So we just started our micro/infectious disease block, and blew through all the fungal infections in 3 lecture hours. Which included such vividly lovely descriptors such as "grainy exudate," "cauliflower-like," and "versicolor lesions."

These lectures are mind-numbingly boring, especially right after an exam. Yet, even in my fungally induced coma, I noticed there seemed to be an unwritten law amongst mycologists. For every disease of the fungus, thou must havest four slides:

Firsteth, thou must haveth a slide that talks about how common this fungal infection is and how important it is that you learn it. (BS)

Secondly, thou must haveth a slide showing a highly advanced form of the fungal infection in attempts to gross out the students. (BS)

Thirdly, thou must haveth a slide talking about Amphotericin B. Complete with requisite "Amphoterrible" joke. And a tiny aside about the azoles and how they are actually the mainstay of treatment. (Not really BS, but redundant)

And fourthly, thou must haveth a slide showing a KOH prep or biopsy slide. (see right)

Now along with every microscopy slide must come the following remark: "If you were a good mycologist, you could differentiate the species based on this slide." There are two things wrong with this statement (I'm big into lists today). One, I am not a good mycologist. Two, I have no desire to ever become a good mycologist. In fact, the odds of even one person from our class of 126 becoming a "good mycologist" are well below .500.

But I digress. Maybe we should be more appreciative of our mycologists. After all, when it comes to deadly systemic fungal infections, there isn't mushroom for error

​
...

I'm sorry that was in spore taste.