 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been pondering this all morning at work while AFK..I think this is the best place for it as AFAIK the olny other two european amatoxin-containing toadstools Amanita virosa and verna, were/are rare, thus A phalloides is the most likely culprit. Amanita is a very large genus and talk of amatoxin poisonings is a better match on an A phalloides page rather than genus page. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Virotoxin text for page

This was good but I've ditched the lists to the compound pages...but there ain't one for virotoxins yet...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A third group of minor active compounds are the virotoxins, which consist of 6 similar monocyclic heptapeptides. named Viroidin, Desoxoviroidin, [Ala]viroidin, [Ala]deoxoviroidin, Viroisin, and Desoxoviroisin. Like the phallotoxins they do not exert any acute toxicity after ingestion in humans.

References

Copyedit

What a cool article. I've had a Bart-Simpsonish fascination with poison mushrooms since I was a kid. My interest got a boost in adulthood from Collier's Fancies and Goodnights. Congratulations on FA. Oh, and I copyedited it. Some sections only needed touching up, but I shredded a few others pretty good. --Milkbreath 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim about victims

It has been involved in a majority of human deaths from mushroom poisoning, including several important historical figures such as the Roman Emperor Claudius and Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI.

What is the basis for the first statement? And isn't it a matter of speculation that these two individuals were (a) poisoned, (b) poisoned by mushrooms, (c) poisoned by this particular mushroom? Dependent Variable 12:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - as the lead is a summary of points raised elsewhere in the article, I generally don't put references in it but it's a matter of debate. It is touched on in the last section. I did soften the word slightly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Introduced alongside..."

"its range is expanding in other countries after it was accidentally introduced alongside oak, chestnut, and pine."
This phrase isn't clear to me. It appears to mean that when those species of tree were introduced to new areas, the imported tree seeds or saplings were contaminated with death cap spores, thus spreading death cap along with the trees. If so, that's confusing, because North America seems to be among the areas that death caps have been accidentally introduced into (though perhaps I'm wrong about that?), and I'm pretty sure that oak, chestnut, and pine are native to the new world. Could someone who knows about this clarify the wording? RedSpruce 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Introduced alongside" —seconded

I’m an amateur mycologist and I greatly appreciate this kind of quality content. I do feel compelled to point out, though, that the vague or ambiguous phrase, "after it was accidentally introduced alongside oak, chestnut, and pine" became an immediate distraction in what appears to otherwise be an excellent article (I’ve not had time to read it in its entirety). Entries under “Distribution and habitat” elaborate on this but fail to clarify.

(Wikipedia is a beautiful thing.) --Keith-h 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the lead refers to it sprouting up in several places in the southern hemisphere under introduced northern hemisphere trees - and chestnuts in the eastern US. I'll look at the ambiguity of the wording....but I need to get to bed here in Oz.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image

Amanita_phalloides

I stumbled upon this Commons image of Amanita phalloides while perusing the Lithuanian Wikipedia entry. Although the depicted specimen is obviously damaged, it shows the top of the cap more clearly, the way one is most likely to encounter it in the wild. —Quicksilver^{T @} 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that too...was hoping some really cool image would turn up..I didn't quite like this one as much as it looked a bit worse for wear. 10 points for someone who can snap an ace pic this autumn....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious - why is it that there is no known antidote? If nothing else, shouldn't it be possible to use some computational chemistry techniques to design an enzyme that breaks down the toxin? Raul654 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Easier said than done" may be the most honest reply. Also, not much of a market for antidote.Debivort 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, should be quite challenging. Phalloidin is quite small, a peptide (how can a possible antidote break it down? Not by cleaving random peptide bonds... :) and it binds very tightly to the actin filament. This brings me to my question. Maybe two sentences about the cellular basis of phalloidin's toxicity could be added to the article? For those of you who are interested: This article deals with the exact position of phalloidin bound to the microfilament. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with the request for a sentence or two describing the cellular mechanism by which the poison works. Raul654 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast answer :) Ok, I'll see what I can do... --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, please add that in!cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural reference

Aren't these the mushrooms from Shirley Jackson's "We Have Always Lived In the Castle"? I had to study that short story in high school. If it's not that, it's some literary reference.OfficeGirl 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of that one....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature needs explanaitions

Though Louis Secretan's use of the name Amanita phalloides predates Link's, it has been rejected for nomenclatural purposes because Secretan's works did not use binomial nomenclature consistently;^[6][7] some taxonomists have, however, disagreed with this opinion.^[8][9]

Why did some taxonomists disagree with this opinion? This need to be explained. I do say it because I'm working in the traslation to Spanish of Amanita phalloides (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just disagreement in how to apply rules for proper publication to Secretan's work, really (far more common trhan you'd think when discussing early scientific literature). The published opinions referred to really boil down to scientific opinion pieces. Circeus (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution Question

The section on distribution could be more clear. Typically the "distribution" of some specie is "where you could find it in the wild". But the opening paragraph here seems to use "distribution" only for its "native" status. Isn't the whole "native" thing problematic? That is, native as of when? Most species have moved around quite a bit and we don't really know where everything ever lived.

In particular, it was jarring to first read that this was a European fungi, then to read about it in the forests of California. While the "introduced to other countries accidentally" disclaimer may technically redeem the first claim, wouldn't it be better to start by saying something like "Today, this fungus can be found in several/many/most areas of the world/temperate zones/hardwood woodlands. When first described in print by natural historians, it was restricted to Europe. . . later the fungus was introduced to other areas usually in shipments of saplings or nuts from its host trees."

I am not an expert and do not presume to directly edit such a well-vetted article--especially one that seems to be so well settled. Yet if someone would consider this, I would be grateful. In particular I am concerned that someone might jump to the "distribution" and come to the conclusion that this can't be growing in their yard because they live far, far east (or far west) of Europe. . . Vagabundus (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how much you read about ecology but differentiating where something is native versus where it is introduced is very important - and mushrooms are similar to plants and animals in this regard. Essentially this mushroom is a weed in Australia and other places it has been introduced to. There are risks it will replace natural species there and over its role in ecology etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

whats the difference between bisporiga and bisporigera in amanita bisporigera/bisporiga apart from spelling?

guys, i was wondering what the difference between bisporiga and bisporigera apart from a possible misspelling? i often see those two used interchangeably and amanita bisporiga points to destroying angels, but amanita bisporigera points to the mushroom article specifically. its just a small discrepancy that needs to be addressed.--Thebestofall007 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

bisporiga is a (common) misspelling; I've fixed the redirect as well as a couple of other misspelled instances I found. Thanks for bringing it up. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Thebestofall007 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting....

The spike in page views possibly due to two people dying here in Australia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How to distinguish from edibles

Since poisenings are so common how about a section in the article on how to distinguish this species and other edible mushrooms of similar appearance!? 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has a section at Amanita_phalloides#Similarity_to_edible_species - but people shouldn't be using wikipedia as a how-to guide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

People shouldn'tbe using Wikipedia for a lot of things - but they will! I am also curious as to the largset safe amount that one can ingest of any easily mistaken poisonous mushroom without suffering serious consequences. Remembering that symptoms can take 24 hours to manifest! I once watched an Australian safari documentary where some retired ex-SAS guys canoed a remote northern Australian river. They used something like the following techniques for selecting wild salad greens (not mushrooms!): test small amount under armpit for any -ve reaction a sensitive area and then wait some period, test under lip ..., test under tounge ..., chew a tiny bit ..., swallow a tiny bit (and we are talking a crumb) ..., (wait 24 hours) etc. etc... Personally I wouldnt consume any whole wild mushroom without testing a crumb and larger and larger peices over several days before reaching a whole one (and this is after reaseach, guidebooks, local experienced picker advice and focus on identifying and continuing to pick a single species at a time... In any case unless you are after magic mushies (and even then) you are better off growing them in a compost + (known) spores mushroom kit --- just make sure no stray wild (poisonous) spores get in, blow in, or off your clothes etc (after picking or having the wrong wild ones growing in your area or even supplied to you!) ;-) BUT for the small risk of the last reason alone you would _still_ want to know how to identify your desired edible mushrooms and _any_ similar poisonous varieties. QED: not everyone visitng here is a moron! But let us try and save the others... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.41.172 (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mushroom poisoning added to Links. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Article in slate - poisoning can be treated

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/02/most_dangerous_mushroom_death_cap_is_spreading_but_poisoning_can_be_treated.html XOttawahitech (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amanita phalloides/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Previous comments now outdated and removed. Circeus (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Final sentence

The final sentence is "Other historians have speculated that Claudius may have died of natural causes.". I do not doubt that this is true, but I think we need to include a source or at least indicate which historians. As it stands, it's just a general statement which imparts little actual information. Does anyone have a reliable scholarly source to add? ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another high profile death from this mushroom in Australia

I'm not good at writing Wiki style, so maybe someone else can add this:

https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NEWS2022102695158 2001:8003:E490:7D01:4CE8:C303:88CB:243A (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)