Talk:Armillaria ostoyae

Big Nature!

"Another "humongous fungus" is a specimen of Armillaria bulbosa found at a site near Crystal Falls, Michigan. It covers 0.15 square kilometres (37 acres) and was published in Nature."

That must have been an extra-large edition of the journal and/or a very intelligent fungus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.34.120 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest Organism in the World Claim

The colony of Armillaria ostoyae in question is not considered one organism, but many. The General Herman tree, a specimen of the Giant Sequoia, is generally considered to be the world's largest organism. MickeyK 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation, please? Note that the lead sentence of the BBC story (referenced in the article) explicitly states:

Researchers in the US have found what is probably the largest living organism on Earth.

Unless you can find better references that indicate it is not one organism, I support restoring the claim. Thanks!

hike395 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

pathogen

Other species in Armillaria are forest pathogens. Is ostoyae? 128.101.70.97 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

HEIGHT?

They are so great... how tall are they? Undead Herle King (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect size?

This page says the biggest found was 8.4 square kilometers, but says that is 3.4 square miles. But using the conversion tool with Google, it says 8.4 km is 5.2 miles. Im not willing to change it myself because i have trouble with math and may have done something very wrong, but will do so in a bit if no one corrects me by then. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 8.4 km is 5.2 miles in length, but not squared miles which is a surface unit: one squared mile is almost 2.6 km². Bu193 (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland

Bumped into this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/27/1 - "Europe's largest known fungus has been found growing under an Alpine forest in Switzerland. Armillaria ostoyae covers 250,000sq metres and is believed to be around 1,000 years old."

Should find a better source and include mention of it in this article? Hugovdm (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fakes and responses. Any ideas?

Looking up Armillaria solidipes on google images, I found some that apparently were deliberate frauds, showing either photoshopped Boletus giants or spoof giant imaginary fungi intended to misinform laity who knew no better. To reproduce any such photos as warnings would do no better than spread the nonsense, but I was wondering about including in the description just a line or two stating the facts that the huge size of the fungal mycelium had nothing to do with giant mushrooms and that the fruiting bodies that showed above the ground or on trees are not especially large or dramatic. JonRichfield (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armillaria ostoyae. 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/20110721203201/http://www.pnwfungi.org/pdf_files/manuscripts_volume_3/naf20087/naf2008717.pdf to http://www.pnwfungi.org/pdf_files/manuscripts_volume_3/naf20087/naf2008717.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029102444/http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Science_Documents/Morrison_Mallet_1996.pdf to http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Science_Documents/Morrison_Mallet_1996.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)