On Wednesday, Staff Writers Peyton Goodman and Ashna Shah attended a seminar held by Columbia University’s Center for Science and Society on the evolving methods of identifying mushrooms. The event was part of the New York History of Science Lecture Series.

Last Wednesday, the Columbia Center for Science and Society hosted a seminar led by Brad Bolman, a postdoctoral student at the Institute for Advanced Study, titled, “How To Identify A Mushroom: Standards, Expertise and Objectivity.” It showcased the work of Curtis Gates Lloyd, a scientist who worked in the field of mycology, the scientific study of fungi, in the 19th century. The history of mushrooms reveals that the standards of identifying mushrooms change over time. This talk explores the deceptively simple question of classifying a species in the work of Curtis Gates Lloyd, a Cincinnati-based mycologist who built a massive, international network of amateur observers in the early 20th century.

Bolman began with the history of identifying mushrooms. Mushrooms were first identified by detailed images from texts. However, by the 20th century, using texts to identify mushrooms was no longer effective because people could easily interpret the drawings in different ways. 

Mushrooms were then identified by their different colors, but this also became ineffective because people have different perceptions of color. Since color can easily be misinterpreted, it was very difficult to standardize color and use it as a means to identify mushrooms. 

According to Bolman, by analyzing samples of mushrooms, scientists were able to distinguish between different types of mushrooms. This led to mushrooms being placed in their own species kingdom–“fungi”–as we know them today, leading to the identification of mushrooms to be more accurate. 

Within the broader mycological community, fungi were only recognized as their own kingdom around the 19th century in Europe as most scientists grouped fungal analysis with other plant species. After using a more generalized system of classification for an extended period of time, mycological knowledge was more systematized in Europe and mycologists were able to analyze a mushroom’s unique properties and expand their knowledge in the field.

Delving into the intersection between the internet and mycological identification, Bolman emphasized how much websites like MycoBank, an online database with molecular and visual data used for identification, are taken for granted as “valid sources.” When the internet was first gaining traction, experts expressed anxiety about the absence of peer reviewers and gatekeeping in online identification guides. However, websites such as Tom Volk’s Fungi use tools such as photographs from multiple angles and detailed scientific analysis to make fungus identification keys more accessible for researchers.

In addition to personal blogs, social media, and Facebook, pages also play a vital role in interpreting data. On the Mushroom Identification Page, featuring about 260,000 members, users can help each other identify species and determine whether or not they are safe to eat. Pages such as these may feature extensive conduct codes with rules such as banning the use of apps that may be unreliable. In analyzing the interactions between members of the mycological community, Gary Alan Fine, the author of Morel Tales, expressed that internet mycology was paradoxical in its sharing of ideas and its secrecy in preserving prime collecting spots.

To demonstrate another technique with which mushrooms are visually identified, Bolman mentioned “Shroom ID,” an app that uses machine learning to analyze and predict mushroom types based on photos from multiple angles. However, apps can have their limitations in identifying mushrooms because they cannot analyze them in the same detail as humans, demonstrating how the app’s results may be subjective. Thus, Bolman suggests “Shroom ID” is not a good platform to identify mushrooms for eating.

Although Shroom ID’s use of artificial intelligence deviates from historical methods, it also resembles earlier practices in many ways. As Shroom ID uses machine learning to identify fungi, many believe it to be fundamentally different from other approaches. However, Bolman argued that there were “obvious parallels between the modes of thinking,” as human observers gain more and more identification experience as they view mushrooms regardless of their chosen technique. There are, however, limitations to the AI model; Shroom ID can not carry out DNA analysis or identify environmental effects without experience.

Following Bolman’s presentation, the event opened up to audience questions, the first of which revolved around Bolman’s two main interests in beagles and mycology. According to Bolman, his interest in beagles originated in a desire to study a creature fundamentally similar to human beings. Studying fungi created an opposite problem–how do we understand fundamentally non-human organisms?

Going further back into the history of mushroom identification, another audience member asked Bolman about ancient texts that preceded the more systematized European “knowledge project” around the 1800s. He explained that most people who worked in mycology were described as botanists before very recently, and physicians also used to be trained to identify fungi. As boundaries shifted around which fields formally studied mushrooms, this demonstrates how the organization of scientific knowledge evolved in response to social and historical needs. Additionally, indigenous peoples around the world have included mycological practices in their traditions, showing that fungal species were being categorized (mostly for food and medicinal purposes) before mycology gained traction as a recognized field.

Extending more broadly to the mycological community, an audience member asked a question about the power associated with different forms of collection, such as influential Audubon societies in birding. Did mycological societies experience the same type of political power? Since mushrooms were originally looked at for their culinary potential, women had a major role in their collection because of their widespread domestic knowledge, said Bolman. Mycology was seen as a space for different types of people, which may have affected the ability of mycology groups with underrepresented minorities to leverage their political capacity.

In closing the event, one of the final audience questions focused on the connection between fungi and climate change–can mushrooms as decomposers be used to limit waste? According to Bolman, on a broad scale, fungi have the “potential” to be used in the circular economy (the recycling of materials in production) and to combat climate change. One of the reasons mushrooms are so popular is because they may be able to alleviate some of the damage caused by the fossil fuel economy, but the results of this are so far unstable at best. As research advances and mycology continues to reach a broader audience, using fungi to combat climate change may become more promising.

Image via Bwog Archives