![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
Two more questions that many people might find interesting:
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)
Keenen was very quick to correct this, but it was a good edit and I entirely agree with his emphasis on descriptive pronunciation rather than proscriptive pronunciation. The only objection I have is that the pronunciation was only given in IPA - I know this is standard for Wikipedia, but most people simply don't understand IPA and Wikipedia fails to provide a good key to IPA pronunciation. Even I have a very hard time with IPA, even though I've taken anthropological linguistics and had some exposure to it there. I added a readable pronunciation after the IPA one - I would have rather used standard English phonetic symbols, but I have no idea how to enter such symbols in Wikipedia.
Also, I re-capitalized the U in "Usage" in the title - this is a matter of parallelism with all the other section titles. Peter G Werner 07:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This was mis-translated years ago by some author and the translation from Náhuatl as "God's Flesh" has been repeated until it is universally accepted. According to Thelma D. Sullivan's Compendium of Náhuatl Grammar: "The Náhuatl language is largely agglutinative. In other words, it is a language in which two or more stems, with or without affixes, are combined to form a new word." Teó-ti is god but her dictionary has no definition of nanácatl. My Náhuatl speaking friends in Mexico insist that nanácatl is mushroom. This online source confirms this http://ohui.net/aulex/es-nah/?busca=hongo&idioma=en. Sullivan does define flesh as nacáyotl so "God's flesh" would be teonacáyotl. She also defines meat as nácatl so "god meat" would be teonácatl. Perhaps this is where the confusion has come from since this is quite close to Teonanácatl" - literally "god mushroom". (Acute accents are used in written Náhuatl to show the syllable upon which one puts emphasis - usually the second to the last.) 216.67.161.197 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
You mean like Thelma D. Sullivan? 216.67.161.230 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
How about The Wonderous Mushroom by R. Gorgon Wasson? 216.67.161.230 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
This may stem from the spanish use of the word "carne" meat, being the same as flesh. I see that it litterally means Devine Flesh as well. Is this not the same as the body of Christ? Why does this information always get removed? Are you people some kind of secret obsessed cult or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.96.106 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 May 2006
OK, according to Wasson's "The Wondrous Mushroom: Mycolatry in Mesoamerica" (I really need to get this listed as a reference), nanacatl means "mushroom". Its based on the root word ncatl meaning "meat" or "flesh", so the words are related. Until somebody can show me another source definitively arguing that "teonanacatl" should be translated as "god flesh" or "flesh of god", I'll stick with the "god mushroom" translation. Peter G Werner 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wowbobwow12 says "The Greek should not be italicized". Why not? According to WP:MOS#Words as words, whenever you're talking about words themselves, they should be in italics. — Keenan Pepper 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're comparing this to Saffron, then there is a lager section on biochemistry - thoughts? Cas Liber 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Support:
It was suggested by Alan Rockefellar that much of the sections on Psychoactivity, History and ethnography, and Social and legal issues go in the article Psychedelic mushrooms. What I dislike about that article is that its a mish-mash of information about Psilocybin-containing mushrooms and Amanita muscaria, clearly two very different topics. However, if there was an article on Psilocybin mushrooms (which would cover the specifiallly hallucinogenic aspects of psychoactive members of Psilocybe and Panaeolus), then I could see moving some of these sections.
If interested, discuss this further at Talk:Psychedelic mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this section is factual. I was IN Amsterdam less than a month ago and was able to purchase shrooms from a smartshop with no problems. They are labeled and regulated. This section needs revision —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Alan Rockefeller ( Talk - contribs) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
i've seen no direct evidence that the bluing of bruised psilocybe mushrooms correlates at all with their psilocin content. P. foenisecii doesn't bruise blue, and NUMEROUS other species of mushroom that do not contain psilocin also bruise blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.44.215 ( talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As the same zapotecorum image currently appears here twice, I'll be replacing one of them with the Psilocybe sp. image that currently appears on Psilocybe cyanofriscosa since I think it's a pretty awesome image. Kevin ( talk) 06:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As of 2011, Psilocybe has been delimited to the blue-staining psilocin/psilocybin-containing species, with the other species now classified under the name Deconica. The article, particularly the classification section, will need to be updated to reflect that. Peter G Werner ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article is is stated that Psilocybe cubensis is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. In the article Psilocybe semilanceata though it is stated that Psilocybe semilanceata is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. Both statements have citations. We should be internally consistent though. One, or both of these, should be changed to state "According to..." or something similar I think. Zell Faze ( talk) 15:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In the USA the emphasis is always on the third syllable and this is true as well for the active ingredients psilocybin and psilocin:
psilocybin |ˌsīləˈsībin|
in My Oxford American dictionary. Since the references given for pronunciation with the emphasis on the first or second syllable, link to a phonetic spelling guide, not a reliable source, they should be removed. Senor Cuete ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at those pronunciations, it looks to me that both of them put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text. Maybe just fixing the text is all that's needed. Senor Cuete ( talk) 23:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
As I explained in the summary of
this edit, all I did is merely corrected the pronunciation notation in accordance to the prose in the same sentence. Even that aside, the notation is an utter mess to begin with. The
respelling somehow doesn't use the {{
Respell}} template and has an unclosed <small>
tag, "silo" is arguably not one syllable, and
/ᵻ/ can never occur in a stressed syllable. My edit could not possibly be less controversial.
Nardog (
talk)
15:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the history. The notation originally given as a footnote, "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē", is an American Heritage Dictionary-style notation (which used to be used sparingly on Wikipedia but not anymore), which puts an apostrophe-like symbol that marks stress after the stressed syllable, unlike the IPA. So the original IPA notation /saɪˈlɒsəbiː/ is indeed in agreement with the AHD notation "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē" (although the last syllable is better transcribed with /i/ than with /iː/ – see Help:IPA for English). So no, the idea that the notations "put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text" was misguided in the first place (also, "ī" corresponds to /aɪ/, so that is another mistake in this edit right there). So again, my edit could not be less controversial, unlike whether or not such an unsourced notation should be included in the article which is a whole other discussion. Nardog ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Found a source. [1] Click on the notation to see the key, upon which I based the IPA and respelling. Nardog ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
Two more questions that many people might find interesting:
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)
Keenen was very quick to correct this, but it was a good edit and I entirely agree with his emphasis on descriptive pronunciation rather than proscriptive pronunciation. The only objection I have is that the pronunciation was only given in IPA - I know this is standard for Wikipedia, but most people simply don't understand IPA and Wikipedia fails to provide a good key to IPA pronunciation. Even I have a very hard time with IPA, even though I've taken anthropological linguistics and had some exposure to it there. I added a readable pronunciation after the IPA one - I would have rather used standard English phonetic symbols, but I have no idea how to enter such symbols in Wikipedia.
Also, I re-capitalized the U in "Usage" in the title - this is a matter of parallelism with all the other section titles. Peter G Werner 07:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This was mis-translated years ago by some author and the translation from Náhuatl as "God's Flesh" has been repeated until it is universally accepted. According to Thelma D. Sullivan's Compendium of Náhuatl Grammar: "The Náhuatl language is largely agglutinative. In other words, it is a language in which two or more stems, with or without affixes, are combined to form a new word." Teó-ti is god but her dictionary has no definition of nanácatl. My Náhuatl speaking friends in Mexico insist that nanácatl is mushroom. This online source confirms this http://ohui.net/aulex/es-nah/?busca=hongo&idioma=en. Sullivan does define flesh as nacáyotl so "God's flesh" would be teonacáyotl. She also defines meat as nácatl so "god meat" would be teonácatl. Perhaps this is where the confusion has come from since this is quite close to Teonanácatl" - literally "god mushroom". (Acute accents are used in written Náhuatl to show the syllable upon which one puts emphasis - usually the second to the last.) 216.67.161.197 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
You mean like Thelma D. Sullivan? 216.67.161.230 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
How about The Wonderous Mushroom by R. Gorgon Wasson? 216.67.161.230 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc
This may stem from the spanish use of the word "carne" meat, being the same as flesh. I see that it litterally means Devine Flesh as well. Is this not the same as the body of Christ? Why does this information always get removed? Are you people some kind of secret obsessed cult or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.96.106 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 May 2006
OK, according to Wasson's "The Wondrous Mushroom: Mycolatry in Mesoamerica" (I really need to get this listed as a reference), nanacatl means "mushroom". Its based on the root word ncatl meaning "meat" or "flesh", so the words are related. Until somebody can show me another source definitively arguing that "teonanacatl" should be translated as "god flesh" or "flesh of god", I'll stick with the "god mushroom" translation. Peter G Werner 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wowbobwow12 says "The Greek should not be italicized". Why not? According to WP:MOS#Words as words, whenever you're talking about words themselves, they should be in italics. — Keenan Pepper 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're comparing this to Saffron, then there is a lager section on biochemistry - thoughts? Cas Liber 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Support:
It was suggested by Alan Rockefellar that much of the sections on Psychoactivity, History and ethnography, and Social and legal issues go in the article Psychedelic mushrooms. What I dislike about that article is that its a mish-mash of information about Psilocybin-containing mushrooms and Amanita muscaria, clearly two very different topics. However, if there was an article on Psilocybin mushrooms (which would cover the specifiallly hallucinogenic aspects of psychoactive members of Psilocybe and Panaeolus), then I could see moving some of these sections.
If interested, discuss this further at Talk:Psychedelic mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this section is factual. I was IN Amsterdam less than a month ago and was able to purchase shrooms from a smartshop with no problems. They are labeled and regulated. This section needs revision —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Alan Rockefeller ( Talk - contribs) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
i've seen no direct evidence that the bluing of bruised psilocybe mushrooms correlates at all with their psilocin content. P. foenisecii doesn't bruise blue, and NUMEROUS other species of mushroom that do not contain psilocin also bruise blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.44.215 ( talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As the same zapotecorum image currently appears here twice, I'll be replacing one of them with the Psilocybe sp. image that currently appears on Psilocybe cyanofriscosa since I think it's a pretty awesome image. Kevin ( talk) 06:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As of 2011, Psilocybe has been delimited to the blue-staining psilocin/psilocybin-containing species, with the other species now classified under the name Deconica. The article, particularly the classification section, will need to be updated to reflect that. Peter G Werner ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article is is stated that Psilocybe cubensis is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. In the article Psilocybe semilanceata though it is stated that Psilocybe semilanceata is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. Both statements have citations. We should be internally consistent though. One, or both of these, should be changed to state "According to..." or something similar I think. Zell Faze ( talk) 15:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In the USA the emphasis is always on the third syllable and this is true as well for the active ingredients psilocybin and psilocin:
psilocybin |ˌsīləˈsībin|
in My Oxford American dictionary. Since the references given for pronunciation with the emphasis on the first or second syllable, link to a phonetic spelling guide, not a reliable source, they should be removed. Senor Cuete ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at those pronunciations, it looks to me that both of them put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text. Maybe just fixing the text is all that's needed. Senor Cuete ( talk) 23:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
As I explained in the summary of
this edit, all I did is merely corrected the pronunciation notation in accordance to the prose in the same sentence. Even that aside, the notation is an utter mess to begin with. The
respelling somehow doesn't use the {{
Respell}} template and has an unclosed <small>
tag, "silo" is arguably not one syllable, and
/ᵻ/ can never occur in a stressed syllable. My edit could not possibly be less controversial.
Nardog (
talk)
15:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the history. The notation originally given as a footnote, "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē", is an American Heritage Dictionary-style notation (which used to be used sparingly on Wikipedia but not anymore), which puts an apostrophe-like symbol that marks stress after the stressed syllable, unlike the IPA. So the original IPA notation /saɪˈlɒsəbiː/ is indeed in agreement with the AHD notation "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē" (although the last syllable is better transcribed with /i/ than with /iː/ – see Help:IPA for English). So no, the idea that the notations "put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text" was misguided in the first place (also, "ī" corresponds to /aɪ/, so that is another mistake in this edit right there). So again, my edit could not be less controversial, unlike whether or not such an unsourced notation should be included in the article which is a whole other discussion. Nardog ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Found a source. [1] Click on the notation to see the key, upon which I based the IPA and respelling. Nardog ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)