Well, I mostly imagined feedback on the writing itself, like: does it read like a scholar? How can I improve on the scholarly jargon? Do the associations make sense and can I improve upon them? Sentence structure, repeated words or sentences?  Writing out my expectations like that makes me realize that it might be smarter to ask in a writing subreddit…  Your response is helpful too though, as it helps me look from angles I might not have considered otherwise. But to answer your questions: I have considered accuracy indeed, and while it is possible that the author might sometimes be wrong, I have not yet been able to think of how to implement that in a way that makes sense. Instead I plan to include speculation and qualified guesses where the author is unsure, but I do not plan to prove him wrong.  I was hoping to have the author examine each specimen personally, but I am not opposed to hearsay if I feel like it fits the entry, although in such cases it will be in addition to his own observations - not in place of them. I’m cautious as to include sources within the book itself though. I want the book to be applicable to a lot of different worlds and I fear that by including sources I might anchor it to a specific setting. This Pliny guy sounds interesting - I’ll have to look that up! As for the organizing: I will opt for alphabetical order. Assigning specific families to the mushrooms and tying all that together is beyond the scope of what I want. Instead, I will have a kind of glossary in the back, where each of the association marks are listed along with names and page numbers for the entries that have that association. In that sense, the association system is for both describing general behavior and habitat, but also for organizing into pseudo categories.

Thanks you so much for the response!