Talk:Fairy ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Fungi
Biology Portal
Fairy ring 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within mycology.

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.
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
  • The article says they grow to 10 metres, but this article points to fairy rings grown to half a

kilometer wide:

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/141_faeryrings.shtml

You are right fairy rings can grow up to hundreds of meters. Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the explanation of the growing mechanism is wrong. "Since multiple spores of seperate fungi overlap..."? Come on. A fairy ring is a single organism growing under the ground from the inside out and building the visible mushrooms at the outside border.
You are not right in this case, cus fairy ring genet consist of more taxa. Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article ignores another less common type of fairy ring. a small perfectly cercular clearing within a forest or stand of trees. Such a clearing exists on my family's land in Tullamore, county Offaly Ireland. The story that goes with it is very similar to the folklore surrounding the mushroom rings. Its where the fairies meet/dance.

However it goes a bit further than that. Crossing though or standing in the fairy ring is generally ill advised and if one were to break a branch, stick, or remove anything from the circle it would be a very bad thing. There are numerous local stories about the ring. For example some people brought an empty coffin to the fairy ring and left it there over night. When it was checked on later one of the men was found dead, spread eagle, his mouth stuffed with leaves and branches where the coffin once was.

Where as the mushroom rings refer to a common physical phenomenon that has a link to folklore, the tree rings are almost completely bound to folklore. They are typically perminant locations (the one in Tullamore has supposedly existed for several thousand years) with very specific local stories and occurences linked to them. The tree circles are sufficiantly different and significant in the sense to folklore to mentioned in the article.

rforrestal at gmail dot com

You are right, lets implement your knoweledge into this article.Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dead link

I replaced a dead link to http://www.uio.no/conferences/imc7/NFotm99/October99.htm via the wayback machine and my link works but I'm not sure I used the template correctly. Please check it if you have the relevant knowledge. It is this link under "External links":

Random Passer-by 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic statement

I disagree with a statment: The effects on the grass depend on the type of fungus that is growing, when Calvatia cyathiformis is growing in the area grass will grow more abundently however Clitocybe gigantea will cause the grass to wither.<ref>Böttcher, Helmuth M. ''Miracle Drugs'' William Henemann Ltd. London 1963 p. 227</ref> It is an old book. Refs should be based on scientific papers.--Juan de Vojníkov 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better reference that counters that statement, you can add it. -- Fyslee/talk 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But I dont need to support the contrary idia via reference in this case. It is not my interest to cast doubt on not scientific paper. So I am going to remove this phrase, cus it could confuse people.--Juan de Vojníkov 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Your first statement seems to be a counterclaim and therefore needs referencing. The argument that the book is old isn't a valid argument. We write what we can source, and if we find better sources, then we use them. Do you have any better ones, especially that contradict this one? If not, it should stay. When you find something better, you're welcome to use it as a replacement. -- Fyslee/talk 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well. Thats a bad idea to "write what we can source". This is a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy to beet the quality. If you are referencing something it should be serious and first source. It seems to me, that you dont understand, why I dont need to contra-reference this statment. So I will add some references and I will go for RfC, with this article. --Juan de Vojníkov 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the statement should stand. In my personal observations, fairy ring damage does vary with species. Furthermore, the age of the book doesn't matter if there is no refuting citation, and lastly WP actually prefers to cite secondary sources like books, rather than primary sources which tend to lead to novel synthesis. Debivort 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. That I didnt know about that "secondary references". But anyway both mushrooms can couse all two effects (withering/necrotic grass; abundantly grow), because this doesnt depend on taxa specifity, but mycelia physiology as the reaction to environmental conditions. I may find out some references, but those will not fight with this statement. But this is Wikipedia, thank you for your point.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for order of article

In some ways, this is such an unusual article we are free to play with order. I have a book which talks of the evolution of observation, with a link between folklore and modern, as it discusses Robert Plot and his observations in his 1686 book Naturall History of Stafordhire, where he mentions fairies and witches as a cause, yet digs up the soil and notes finding the ground:

much looser and dryer than ordinary, and the parts are interspersed with a white hoar or vinew much like that of mouldy bread, of a musty rancid smell, but to tast insipid, and this scarce anywhere above six inches deep, the earth again below being of its due consistence and genuin smell, agreeable to the rest of the soils thereabout

He later concludes lightning is the cause. Question is do we have a hsitory of scientific observation and where it goes. I did something similar in Sirius (now FA). Thoughts? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some notes on what early scientists thought, but it's not really in chronological order. Where would this information belong in the article? It should be somewhere, I think. — Dulcem (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are my notes on the subject:

Waldron not only ascribed them to the fairies, but said he had seen similar circles in the snow, in which the impressions of tiny feet were visible. (Ripley and Dana 402)

Aubrey supposed them to be caused by the efflux of a fertile subterranean vapor. Priestley and others considered them the effect of lightning; and Walter (Walker?), after a thunderstorm, observed one of them which from the color and brittleness of the bordering grass seemed to be newly burned bare. Others have thought them to be caused by moles or similar animals burrowing underground. Dr. Wollaston accounted for them by the growth of a species of agaric, which so absorbs all nutriment from the soil as for a time to destroy the herbage. Dr. Carpenter also thought them occasioned by masses of fungus vegetation. (Ripley and Dana 402)

Some suppose these circles to be made by ants, which are often found in great numbers in them. Messrs. Jessop and Walker, in the Philosophical Transactions, ascribe them to lightning; which is thought to be confirmed by their being most frequently produced after a storm of that kind, as well as by the color and brittleness of the grass roots when first observed. Lightning, like all other fires, moves round, and burns more in the extremity than in the middle; the second circle arises from the first, the grass burnt up growing very plentifully afterward. Mr. Cavalle, however, in his valuable Treatise on Electricity, does not think that lightning is concerned in the formation of them . . . . Other philosophers, who have exmined these circles, believe they are produced by a kind of fungus breaking and pulverising the soil. (London Encycl. 22)

Another modern writer, Mr. Wilson, ascribes fairy rings to the action of grubs, concealed under the ring among the roots of the herbage; and supposes, that the fungi give a preference to these rings, on account of the abundance of dead vegetable matter to be found in them. (London Encycl. 23)

Sources are both PD:

  • "Fairy Circle, or Ring", The London Encyclopædia, or Universal Dictionary of Science, Art, Literature, and Practical Mechanics, Comprising a Popular View of the Present State of Knowledge, Vol IX. 1829. London: Thomas Tegg.
  • Ripley, George, and Charles A. Dana, eds. (1864). "Fairy Circle", The New American Cyclopædia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Vol. VII. New York City: D. Appleton and Company.

If we can figure out who these Mr. So-and-So's are, we might be able to draft a pretty informative paragraph or three on early theories. — Dulcem (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic folklore

I've got quite a lot of information on fairy rings in Celtic folklore. A rough draft is in my sandbox. I wonder if a daughter article, fairy rings in Celtic folklore, is in order, with a summary for this page? — Dulcem (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours is 13 kb long - I think the sceintific won't be much longer and 30 kb is minimum for a decent crack at FA. We can do the folklore up top, then segue into early science and modern stuff at bottom, as the folklore material is more prominent in this case I think. Have a play at rearranging as I am oopen to suggestions on it. Not hugely keen on a split. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My main concern was that the Celtic stuff will vastly outweigh the folklore from other regions. But we can give it a go, I think. The stuff in my sandbox is in rough-draft form, so I'll copy edit and consolidate references before I paste into here I think. — Dulcem (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, never mind at the moment - look at the size of vampire which we got thru FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, dumped! — Dulcem (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, we can think about splitting if it gets much over 100kb. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)