Talk:Psilocybe: Difference between revisions
Erasurehead (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:::::I have the feeling the real reason for this fuss is that once this article only discusses psilocybin containing mushrooms, then there will be nothing to prevent it and Teonanácatl being subsumed by the psilocybe article, which, I have the feeling, would please certain authors, who have, I'm the first to admit, done wonderful work on the psilocybe article, but who, nonetheless, shouldn't let that go to their heads....there's more than one psilocybe expert on this planet, and I needn't be assured that the effects of psilocybes and a.muscaria are different, I assure you. ;-) This article serves a purpose entirely distinct from the psilocybe article as has already been discussed ad nauseum and which should ensure it's continued separate existence, though it be a thorn in the side of some. ;-) [[User:Erasurehead|Erasurehead]] 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
:::::I have the feeling the real reason for this fuss is that once this article only discusses psilocybin containing mushrooms, then there will be nothing to prevent it and Teonanácatl being subsumed by the psilocybe article, which, I have the feeling, would please certain authors, who have, I'm the first to admit, done wonderful work on the psilocybe article, but who, nonetheless, shouldn't let that go to their heads....there's more than one psilocybe expert on this planet, and I needn't be assured that the effects of psilocybes and a.muscaria are different, I assure you. ;-) This article serves a purpose entirely distinct from the psilocybe article as has already been discussed ad nauseum and which should ensure it's continued separate existence, though it be a thorn in the side of some. ;-) [[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. You might take that as an ego trip on my part, but that doesn't address the substance of my criticisms. 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 referring from there to longer articles on ''Psilocybe'' (or teonanacatl) and ''Amanita muscaria''. 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 its in at present. If you think its a needed article, then by all means, go ahead and give it the cleanup it clearly needs to turn it into a useful article. 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:57, 23 February 2006
Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) | ||||
|
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).
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.
- 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. --Heah (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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.
-- 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.
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. --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. --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. --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. --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?? --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(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:
- So I would recommend returning this comment. -- 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 . . . --Heah talk 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?--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. 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? --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 references Teonanácatl.
Should the 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 psychedelic mushroom talk page, I think it sensible to maintain both pages. --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. 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. 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. 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 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 above all else is the reason why the psilocybe page cannot be the one-stop psychedelic mushroom page some might wish it were. I don't see any alternatives, and nobody who's complaining about this fact is making any contructive suggestions that I can see.
- I have the feeling the real reason for this fuss is that once this article only discusses psilocybin containing mushrooms, then there will be nothing to prevent it and Teonanácatl being subsumed by the psilocybe article, which, I have the feeling, would please certain authors, who have, I'm the first to admit, done wonderful work on the psilocybe article, but who, nonetheless, shouldn't let that go to their heads....there's more than one psilocybe expert on this planet, and I needn't be assured that the effects of psilocybes and a.muscaria are different, I assure you. ;-) This article serves a purpose entirely distinct from the psilocybe article as has already been discussed ad nauseum and which should ensure it's continued separate existence, though it be a thorn in the side of some. ;-) 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. You might take that as an ego trip on my part, but that doesn't address the substance of my criticisms. 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 referring from there to longer articles on Psilocybe (or teonanacatl) and Amanita muscaria. 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 its in at present. If you think its a needed article, then by all means, go ahead and give it the cleanup it clearly needs to turn it into a useful article. 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)