Corn smut is supported by WikiProject Fungi, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fungi. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, click here.
A section of this article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article's etymology section is incomplete or unreferenced.
This article is ranked 5 on the priority scale.
Mushrooms
These are not technically mushrooms, are they? But are these "tumors" comparable? Are they fruiting bodies? —Ashley Y 21:03, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
The huitlacoche is in the Basidiomycota, this is the family easily recognisable as 'mushrooms' within the fungal Kingdom, you can see a picture here [1], they look quite like field mushrooms growing from the corn cob.--nixie 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That page refers to Homobasidiomycetes as "true mushrooms" and Ustilaginomycotina as "true smut fungi". But I accept that corn smut do resemble mushrooms, and coming from that I'm always surprised when people are grossed out by pictures and descriptions of them. —Ashley Y 05:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Tumours with teliospores are not comparable to mushrooms. Mushrooms usually feature basidia. These basidia give rise to haploid basidiospores. Tumours in contrast are filled with diploid teliospores. Upon germination teliospores generate a (pro)basidium. Basidiospores (sporidia, 'yeast' cells) bud of from this basidium.
Also; Basidiomycota are not mushrooms, although almost all mushrooms belong to this family. There are a number of ascomycete mushroomsformers, for example Morella esculenta.
Legality?
Anybody know what the status is for legal for import/legal for sale in the US? I.e. are there FDA regulations about corn smut?
You can by the fungi can in the US, it may also be imported for use as a food, although it does not seem to be readily available to the public in this form. Some US farm agencies are looking at growing smut on purpose since the fungi is quite valuable.--nixie 00:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article now has links to some projects growing corn smut for sale locally. it can also be bought canned. It can be bought at some farmers markets. i don't know about the legality of ity. I assume there's no law or FDA regulation against it but I'll double check by searching. it probably isn't wise to try and grow it deliberately anywhere near other corn crops.LiPollis 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
External links
In this edit, I removed several external links. Here’s my reasoning:
Tansley review in New Phytologist – links to a generic Wiley page, not an article about corn smut; the actual article could be appropriate. However, if it’s an article about corn smut, it’s better as an inline citation due to WP:ELNO criteria 1. The EL section is not a holding area for sources.
Corn Smut Recipes – this is a list of recipes, and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. As an encyclopedia, it should contain information about corn smut, not how to prepare it. Wikihow may be a good candidate for this information, but Wikipedia is not. Since the link is not encyclopaedic, this would be a violation of WP:ELNO #4 – promotion. I also don't see it meeting the criteria of what to link.
Smuts on the Internet – this is an extremely short page with no referencing. It’s from a university host, and Tom Volk may be a professor of botany, and that makes it suitable as a source perhaps. But not as an external link – again, ELNO#1. This adds little information and it could easily be integrated into the article if needed.
Photographs of canned cuitlacoche - This is a comedy page. It’s funny. I love his characterization of fermented soybeans as little snotballs. I loved it when I first saw it on Ilovebackon and re-read it last night. But it’s not a source, it’s not informative, it’s portrayal as a source of pictures of corn smut is redundant to the commons link, the page is about smut, not canned smut, it’s got advertising, it’s self promotion, and again it’s a humour page, so not encyclopaedic. It’s got several ELNO strikes against it an no ‘what to links’ in its favour.
GourmetSleuth huitlacoche page – this is a blog. ELNO # 11 specifically bars blogs. Also per the above, it’s recipes and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and it’s got minimal information so its got ELNO#1 against it. Plus advertising. Could perhaps be a source if there’s evidence he’s an expert.