Taxonomically speaking, though, they’re still basidiomycota, same as the “true” gilled mushrooms. I think any reasonable definition of mushroom someone could come up with is going to be para- or polyphyletic and it doesn’t hurt to lump in morels, even if they are in a completely different phylum.
Mycologists would avoid the term in formal communication entirely; the terms of art would be Basidiocarp for basids and Ascocarp for ascos, or sporocarp generally. In less formal communication my experience has been that mushroom is used as a colloquial stand-in for any sort of macroscopic sporocarp. Linguistic prescriptivism can be fun (“Hey guys - did you a tomato is actually a berry?!”) but the stipe-pileus-hymenium model of a mushroom is so narrowly defined I don’t know of anyone who could legitimately stick to it without slipping up at some point.
Taxonomically speaking, though, they’re still basidiomycota, same as the “true” gilled mushrooms. I think any reasonable definition of mushroom someone could come up with is going to be para- or polyphyletic and it doesn’t hurt to lump in morels, even if they are in a completely different phylum.
I’m not a biologist or anything, all I know is that mycologists do not consider morels or truffles to be mushrooms.
Mycologists would avoid the term in formal communication entirely; the terms of art would be Basidiocarp for basids and Ascocarp for ascos, or sporocarp generally. In less formal communication my experience has been that mushroom is used as a colloquial stand-in for any sort of macroscopic sporocarp. Linguistic prescriptivism can be fun (“Hey guys - did you a tomato is actually a berry?!”) but the stipe-pileus-hymenium model of a mushroom is so narrowly defined I don’t know of anyone who could legitimately stick to it without slipping up at some point.
Good to know. I’ll just keep my fun facts in the trivia zone.