This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: In a new study published today in Plants, People, Planet, scientists from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and their international collaborators clarify the distinction between Ganoderma lucidum, a European bracket fungus described in 1781, and Ganoderma lingzhi, the East Asian species widely associated with medicinal lingzhi or reishi. For more than 240 years, the two species have often been mistaken for one another due to their very similar appearance and the tradition of calling all of these similar-looking fungi G. lucidum, potentially causing issues for consumers and the estimated £200 billion ($271.14 billion) traditional Chinese medicine industry.
In traditional medicine, G. lingzhi is valued for its anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties and has recently gained popularity in North American and European markets as a supplement. However, pharmaceutical research on this species is hindered by frequent confusion around its identity, and it is unclear whether G. lucidum shares any of these medicinal benefits, posing a risk to consumer safety and satisfaction. Ganoderma species are of great interest to scientists due to the compounds they produce, including beta-glucans and triterpenoids.
The latter have shown promising results in the treatment of brain tumor cells in mice. By analyzing historic fungal specimens housed at Kew's Fungarium, the researchers are now confident the two species diverged from one another at least 16 million years ago and can draw a clear distinction between the two. They propose the new common name "false lingzhi" for G. lucidum to dispel confusion around its identity.
Torda Varga, a Kew research fellow who led the project, says, "Treating these two distantly related fungi as the same species is comparable to treating humans and orangutans as a single species. "In reality, millions of years of evolution can lead to fundamentally different organisms, including differences in their chemical properties, and this is particularly important in a group of fungi with a long history of use in traditional medicine. "Accurate identification such as the one undertaken in our study is essential for establishing authenticity, ensuring quality control and providing an evidence-based framework for evaluating the safety and medicinal potential of fungi." The origins of the mix-up can be traced to 1781, when botanist and entomologist William Curtis first described G. lucidum as a species (although under a different name at the time).
Unfortunately, only an illustration of the type specimen (the original fungal material upon which the official scientific description is based) survives, rather than any biological specimen. This has left researchers without any material to study for centuries. Further confusion stems from the common and Latin names of various medicinal Ganoderma species, with G. lucidum traditionally given to many of them.
It has also been frequently applied to Ganoderma fungi that physically resemble one another but have been shown to be distinct species. All these factors have contributed to considerable confusion and inconsistent identification over the years, with pharmacological data often wrongly attributed to G. lucidum. A breakthrough came in April 2025 when Ganoderma specialist Dr.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
