These are common names for fungi, proposed for consideration—for use in the USA and Canada, by English speakers, for fungi that are found in this region.

The goal is a consistent set of names that will roll off the tongue and function smoothly long-term. Ideally, every name will end up feeling like an obvious choice, for everyone using it—at least after giving them a chance.

Because taxa are added with discretion, this page can also function as a minimal list of identifiable taxa in our area.

The proposals are individual, intentional, and iterative. They are not wholesale copied from any database.

They represent several years of effort to creatively or coherently evoke their subjects. Wherever pre-existing names have been tweaked or replaced, the change is intentional. Choices and changes might be made for rational or aesthetic reasons, or both. Hopefully, most or all of the sorts of reasons that have motivated the names below have been captured by the guidelines suggested here.

They are, crucially, embedded in a folk taxonomy.

The total count includes names at all ranks: species, groups, higher-ranked taxa up to kingdom, and lower-ranked taxa down to form. Where multiple names are proposed for a species with multiple "morphs" or stages, those names add to this count.


The species count includes all taxa listed at species rank, along with unlisted species implied by

• listed infraspecific names (e.g., the unlisted Cystoderma carcharias is counted as a species based on the listed Cystoderma carcharias var. fallax)
• listed group names, when no constituent taxa are already counted as species (e.g., the listed Squamanita umbonata group has no constituent species listed, so the unlisted Squamanita umbonata is counted as a species).

To calculate coverage rates, the reference identifications (identified observation counts) are collected from two sources: iNaturalist via GBIF and MycoMap. The GBIF dataset is inherently limited to "Research Grade" observations, identified with validly published names, posted on iNaturalist. The MycoMap dataset consists comprises the names used there with a single-quote or double-quote character. These are taken to represent the sequence-identified observations identified with provisional (code-)names, not with validly published names.

Most MycoMap observations are also on iNaturalist. Many will be identified by MycoMap with a provisional name and on iNaturalist with a valid name, so double-counts are inevitable. It is unlikely that these double-counts significantly distort the percentages based on them.

For these combined datasets,

• lichens are excluded, except for the mushroom-forming species (e.g., Lichenomphalia).
• misapplied names (e.g. Astraeus hygrometricus) are excluded or treated at the nearest reasonable higher rank.
• taxonomic updates are applied (e.g., Pholiota lignicola is treated as Kuehneromyces marginellus).
• spelling updates are applied (e.g., Laccaria trullisata is treated as Laccaria trullissata).

The coverage rate with respect to all names used is liberal, in that a species name can count as covered merely by its containing group name being covered. Nonetheless, the coverage rate is quite low. Several reasons should be considered.

• Most importantly, there really are an incredible number of fungal species present in North America.
• Many apparently uncovered species names ought to be considered already covered (by virtue of their containing group), but have not yet been listed under their containing group.
• Many of the validly published names used on iNaturalist ought to be excluded (as misapplications of extralimital taxa, or as synonyms), but have not yet been listed as such.
• The MycoMap provisional (code-)names do not all necessarily represent unique, unnamed species. Some will be synonymized with one another or with valid names.

The coverage rate with respect to identified fungi is much higher, because common species are, naturally, preferentially named here. The majority of fungal finds are of well-known species. The missing species are generally rarely encountered or identified.

All of these are names I have been using, or hope to use, earnestly. There is some reasoning behind all of these choices, and a lot of reasoning behind many of them. But the question of whether the reasoning is good is always up for debate. I am much more sure that we should adopt names that, in general, sound roughly like these, than that we should adopt any of these names in particular. Regardless, ultimately, the only real judge of a common name's quality is how commonly and how comfortably people use it.

This list is not a final product. It is continually in progress. Although I've incorporated feedback from many others, and genuinely want to ensure it's palatable to the community, it is only one person's perspective.

I would love to discuss the list with anyone who's interested. Not many people are enthusiastic about curating mushroom common names. For anyone who is, I'd invite you to try out some of these names, and contact me about what works for you, what doesn't, and any other ideas you might have.