Talk:Gyromitra esculenta

Inappropriate/Disgusting

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)

Switching the picture to a Nintendo character is inappropriate, yes? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Better safe

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)

Clarifications needed

This is probably a taxonomical issue, but I've seen 'false morel' refer to more than just one species of Gyromitra, not just the Esculenta. This is mentioned in passing in the lower portion of the article, but for most fungi, each gets a separate entry. Should there be a separate entry for each Gyromitra (probably) and then turn False Morel into a listing of all false morels?

Also, it's a pretty big claim to say that all 'false morels' (again, which false morels?) have been positively proven to contain toxins without actually citing a source. I fully agree that eating false morels is a bad idea, but it should probably be cited. --George Dorn 9/21/2006

Dangerous info here

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)

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)

maybe the article should at least mention that people who eat it make efforts to remove the toxins before consumtions. In finland they even sell a "safe" version that is canned, which have been prepared in such a way that the toxins are removed. see link http://www.dlc.fi/~marianna/gourmet/morel.htm

I've eaten quite a few of these growing up, and my 70+ year old grandfather and the rest of my mom's family have eaten them all his life (northern michigan). He refers to the mushroom as beefsteak. They soak the mushrooms (both beefsteak and true morels) in salt water to remove bugs and then dry them or freeze them. Typically, they use them in gravy, if I remember right. I don't know whether it's the growing environment, preparation, or some cooking process that is making them safe. I later learned that the beefsteaks were actually coniferous false morels and considered poisonous. So they may be safe in some circumstances, but it's not worth the risk - there are plenty of other safe, tasty mushrooms out there. (I haven't eaten any as an adult, so I can't really comment on the flavor.)

False morels are eaten quite often in Finland, but we ALWAYS parboil them. It's pure foolishness to eat them without parboiling twice in a ventilated room, in _different_ batches of water. You don't just cook them, you boil them and _throw away_ the water. <edit: The article's been rewritten since my comment above, so I removed my criticism concerning the original version.>

--- False morel is the fugu of the Finnish kitchen. I'm a Finn, and we consider them as the most culinary of all mushrooms sans porcinis. Like fugu, the Japanese blowfish, it requires thorough preparation. As mentioned above, the mushroom must ALWAYS be parboiled - preferably twice, and the water to be thrown away. The gyromitrine breaks into hydrazine in the metabolism, and hydrazine is commonly used as oxidizer (does the name C-Stoff or Walther engine ring the bell?), and it decomposes the blood, liver and kidney cells. Fortunately, gyromitrine is both water-soluble and volatile, and can be removed.

Parboiling means heating the mushrooms in the water until the water boils, and then throwing the water away. As unit operation in chemical engineering, it is the same as leaching. Do it at least twice with different batches of water.

Today the Finnish Ailments Bureau suggest the false morels are NOT to be dried, jerked or freeze-dried. While this is a traditional way on making false morels edible, it is no more suggested, as some of the gyromitrine may still remain in the mushrooms. Likewise, gyromitrine is considered to be mildly carcinogenic, so daily intake of false morels is not suggested.

______ I live in Michigan and we call these beefsteaks mushrooms, not false morel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verpa_bohemica. It really can't be confused with the morel . We cook them very well and we eat them, without any adverse effects. They are very tasty. I read what's been written about them, but when properly prepared. We get more toxins in our diet from the poisons the farmers spray on our food when it is growing. There is another mushroom known as the false morel. The other mushroom does look like a morel, the only difference is the cap. A real morel, doesn't have a cap. I think that this article needs to be corrected. The beefsteak mushroom was not widely known as the false morel.

In all new Swedish mushroom books the False morel is listed as toxic, even after being boild. The problem is that while boling do indeed destroy most of the poison some WILL remain. While not beeing an imidiate danger it might couse long term liver damage if consumed often enough. Another thing to consider is that the amount of poison in the same species of mushroom may vary considerably between locations. I wouldn't eat one, and i do spend some time mushroom hunting every year. 130.243.153.103 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) _______

Where I come from, northern parts of sweden, it is common knowledge that "murklor" (swedish for false morel), is poisonous and you should take precaution's, my family parboil it three times and swap water in between. Last year our family picked around 20 kg (~44 pounds), and this weekend we've picked another 5+ kg (11+ pounds) because we've eaten the last batch - and I'm not dead yet ;-P

An extensive search on google (query: "murkelsås" - false morel sause) shows amongst the 10,900 hits these:

• Coop, a leading supermarket chaing in the nordic countries

• Nerikes Allehanda, a local newspaper

• SR, Sveriges Radio (Swedish Radio) is the public service radio broadcaster in Sweden.

• Falköpings mejeri, a dairy plant (amongst other things)

• Aftonbladet, the leading daily newspaper both in Sweden and in Scandinavia

If the False morel was deadly, how come some of the biggest companies have recepies on "murkelsås"?

Just my two cents, Chosig 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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):

Better Safe pt II

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)

Moved most of the discussion about toxicity down to the section on "Toxicity" - just left a brief note at the top that the edibility is disputed. Changed "Three further hydrazines" to be "other hydrazines" - three directly contradicts the section below which says that eleven hydrazines have been identified in Gyromitra. Added some references regarding toxicity. I think that further information on toxicity after reported "proper" preparation does exist in the NAMA report but I have been unable to get a copy of the full text of the report. Revdrace (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

To-Do list

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)

Frigging refs! Now I find this mention on a blog which'd be great to get referenced! Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed bits

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)

Finnish authorities recommend picking false morels in a bag separate from other mushrooms, which is to be washed immediately after use. When transported home by car, false morels should be stored in trunk, since they can emit gyromitrin in the cabin and cause symptoms of poisoning to the driver.

While these small quantities will not cause noticeable symptoms to most people, some people may be hypersensitive to the toxin, and can become seriously ill from eating even properly prepared false morels. Gyromitrin sensitivity is apparently not a hereditary matter, further confusing the question of toxicity.

Additionally even though the mushrooms are widely consumed in Finland, between 1885 and 1988 only four cases of fatal gyromitrin poisoning were recorded, all of them caused by eating the mushrooms raw.

Minor fix

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)

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)

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)

Yeah I think you're right. A work in progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ok, I have rearranged lead to be all singular and removed need for possible weasel wording. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

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.— Million_Moments (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well luckily I live with medics so knew what the words meant lol. Million_Moments (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting comments from sgeureka moved here from my talkpage for convenience to work on

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)

• "Deaths rates have now dropped" - when now? (changed to 'Death rates have dropped since the mid twentieth century')
• "There is evidence that children" - "Evidence suggests that children" (also works better with the second "there is evidence" two sentences later) good pick up. I like it
• "However, poisonings in the west have been reported,[34] although they have been reported less frequently than the east.[35]" - "Poisonings in the west have been reported less frequently than the east.[35]" (not sure I agree with that one as I feel it loses a bit of emphasis on the fact tehre still are poisonings in the west, I'll wait for a third set of eyes)
• "These other derivatives likely also yield" - awkward on several levels (changed to 'These other compounds may also produce..'
• "activity of glutamic acid decarboxylase.[39] This interference causes the neurological symptoms. " - "activity of glutamic acid decarboxylase,[39] causing the neurological symptoms."
• paragraph "The toxins react with pyridoxal-5-phosphate" contains the word "cause" a lot done
• "However, symptoms take often longer than this" - "However, symptoms often take longer than this" (done)
• "patients do not usually present for treatment until many hours after ingestion, thus limiting its effectiveness" - "patients limit its effectiveness by not presenting for treatment until many hours after ingestion" (the patients aren't strictly the agent limiting effectiveness, well they are but it sounds funny. I'll have to think about this one)
• "If patients have severe vomiting or diarrhea IV fluids can be used to rehydrate the patient." - "Patients with severe vomiting or diarrhea IV can be rehydrated with fluids." (well spotted)
• "Pyridoxine is given at a dose of 25 mg/kg, if symptoms do not improve this can be repeated up to a maximum total daily dose of 15 to 30 g.[51] Pyridoxine does not decrease hepatic toxicity and is only useful for the neurological symptoms.[41][52] " - "Pyridoxine, which does not decrease hepatic toxicity and is only useful for the neurological symptoms,[41][52] is given at a dose of 25 mg/kg. If symptoms do not improve this can be repeated up to a maximum total daily dose of 15 to 30 g.[51]" yep
• "Although cancer caused by this mushroom has not been observed in humans" - "Although this mushroom has not been observed to cause cancer in humans" (done)
• "Efforts were taken to discourage consumption by prohibiting its sale in Germany and Switzerland once the extent of its toxicity became known." - "Once the extent of its toxicity became known, Germany and Switzerland discouraged consumption by prohibiting its sale." done
• "It is still highly regarded and consumed" - "The mushroom is still highly regarded and consumed" ("it" could also refer to opinions or countries, otherwise) (yep, done)
• "Despite this, the false morel is listed" - "The false morel is nevertheless listed" (this sounds odd to me, but I agree that removing the repeated 'Despite' would be prudent)
• paragraph "Despite its recognized toxicity" suffers from also-itis (2 gone, 1 left in.)
• "The gyromitrin will dissolve in the water where it will remain, therefore the parboiling water must be discarded and replaced with fresh water after each boiling." - can be improved, although I can't come up with a clear suggestion rejigged
• "This process is called parboiling" - yet the word parboiling is alreay mentioned two sentences before repetitive and removed/incorporated into preceding
• the sentence "Enthusiasts in Finland have been..." finishes the article on an awkward note - either merge/move it elsewhere, or leave it out moved

– sgeureka ^t•c 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of "Lorchel"

• Duden – Das Herkunftswörterbuch – Etymologie der deutschen Sprache (in German). Dudenverlag. ISBN 978-3411040742. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Toxicity always known

I disputed part of the text:

"Once the extent of its toxicity became known,Germany and Switzerland discouraged consumption by prohibiting its sale."

The lethal toxicity has always been known. What is new information, is that even drying and parboiling only removes 99.5% of the toxins. No one is known to have died of this residual poison. Modern, more stringent safety standards on food just make this residual poison unacceptable (to some). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will check refs to reword. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Actually I just reworded to take out inference. I am not currently at home, but I recall the refs suggesting the inference, yet it is true about toxicity being known in some quarters, have reduced to the minimum certain bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact the article should clearly state that the toxicity has always been known, and effective measures have always been taken to remove the toxins. The recommended procedures have changed sometime in the 1980s. Traditionalist in Finland still only dry the mushrooms and do not let any of the boiling water go to waste. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Interesting, what do they do with teh water? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

They use it in whatever dish they are preparing, most likely some sort of sauce. The water is belived to contain the best aroma. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the only toxic mushroom consumed

Another problem with the text is that it gives the impression that "edible" and "poisonous" are mutually exclusive (quote: "are eaten by some and considered poisonous by other"). A large part of mushrooms consumed are in fact toxic, many others are lethal. What is special about gyromitra esculenta is that the toxins are usually removed by drying instead of parboiling. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the use of teh word considered, this way some people do consider the definitions to be exclusive (such as in all English-language mushroom guides, which strongly discourage experimenting). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case we may have a serious WP:NPOV issue here. The English language Wikipedia cannot restrict itself to English language sources. Finnish and I believe Swedish language mushroom guides would categorize this as * * * Ö, where the three stars are the best ("five star") category and Ö here is my stand-in for the skull or Jolly Roger symbol. (I guess the Windows character set would have these all somewhere.)

The old discussion on "Dangerous info here" above is totally irrelevant, as Wikipedia does not report facts, but what reliable sources (in this case mushroom guides) say. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - It seems we urgently need an article on mushroom guides, and their classification systems. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points all. As a Philistine Australian who only knows English and no other language, I only read what I could read. I would be extremely grateful for some more input on what Finnish Guidebooks and cooking books say, as it is clearly an important part of cuisine there (more than eslewhere). I would have loved to place a comment on the discrepancy between guidebooks, but I did not see any 3rd party comments in any English books to date (hence would have strayed into orginal research even though stating the blindingly obvious. If any say that in Finnish I would welcome their addition - especially in paragraph two of Consumption section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find you some information on consumption in the Pyrenees, especially Cerdanya: I'm not sure that the qualifier in "once popular" is completely accurate. Mushroom collecting is a national sport here in Catalonia, so the prohibition on sale is not as relevant as it might seem. Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. I had to leave out some stuff on Catalonia for lack of referencing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a discussion from two years ago, but I thought it was worth noting that contrary to what Casliber suggested, there are American guidebooks that do note that Gyromitra esculenta can be edible when properly prepared. David Arora's Mushrooms Demystified - at least in the second edition - explicitly states that gyromitras may be detoxified through boiling them and are frequently eaten (but also notes that deaths are attributed to them anyway and thus says it may be unwise to consume them.) Kevin (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it boils down to the (I guess) rather perfunctory way mushrooms are categorised as "edible/inedible/poisonous/deadly" in that there is a fair degree of conditionality on all those categories. Maybe adding an "edible when cooked" category si good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't expect a reply this fast to a two year old post. I don't really object to an additional category tag indicating something is only edible when properly prepared if y'all feel it is really worth it, but I don't think it's needed. In terms solely of wikipedia category tags, I think we should just add both [[Category:Edible fungi]] and [[Category:Deadly fungi]] to all articles where both apply. Many foods widely labeled simply as 'edible' can be toxic or deadly without proper preparation. The procedure I have been following so far more or less is to tag a mushroom article as deadly if it is recorded as such in guide books or has caused at least one death or contains a known serious mycotoxin and to tag it as edible if there is any well-documented use of it as food. (I obviously haven't gone through but a fraction of the mushroom articles with this tagging logic yet.) Anyway, thanks for the ridiculously quick reply given the age of this. Kevin (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. Might be worth looking at as there are a few of us who are mushroom enthusiasts editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we do have Template:Mycomorphbox and we can discuss any parameter changes on the talk page. In fact, I pondered the same quesiont 4.5 years ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Metabolized or hydrolysed?

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)

Yep you are right - it is indeed hydrolysis. My bad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)