Jump to content

Talk:Psilocybe: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(90 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{hallucinogen-project}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Fungi|importance=high}}
Removed reference to [[illegal drug trade]] from psilocybe cubensis since this mushrom is legal in most parts of the world as long as it isn't prepared (dried).
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}}

}}
This article is a stub, most of the information is incomplete or downright inaccurate, and the list of species at the end of this article serves absolutely no useful purpose. This article is in need of a complete and total rewrite, something I hope to provide within the month. - Peter G Werner, June 23 2005.
{{Annual readership}}
:Lists are ok, don't get rid of that. it is a list of the various species, whether there are articles for them or not. --[[User:Heah|Heah]] [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 07:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Psilocybe/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|<!--90 days-->|header={{automatic archive navigator}}|maxarchsize=100000|minkeepthreads=4|numberstart=1}}

== List of Species ==

I really feel like this list is just kind of a random element - an overly large, yet still incomplete listing of Psilocybe species, with little if any contextual information indicating whether the species are hallucinogenic, commonly found, etc. The point of an encyclopedia is to distill the best of current knowledge on a topic down to information that is useful and informative to the general reader - a guarantee you a long list of species names with no contextual information is little, if any, use to the general reader.

Also, the list is more or less a direct copy of the Psilocybe species listed on "A List of the Known Psilocybian Mushrooms" by John W. Allen, found on [[Erowid]].org. That really needs attribution, BTW - otherwise its pretty much an act of [[plagiarism]], even if Wikipedia doesn't have authors per se.

Tell you what I will do when I edit this article - I'll create a separate article called "List of Psilocybe Species" linked to from the main article, plus I'll update the information to reflect current taxonomy. Doing long lists like this as separate articles seems to be pretty much standard form for Wikipedia.

-- [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter Werner]], May 24, 2005

== Substantial Rewrite ==

I forgot to leave an editing note about this, but I did my first substantial rewrite of this article today. Its still not complete, and there are still a number of topics I want to add, but as it stands, the revision covers all the topics found in the previous edit and is far more thorough. More about historical, social, legal, etc aspects as I get to these topics.

I moved the [[List of Psilocybe species]] off into its own article.

[[User:Peter_G_Werner|Peter Werner]] - 21 Jun 2005


== Macroscopic Characteristics ==

I'd like to see this great section become even tighter maybe with some concrete references for the cited colours, for example for the alleged rust-brown spored psilocybe...never heard of that (though I'm happy to be taught otherwise!), purple-brown to purple-black is usually given as standard spore colour for this genus. Peter, can you cite the rust-brown sporing species? as far as cap colour, it would be good to gather some standard descriptions and give the range in cap colour with some examples. I don't think orange-white is very typical for example, but I'd guess p. azurescens is meant, so one could cite that. --[[User:Erasurehead|erasurehead]]

:There really is a rust-brown-spored strain of Psilocybe cubensis - google '"red spore" OR "red boy" psilocybe' and you'll see what I'm referring to. Unfortunately, I'm having a harder time coming up with a permanent coherent link about the subject. As for color terminology, I'm using it straight out of Kornerup and Wanscher's "Methuen Handbook of Color" - orange-white '''is''' a typical color for Psilocybe (and many other mushrooms for that matter) after hygrophanous fading has occurred. Its one of the many colors that are often referred to as "buff" - kind of a beige color, but tending more into the orange range. --[[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

----

The first paragraph in this article is both poorly constructed and of questionable veracity. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this particular subject can improve it? For example, it is certainly debatable that the Torah/Old Testament refers to psychedelic mushrooms, or psilocybes in particular. --[[User:Bumhoolery|Bumhoolery]] 06:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Some nutcase keeps vandalizing this article with his odd interpretations of biblical references. If you see these, just revert them out - they're essentially vandalism. --[[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

== headaches and psilocybe ==

removed:
"Recent studies show that ''Psilocybe'' mushrooms, as well as LSD, have the ability to prevent cluster headaches. Not much is known, but more studies are being undertaken."

can this be cited?? --[[User:Heah|Heah]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:Heah&#124;(talk)]] 02:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:Yes. You can read about it at clusterbusters
: http://www.clusterbusters.com/

:MAPS is helping fund this reseach. cf also their summary page:

: http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

: So I would recommend returning this comment. -- [[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

:ooh yeah, definitely, since i removed that i've come across some research and whatnot, but i guess i had forgotten that i had removed it . . . --[[User:Heah|Heah]] <sup>[[User_talk:Heah|talk]]</sup> 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== micorrhizae ==

Would someone please confirm that psilocybe mushrooms cannot form mycorrhizal associations? I know it's kind of written.
Also, how can we distinguish between liberty cap and Panaeolus foenisecii?--[[User:Mihai cartoaje|Mihai cartoaje]] 09:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

: All members of ''Psilocybe'' are [[saprotrophs]] growing on various kinds of decaying organic matter (wood chips, humus, dung, or other substrates, depending on the species). No ''Psilocybe'' species or any close relative of ''Psilocybe'' has ever been identified from a DNA profile of a mycorrhizal root tip. Indeed, the fact that ''Psilocybe'' species can actually be cultivated (often quite easily) is a direct result of the fact that they are saprotrophs and can be grown on substrate prepared by a mushroom grower. If these mushrooms were mycorrhizal, a grower would have to inoculate a living tree with ''Psilocybe'' mycelium in order to produce fruiting bodies - this kind of cultivation is not presenntly possible with most species of mycorrhizal fungi.

:As for how to tell ''Psilocybe semilanceata'' from ''Panaeolus foenisecii'', ''Ps. semilanceata'' has a viscid and greyish-green pileus and should exhibit at least some blue staining, while ''P. foenisecii'' should have a non-viscid brown pileus and no blue staining. That said, I really think you should get some guidance from in your area somebody more experienced with mushroom collecting to actually show you the basics of mushroom identification. Your local mycological society is always a good resource. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 03:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Two more questions that many people might find interesting:
* Do psilocybe mushrooms that can produce psilocybin always bruise blue or does it depend on the substrate?
* Can psilocybe mushrooms that can produce psilocybin grow in a faery ring in the grass? --[[User:Mihai cartoaje|Mihai cartoaje]] 15:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

== merging Teonanácatl ==

I think the [[psychedelic mushroom]] page might be a more appropriate merge candidate for [[Teonanácatl]] than the the [[psilocybe]] page, since the [[psilocybe]] page is appropriately more focused on the botanical aspects of psilocybes, while the [[psychedelic mushroom]] page specifically addresses the use of psilocybes for their [[psychedelic]] properties and already [[psychedelic mushroom#History|references Teonanácatl]].

Should the [[psilocybe#History_and_Ethnography| History and Ethnography section]] of the [[psilocybe]] page be merged into or at least included in the [[psychedelic mushroom]] page? Probably both the [[psilocybe]] page and the [[psychedelic mushroom]] page need a "History" section which will overlap heavily.

We're always going to have overlap between the [[psychedelic mushroom]] and the [[psilocybe]] page, but as discussed on the [[Talk:psychedelic mushroom#Redundant Article| psychedelic mushroom talk page]], I think it sensible to maintain both pages. --[[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 07:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:I think the Psilocybe article needs a "History and Ethnography" section, just as any group of living organisms with important ethnobotanical aspects should have that mentioned within the article itself. That said, there's no reason not to cover it even more detail in a "Main article" referred to at the head of the section. This is a very common Wikipedia format; see the [[History of Portugal]] article for a good example.

:The [[Psychedelic mushroom]] article as it stands now, however, is an absolute mess, due to the fact that that article fails to differentiate between psilocybin-containing mushrooms and ''Amanita muscaria''. These two types of mushrooms have both a very different pharmacology and a very different ethnobotanical history, each playing a religious role in cultures very distant from one another (Mesoamerica and Siberia).

:I hope to expand on the "History and Ethnography" section shortly. When it comes to "Medical and Psychitric" aspects, I start to get a bit out of my depth, since there's been a great deal of psychedelic/medical research on [[psilocybin]] from the 1960s up to the present, and I don't have a good overview of it. Much of this research has been done using purified psilocybin, however, so perhaps that topic is better covered under that article. I'm glad that somebody has chipped in some material on legal aspects, though this part of the article is still pretty US-centric. Examples of the legal situation in Europe (especially the Netherlands, where they're sold openly) or in Mexico (where they're illegal, even though widely used by some Indian groups). Also, the section is about "'''Social''' and Legal Aspects", so some material on the sociology of use/abuse of these mushrooms in modern societies would be appropriate. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

::How can you contend that the [[Psychedelic mushroom]] article fails to differentiate between psilocybin-containing mushrooms and ''Amanita muscaria'', when, in fact, it states in the intro that:

:::''They can be roughly divided into two groups: psilocybin/psilocin containing mushrooms found mainly in the genus Psilocybe and the muscimol containing mushroom Amanita muscaria...The fly-agaric Amanita muscaria contains the principal active muscimol which, however, is both chemically and symptomatically unrelated to psilocybin.''

::and further, the examples below explicitly state which culture and which mushroom, e.g.

:::''The notion that Nordic Vikings used fly-agaric (Amanita muscaria) to produce their berserker rages...''

::That seems a pretty clear separation to me. [[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Just look under "Effects" - do you see any differentiation between the effects of ''Amanita muscaria'' and ''Psilocybe''? I sure don't. That would seem to imply that the effects of the two mushrooms are similar, which I assure you is not the case. The "History" section cuts back and forth between the history of ''A muscaria'' use and ''Psilocybe'' use, in spite of the fact that these mushrooms have different histories in different cultures. That's poor organization, in my book. I'm entirely unconvinced that the two subjects even belong in the same article - apples and oranges, really. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've just added a note that that effects list applies to psilocybin/psilocin - but now the skeleton list for muscimol containing musrooms needs content [[User:Aaron Pannell|AP]] 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::The reason why this article should and does discuss various types of psychedelic funghi (and not just psilocybin containing mushrooms) is that the term ''psychedelic mushroom'' is commonly used to refer both to psilocybin/psilocin containing mushrooms *and* amanita muscaria, and both are, by definition, psychedelic mushrooms. Hence, an article entitled ''psychedelic mushroom(s)'' must address both of these funghi, as well as any other funghi which are ''mind-manifesting'' (hence the brief reference to ergot and the kykeon). Also, there's something to be said for documenting man's historical use of various psychedelic funghi in one article, and in addition, psilocybes are not the only psilocybin containing mushrooms, which are the two main reasons why why [[psychedelic mushroom]] shouldn't just be a disambiguation page with links to psilocybe and a.muscaria. I don't see any alternatives, but am open to Suggestions. [[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::Actually, I see the need for some kind of article discussing the history and ethnography of psilocybian mushrooms use more extensively than I have in the [[Psilocybe]] article. I've written about it there in as much detail as I think is needed for a general article - further expansion should go into a breakout article. I think the [[teonanacatl]] article is a good candidate, though at present, its kind of a superfluous article since it actually presents less detail than I've presented in my article. As for the [[psychedelic mushroom]] article, I'll say it again - the article is poorly organized and not particularly well-written. I'm not saying I'm the only person who can write a good article on this subject, but so far I have yet to see somebody step forward and turn "Psychedelic mushrooms" into a useful article - one that discusses human use of psilocybian mushrooms and ''Amanita muscaria'' and clearly distinguishes which mushroom is actually being referred to when it discusses history, effects, etc.

::::::If it were up to me as to what to do with the article, I'd make into a brief article defining psychedelic mushrooms, noting that that category includes both psilocybin-containing mushrooms and ''A. muscaria'', and referring from there to longer articles on "Psilocybe" (or "teonanacatl"), "Amanita muscaria", and other psychedelic mushrooms. However, there are several people who feel that the "Psychedelic mushrooms" article is useful in and of itself, hence, I'm not going to do anything with it beyond pointing out what poor shape it's in at present. If you think it's a needed article, then by all means, go ahead and give it the cleanup it clearly needs to turn it into a useful article. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hey Peter, I was a little off base last night...it was late and I was grumpy. I was slightly peeved, I must admit, by your general claim that there was no differentiation between p. and a.muscaria, when the article does mention this explicitly several times, and does so quite clearly in the intro. After I pointed this out, you only replied, "yeah, but look at the effects section...", so I think your original comment should have been more along the lines of "the effects section fails to differentiate...", and not "the article fails to differentiate...", or better yet, just have directly fixed this as simply as Aaron did, but no matter. I would like to retract the non-constructive statements I made, so have removed them from above (including your one-line reference to this provokation. Hope you don't mind (not sure what the wiki-etiquette on retractions on talk-pages is)). Anyway, I'm definitely interested in stimulating cooperation and not flame-wars.

:::::::I agree with you whole-heartedly that the general state of the [[psychedelic mushroom]] article is still "mess", though last August I did attempt to overhaul it. The state before that was "total mess"! I rewrote the intro, adding the explicit references to a.muscaria, ergot, the kykeon, and their various principle actives, pointing out quite explicitly and right up front that the effects are chemically and symptomatically unrelated, and added the explicit differentiation in the History section in an attempt clear up this very problem. cf. this diff (done before I registered):
:::::::http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_mushroom&diff=20153620&oldid=19885444I
:::::::Your general strategy of cleaning of [[psychedelic mushroom]], making it tighter and shorter, with references for detailed reading in [[psilocybe]], [[amanita muscaria]] and [[teonanácatl]] (and I would suggest [[ergot]] and [[kykeon]]) in break out style is definitely good. I also agree with your suggestion of making Teonanactl a break-out from psilocybe. [[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I'm glad to see that were more in agreement than not and I don't mean to come across as slagging any of your contributions. (The impression I get concerning the problems with "Psychedelic mushrooms" is that its a problem with having too many authors who have pieced it together in bits and pieces, not that any one author wrote a bad article.) I see the work you've been doing on it and its in better shape than it was. (In particular, the fact that under "[[Psychedelic_mushroom#History|History]]", ''Amanita muscaria'' and psilocybin mushrooms each have a discrete group of paragraphs, rather than wandering back and forth between the two subjects, which I thought was confusing.)

::::::::I'm actively working on "Psilocybe" again. I've expanded the "[[Psilocybe#History_and_Ethnography|History and Ethnography]]" section to include more on modern history. I've expanded that section to my satisfaction for the general article; if I expand it further, I'll do it as a breakout article, probably "teonanacatl". I've also added a section on "[[Psilocybe#Pronunciation_and_Usage|Pronunciation and Usage]]", since that's a significant source of confusion. My main concern in terms of overlap, actually, is with the "[[Psilocybin]]" article (which, in my opinion, is in pretty good shape). I still have yet to do anything with the "Medical and Psychiatric Aspects" section (contributions are always welcome), but I'm thinking of taking that out and merging it into "Psilocybin", since most medical/psychiatric research on these compounds uses purified psilocybin in order to be able to give a controlled dosage and avoid the potentially complicating effect of other synergistic or antagonistic compounds that may be found in the mushroom. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:31, 10 July 2024


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psilocybe&oldid=1233800707"