How many fungi can we name? A German study finds a literacy gap

Twelve photographs and few correct names

How many fungi can someone name without professional training? Ina Schanz and Martin Remmele at Trier University explored this in a study published on 24 February 2026 in Scientific Reports. In a representative sample of 747 German respondents, the average identification score was 16.7 percent: approximately two of the twelve fungi presented. More than a quarter of participants gave no correct identifications. Read the study and its methods.

Participants viewed photographs in a random order. Correct identification at genus level was also accepted, so people did not always need to supply a complete species name. Separate questions tested edibility assessments and general fungal knowledge. These tasks measure different capabilities. Knowing a name does not necessarily mean understanding an organism’s ecology, while recognising a familiar food does not demonstrate an ability to distinguish similar relatives.

Experience is associated with knowledge

Self-reported mushroom collecting was the main positive predictor of identification performance. Age, rural residence and connection with nature were also associated with the results. A survey of this kind establishes relationships between characteristics. It does not show that beginning to collect mushrooms automatically causes a particular improvement in knowledge, or that urban residents cannot become skilled observers.

Answers also revealed confusion about fungi themselves. Most respondents classified them as plants, although fungi form a separate kingdom. At the same time, many knew that fungi produce spores. Someone’s knowledge can therefore contain correct individual facts within a mistaken overall framework. The authors also report limited recollection of fungi in education: around two thirds of participants did not remember learning about them in school, or were uncertain whether they had.

That pattern supports teaching beyond a list of species for the cooking pot. Wood decomposition, partnerships with roots and the distinction between a mycelium and a fruiting body explain what fungi do in their surroundings. Names can then become part of understanding a living community, rather than an isolated memory exercise. Familiar edible mushrooms provide an entry point, but do not represent the full range of fungal life.

What a photograph cannot test

A photograph restricts access to features that may be available in the field. The viewer cannot turn a specimen over, inspect its entire stem base or compare several fruiting bodies at different stages of development. The authors discuss this limitation. Performance in a photographic test is therefore not a direct measurement of behaviour during an actual collecting trip.

The study concerns Germany and cannot supply equivalent percentages for Poland or other countries. It nevertheless offers a concrete reference for designing educational material: practise describing features, recognising uncertainty and understanding an organism’s role in its habitat. A useful lesson should explain which observations support a proposed identification and which information is still missing. Answering correctly beneath one photograph and making a well-supported identification from an unfamiliar specimen are related, but distinct, learning achievements.