The land, water and air around us are chock-full of DNA fragments from fungi that mycologists can’t link to known organisms. These slippery beings are so widespread scientists are calling them “dark fungi.” It’s a comparison to the equally elusive dark matter and dark energy that permeates the universe.

  • treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I listen to Bauhaus and grow gourmet mushrooms.

    Unidentified fungi are not equivalent at all to dark energy.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That would be more along the lines of what’s the difference between Joy Division and new order. One dead body. Rip Ian.

        Or what’s a Goth’s default mode? Depeche.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I figured but still wanted to correct the dark matter/dark fungi metaphor in the article and saw an opportunity to do so with my favorite squid as I used to listen to Bauhaus as a kid.

        Twenty years ago most biology books still classified fungus as plants. That’s how young mycology is as a science. So, there’s lots of unidentified fungus on the planet, but we still fundamentally understand microbiology as a whole.

        Much different than dark matter/energy as we’re not sure really what they ‘are’. We only know them by their effects.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I went to college in the '90s. Fungi being classified as plants is new to me. Though perhaps it is part of some Mandela effect or misremembering on my part. But it is inarguable that we’ve learned tons more over the last 20 to 30 years about them.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m sure it depends on the book. I have a mushroom field guide published in the late '90s that still calls them plants. Which was really weird to me considering it’s a mycology book.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              That could just be down to the author and their aptitude. Lot of people writing field guides aren’t exactly scientifically minded or trained. Because fungus really are kind of anti plants in many ways. It’s sort of like the distinction between fruits and vegetable for tomatoes. For most people tomatoes have always been and will always be vegetables. Despite having long been classified scientifically as a fruit. And pineapples are berries.

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s fair. I suppose I was overestimating the knowledge of the field guide writers.

                • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  As some of my myco-heroes (Stamets & Sheldrake) have mentioned, there were no mycology departments or colleges at universities. In many, there still aren’t.

                  Writers, mycologists may have felt like stepping up & speaking truth about classification (at times, a scientific bureaucratic nightmare) was not the fight they wished to pursue over sharing knowledge they’ve learned about fungus (no bureaucratic dealings!)