Home | Community | Message Board


Sensi Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics >> Mushroom Hunting and Identification

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Kava Kava, Paul Stamets, Toilet Paper

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin.
    #5606645 - 05/08/06 11:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Surely this must settle the debate. To my mind it shows that at least some samples contain at-least some amount of psilocybin, albiet maybe too small to induce any sort of hallucinogenic reaction. From a drug-head point of view it is totally irrelevant, form a mycological point of view, mildly interesting.

FIG. 5—Chromatogram of a Panaeolina foenisecii extract containing (1) psilocybin and (2) 4-hydroxyindole (internal standard).

- Anastos, Nicole, Lewis, Simon W., Barnett, Neil W. & Sims, D. Noel
The Determination of Psilocin and Psilocybin in Hallucinogenic Mushrooms by HPLC Utilizing a Dual Reagent Acidic Potassium Permanganate and Tris(2,2'-bipyridyl)ruthenium(II) Chemiluminescence Detection System.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 51 (1), 45-51.
doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00033.x

- http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00033.x


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinexmush
Professor ofDoom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5606742 - 05/08/06 11:44 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I think that this certainly indicates that some pan foes contain trace amounts of these chemicals. Also everyone should note that this is a very recent study, and their source of mushrooms was the Australian Royal Botanical Gardens in Melbourne so our chance of misidentification is probably low (unless someone has inside knowledge that these folks can't ID mushrooms).

I've enjoyed the debate on foes though I'm sure some of you moderators are tired of seeing it constantly rehashed. But, this is how science works - and more importantly how science changes.

And as wombat has stated continuously - this is interesting from a mycological standpoint - this does not indicate any 'activity.' Unless of course you're ready to eat several hundred nasty LBMs.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblegeorgeM
Human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/05/05
Posts: 1,716
Loc: north eastern kansas
Trusted Identifier
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5606780 - 05/08/06 11:58 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I remember this kid who used to wear guns n roses shirts and ripped jeans while hanging out in the park smoking cigarettes… revealing his collection of Pan foes he stated “them fucked me up so bad I was like seeing tracers and shit..... and dude.... my mouth was so dry and I didn’t have money for a pop… it was wicked” (I never forget those kinds of encounters)

Soooo… wombat’s squiggly lines, the testimony of a miscreant lollygagging naredowell, John Allan’s postulations. This is fun stuff!

Panaeolina foenisecii seem to possess a psychoactive quality common to many little brown mushrooms. Symptoms of this unique form of inebriation are usually typified by inclinations to argue about inconsequential details, semantics, and jargon ad infinitum.

georgem


--------------------
www.morelhunters.com



Edited by georgeM (05/09/06 12:00 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: georgeM]
    #5606814 - 05/09/06 12:07 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It's not inconsequential. As xmush pointed out, this is how science - in this case, mycology - works. If you find it uninterestng, simply don't participate.

For example, if it is agreed that some lawn mushrooms do indeed contain trace amount of psilocybin, the next question would be how much? Enough to induce a reaction in a baby maybe?

Maybe not. But hardly an inconsequential question. Perhaps evey consequential enough for the outlandish suggestion that maybe some of these "urban legends" deserve a second look. Afterall, no sceintist is correct all the time. Not mycologists, not Albert Einstien and not even Steven Hawking.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinexmush
Professor ofDoom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: georgeM]
    #5606816 - 05/09/06 12:07 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quoting GeorgeM
"Panaeolina foenisecii seem to possess a psychoactive quality common to many little brown mushrooms. Symptoms of this unique form of inebriation are usually typified by inclinations to argue about inconsequential details, semantics, and jargon ad infinitum. "

EXACTLY!!!!  Cause what else are we going to do around here besides ID people's Coprinus and Psathyrella finds!!    :tongue2:


Edited by xmush (05/09/06 12:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblegeorgeM
Human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/05/05
Posts: 1,716
Loc: north eastern kansas
Trusted Identifier
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: xmush]
    #5606886 - 05/09/06 12:25 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It is hardly “inconsequential” aye… see… arguing about semantics.
Actually I am just being playful wombat… in terms of deepening our knowledge of fungi you are absolutely correct… far from inconsequential.
I am not one who supports orthodoxy in any of its manifestations, certainly not in science. I have made the exact same remarks as you have in previous threads regarding the formative nature of the science of mycology. Everyone knows previously held hypotheses and theories are turned on their heads on a fairly regular basis in this field.
I also typed in the post “this is fun stuff!”... I was serious.
Rock on wombat… you have the fire...
georgem


--------------------
www.morelhunters.com



Edited by georgeM (09/11/07 05:37 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: georgeM]
    #5606926 - 05/09/06 12:37 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Hehehe ... I was aware you were mucking around & was a little worried my reply looked a bit abraisive, I just thought it was an important point. :wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCptnGarden
fuck this site
Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 11,945
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5606974 - 05/09/06 12:55 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

omg not another one of these posts. many shroomerites all over the globe on this site have consumed panaeolina foenisecii and walked away with mere diarrhea. the only reason some think pan foes contain psilocybin is because pan subbs (which are active) look VERY similar, and are often mistaken for them.

according to your "source" what would be an active dose of these supposed "active foes"?

I have eaten over 300 specimens of them to settle the score. I spent the rest of my day sitting on the toilet wishing I hadn't.

Do you really think they spore printed every last mushroom that they extracted? I bet at least one of those out of the hundreds they extracted from was a subb not a foe, or even a spore-variated specimen (brown and black spored copes for instance).

there has also been subbs found (supposedly subbs), black spores and all, that contain NO TRACES of psilocybin.

these two mushrooms are so very closely related yet vary so much in many forms. I'm not saying its not possible. im just saying its not likely.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblegeorgeM
Human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/05/05
Posts: 1,716
Loc: north eastern kansas
Trusted Identifier
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5606977 - 05/09/06 12:56 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I wonder how many other species of fungi contain these trace amounts of psilocybin and its analogs, I would speculate the number of mushrooms containing these compounds is much higher than what we can determine at this point. In depth chemical analysis of a broad spectrum of fungi, including lichens, would be extremely interesting. I would certainly love to know why these chemicals are present from the perspective of fungi. The same is true of tryptamines in general, including those found in plants... our understanding of the biological role these chemicals play is so underdeveloped.

georgem


--------------------
www.morelhunters.com



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: georgeM]
    #5607061 - 05/09/06 01:25 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

ShroomieOfDoomie,

You have obviously either (1) failed to read the thread and accompanying study, (2) totally misunderstood some or all of it or (3) both of the above.

The fact that you ate 300 inactive LBMs and got sick offers nothing in the way of a scientific argument refuting the study that was published by my "source" ... a scientific paper detailing recent chemical analysis on the fungi in question, carried out by a team of science professors and in conjunction with the Australian Royal Botanical Gardens that was recently published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Maybe you should ring them and tell them about your bowel movements and failure to get off your head.


Edited by oO_wombat_Oo (05/09/06 01:59 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: georgeM]
    #5607075 - 05/09/06 01:30 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

georgeM said:I would certainly love to know why these chemicals are present from the perspective of fungi. The same is true of tryptamines in general, including those found in plants...


Definitely agreed. There must be some reason and I am very curious as to what on earth it could be. And I don't mean a mystical spritual reason, I mean a scientific one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/22/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5607163 - 05/09/06 02:08 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Both Ott and I have had a trea made form a pound of Panaeolina foenisecii and we barely felt a faint feeling if being tired.

Over hundreds of analysis have failed to find psilocine of psilocybine in that species. But then you have macroscopically related Panaeolus specie of microspora and castaneifolius which are sometimes latent and get one high.
The three previously analysized collections form thwe sixities and early 1970s were obviously false postives and this could be the case in the study you showed above.

WE have examined Australian speimens and found them to be voide in a study by Stijve.

HEre are some of the results of hundreds of specimens of Panaeoluina foenisecii from various sources:

Quote:

In the past, as noted above, numerous mycologists had listed this species as edible, but not desirable; while most recent mycological publications refer to this mushroom as poisonous and/or hallucinogenic.

The question of the suspected psychoactive properties of P. foenisecii, which allegedly caused hallucinations in three young children (described above), three teen-agers (Cooles 1980), and two elderly ladies (Allen 1988b), is confused by conflicting observations of mycologists and other investigators who have studied this species. There is some mycological disagreement regarding the natural production and presence of psilocybin and psilocin in Panaeolina foenisecii. Some have even referred to the suspected appearance of these alkaloids in this species as sporadic (Ola'h 1970).

Panaeolina foenisecii was first investigated for the presence of indole compounds by Tyler and Smith (1963). They detected no psilocybin or psilocin in the specimens they analyzed, but did report the occurrence of 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin), along with 5-hydroxytryptophan, and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid. Two years later, Holden (1965) reported a suspected poisoning in a young English boy who became ill with tachycardia and mydriasis after allegedly consuming Panaeolina foenisecii). Specimens of the fungus collected in England and examined by Holden in 1969, contained no detectable psilocybin or psilocin (Mantle & Waight 1969).

Ola'h (1968a; 1968b; 1969; 1970) studied this species and described it as being 'latent psilocybian' (i.e., only producing these compounds sporadically). Robbers et al. (1969), reported detection of psilocybin in two collections of P. foenisecii, ?? one from Lafayette, Indiana, and another from Quebec, Canada. A third collection of the fungus, from Seattle, Washington, did not contain psilocybin.

In 1972 Fiusello and Ceruti?Scurti reported analysis of an Italian collection of P. foenisecii and found psilocybin present in one of two samples. Specimens collected during the spring of 1972 in Seattle, Washington tested negative (Enos 1972; Brolyn 1990). Later that same year, Miller (1972) commented on a case of poisoning that occurred earlier in 1966, in which this fungus was eaten by a four year old boy who "...was rendered comatose for a short time." Two years later, Southcott (1974) reported the above cited Australian case.

Although much earlier, Cleland (1934) first recorded the presence of the "haymaker's mushroom" in Australia, he identified the fungus as Psilocybe foenisecii (Pers.) Fr. (the Latin name Foenisecia, means "Hay? harvest). Cleland made no mention regarding the species toxicity or edibility.

Specimens of P. foenisecii collected near Canberra, Australia were analyzed by R.W. Rickards (cf. Southcott 1974) and were reported as being psilocybin negative. Ott (1976), citing Robbers et al. (1969) as his source, noted that P. foenisecii specimens from Ontario and Indiana were tested as psilocybin positive. The specimens referred to above were actually collected in Quebec and Indiana. Ott (1974?1975) later mentioned that he himself ingested a large number of the "haymaker's mushroom collected near Olympia, Washington; he reported no noticeable effects.

Pollock (1976) based the following statement on a study by Ola'h (1970) involving five samples of P. foenisecii (four from Quebec and one from Paris); "two from Quebec contained both psilocybin and psilocin, whereas the one from Paris and one of the two other samples from Quebec contained psilocybin."

Ott and Guzman (1976) carried out further investigations regarding the production of psilocybin and psilocin in P. foenisecii. They analyzed specimens from the Federal District of Mexico and found them to be void of psilocybin. Ott and Pollock (Guzman et al. 1976) also collected specimens of P. foenisecii from Oregon in 1975. No psilocybin was detected.

Haard and Haard (1975) suggested that psilocybin and psilocin are only found in this fungus in the United States on the East Coast; while Menser (1977) noted that "Western analyses have often shown the presence of psilocybin (but not psilocin) in small amounts only" (the authors of the present study found no reference verifying either Menser's or Haard and Haard's claims). Singer (1978) also ingested "raw" specimens of this species. He reported no "psychotropic" effects whatsoever. Subsequent chemical analysis of P. foenisecii by Singer (1991, Pers. Comm.) was negative. Arora (1979), believing this species to be harmless, stated that the " 'chemical analysis have revealed traces of psilocybin in certain strains, but [the] material I tested was inactive."

Watling (1979) collected specimens of Panaeolina foenisecii in 1974 from Western Australia. He described the suspected poisoning of a two year old girl in Australia (the case originally reported by Southcott in 1974; see case history no. 3 above). Watling briefly mentioned Holden's (1965) report of an alleged poisoning of a three year old child in Great Britain, and argued that "because of its wide spread distribution, and its frequency on lawns and in parks P. foenisecii is likely to cause poisonings, especially in young children."

Cooles (1980) reported that three teen?agers in the British Isles sought emergency treatment after each had allegedly consumed between 20 to 30 mushrooms. The mushrooms in this case were reported to be Panaeolina foenisecii; however, all three patients displayed symptoms of visual disturbances which included "euphoria and hallucinations of color and speed of movements such that lawns developed patches of brilliant colors and cars moved frighteningly fast." It is possible that these three young teen?agers may have consumed some specimens of Panaeolina foenisecii; but the symptoms described are similar to those associated with the ingestion of Psilocybe species (i.e., P. semilanceata (Fr. ex Secr.) Kumm., which is native to the British Isles, and P. cubensis (Earle) Singer, a commonly ingested psychoactive species which is not indigenous to these islands, but can be grown indoors clandestinely). In 1982, Beug and Bigwood published their analysis of two collections of Psathyrella foenisecii (syn, P. foenisecii) collected in 1978 from the Pacific Northwest. They reported the fungus specimens to be void of any psilocybin or psilocin.

Christiansen, Rasmussen, and Holland (1984) analyzed Norwegian specimens of Panaeolina collected from a lawn in September of 1982 and detected no indole compounds. Stijve, Hischenhuber, and Ashley (1984) "...are of the opinion that P. foenisecii cannot contain psilocybin or psilocin at all." These scientists came to this conclusion after analyzing 16 different collections of P. foenisecii from 8 countries, including Australia, the United States and six in Europe. Specimens analyzed for possible indole compounds were collected over an eleven year period (1973?1982). Stijve, Hischenhuber, and Ashley also conducted controlled laboratory experiments with human volunteers to test the possible effects of P. foenisecii; however, "...even the equivalent of 40 gm of fresh mushrooms failed to produce any psychotropic effect." Gartz (1985) reported that his study and analysis of 100 specimens of P. foenisecii were psilocybin negative. More recently Ohenoja et al. (1987) detected psilocybin (0.03)% in two separate dried specimens collected in Finland.

In 1977, Allen (1988a) collected a species of Panaeolina in Oxnard, California which macroscopically resembled P. foenisecii; later, Allen bioassayed this species and found that the mushrooms (40 fresh specimens weighing 52 gm) were definitely psychoactive. No voucher specimens were saved for examination. It is possible that the specimens collected in this case were misidentified by Allen and were actually Panaeolus castaneifolius (Murr.) Ola'h=Panaeolina castaneifolius (Murr.) Smith, or a similar related variety of Panaeolus. Allen (1988b) also reported that two elderly ladies were intoxicated by Panaeolina foenisecii in Portland, Oregon.

According to a recent study by Young (1988) "...chromatographic analysis of Australian Material (Panaeolina foenisecii) has not yet demonstrated the presence of any psilocybin in this species."

Based on his personal ingestion of the fungus, John Leonard (1989, Pers. Comm.), a resident of Hingham, Massachusetts, claimed that Panaeolina foenisecii collected on his own front lawn was psychoactive in large quantity. Voucher specimens of Leonard's 1985 collection have been deposited at the Bishop Herbarium in Honolulu, Hawaii for scientific examination (1989. 363. Sheet # 580325. May?June 1985. Plymouth, Mass.). Two other collections of Leonard's specimens were forwarded to Dr. T. Stijve in Switzerland for study. Botanical identity was confirmed and chemical properties were established. Both collections of the fungi were analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography and by High Performance Thin Layered Chromatography with identical results (see Fig. 2). Comparative analyses using specimens of Copelandia cyanescens from the Hawaiian Islands shows that both of Leonard's collections of Panaeolina foenisecii from Massachusetts contain characteristic compounds of Panaeolus species. These include urea, serotonin and its precursor 5?hydroxytryptophan. Although tryptophan might also present, there is definitely no psilocybin or psilocin, (i.e., 0.01% dry weight). Also the absence of bufotonin (5-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine) suggests that the fungi is not able to methylate serotonin (Stijve et al., 1984). The results in figure 2 show the difference.




mj


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: mjshroomer]
    #5607196 - 05/09/06 02:25 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Like I touched on in the previous thread, you can't prove the negative argument (that no Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin) by consuming them. Not only because they don't contain enough of the chemical to do anything, but chiefly because you would have to find every single one of the mushrooms in existence and prove none of them contain even a trace amount of the chemicals in question. An impossible task.

In contrast to prove the positive, all you have to do is find one single specimen and prove it contains even the most minuscule amount of the chemical and the theory is proved solidly beyond all argument.

Whenever someone does do this, it doesn't suite to say "well they must have misidentified it". This is a team of highly qualified scientists publishing a paper in a much respected scientific journal. The notion that they would make such a rudimentary mistake as to misidentifying a key component of their study is at the very least unlikely. Especially considering the identification is a simple process for anyone who does 30 minutes of (proper) research on The Internet.

Likewise, posting reports of previous misidentification proves nothing more than that the mushrooms have been misidentified in the past.

I agree with georgeM that these chemicals possibly exist in minuscule, trace amounts within a much more widespread selection of fungi than what is presently thought.

Although it would be foolish to state that as a fact, just a hunch.

But ... perhaps there has been mistake. Nobody can say for sure, but I'm certainly not betting on it! It would be an extremely bold stance indeed to actively assume they made a mistake and claim it as undisputed fact that no Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin in any amount, at all, ever.


Edited by oO_wombat_Oo (05/09/06 03:42 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebluemeanie
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,085
Loc: orbit
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5607529 - 05/09/06 05:31 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It seems unlikely to my mind, but the example of Gymonpilus spectabilis being active in some regional collections and being void of any active in most others sets some sort of possible precedent.


--------------------


Have: Agaricus bitorquis; Lepista saeva; Lepista nuda; SRA; Pioppino; Agaricus 'marzipan'

Looking for: Agaricus augustus, more SRAs and Torqs.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFeelers
Anti-Myth-Rhythm-Rock-Shocker
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,770
Loc: Land of Oz
Last seen: 1 month, 22 days
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: bluemeanie]
    #5607592 - 05/09/06 06:48 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I'd have to go with wombat - that study is from January this year, so it is where I'd put my bets.

Quote:

postcolumn detection of psilocin and psilocybin in extracts of Psilocybe subaeruginosa, Hypholoma aurantiaca, and Panaeolina foenisecii was demonstrated.




Surely these HPLC tests are pretty accurate. Is everyone trying to say that this study is wrong?
From reading that article it gives a pretty clear indication that P foenisecii does contain at least trace amounts of Psilocybin.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/22/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: Feelers]
    #5607894 - 05/09/06 11:07 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I would like to point t out that scientists do make mistakes in identifying psilocybian mushrooms.

Gartz published a paper listing five species of mushrooms he detected psilocybine and /or psilocine in.

Quote:



------. 1986b. Nachweis von Tryptaminderivaten in Pilzen der Gattungen Gerronema, Hygrocybe, Psathyrella, und Inocybe. Biochemie und Physiologie der Pflanzen vol. 181:275-278.
Detection of tryptamine derivatives in fungi of the genera Gerronema (Rickenella), Hygrocybe, Psathyrella, and Inocybe. In German.




In the above [paper, Gartz claimed to detect substantial amounts of psilocine and psilocybine and other related compounds in five species of mushrooms.

2 species of Rickenella (Gerronema), One species of Psathyrella, a species of Hygrocybe and one non-active species of Inocybe.

All the results were false positives. But not before Guzman and I, as well as Gartz published a listing of these species, followed by a laerger journal publication, thus spreading the mis-information of bad data to hundreds of other readers of the listings.

Later Stijve of Nestles published a paper described in quiotes below showing those species and two others Gartz claimed were psychoactive were not and did not contain any psilocine and/or psilocybine.

Quote:


Stijve, Tjakko and Th. W. Kuyper. 1988. Absence of psilocybin in species of fungi previously reported to contain psilocybin and related tryptamine derivatives. Persoonia vol. 13(4):463-465.
Seven taxa of agarics previously reported in the scientific literature by Gartz (1986b) as psychoactive are analyzed for psilocybin and other related tryptamine compounds. All seven were found to be negative.

I would also like to mention the horrible paper written by and for the DEA on the PF (Psilocybe fanticus) bust.

Quote:


Gross, S. 2000. Detecting psychoactive drugs in the developmental stages of mushrooms. Journal of Forensic Science vol. 45(3):527-537.
The following questions regarding the detection of psychoactive drugs in mushrooms are addressed: At what stage of the mushroom development can the psychoactive drugs psilocyn and psilocybin be identified, and what effect does light have on the growth of these mushrooms. To answer these questions, Psilocybe cyanescens Wakefield mushrooms were grown from their spores in a controlled setting. At various times of their development, samples were taken and analyzed for psilocyn and psilocybin. Knowing what stage of development the psychoactive drugs can be identified may be useful to law enforcement personnel and forensic chemists. Methanolic extracts of various samples were analyzed by TLC and by GC/MS. It was determined that the mycelium knot stage of the mushroom was the earliest stage at which the psychoactive drugs could be detected. It was observed that light affected the time of development and the appearance of these mushrooms.</b>

Unfortunattely Dr. Gross had a mycologist, Dr. David McLaughlin of the Plant Biology Program from the University of Michigan, mis-identify the PF-ordered Psilocybe cubensis (Earle) Sing. mushrooms as Psilocybe cyanecens Wakefield.

Also the word psilocin is mis-spelled as psilocyn throughout the paper. Both Dr. Gross and Dr. McLaughlin were notified of the errors in the Study. However, both failed to respond to the authors inquiries regarding the matter. WE diod contact the publ;isher who said they would correct this error in a later issue




A forensic scientist working with DNA and other established methods wrote that there were no psilocine/psilocybine in the myellium of mushrooms they grew in their lab and analysed with HPLC and they also had a noted midwest Mycologist misidentifyu their mushrooms as Psilocybe cyanescens. When in fact they were actually Psilocybe cubensis.

PF never sold spores or syrninges for growing Psilocybe s cyanescens. And we already know that there is psilocine/psilocybine in the mycelium of these magic shrooms.

So evern ecperts can make mistakes in their studies, expecially when very few people anywhere have real pure pharmaceutical samples to do a comparative analytical study to show what is in the mushrooms.

Right now, one of my colleagues in Thailand have found a new indole in P. cubensis from Koh Samui.
\
Stijve also reported the same back in the early 1990s to me of a new indole compound and Stamets wrote of it in his PMOTW book. Now we confirmed this new indole, but again we have notthing legitmate to compare it with.

In Africa, several doctors published a paper on Chlorophyllum molybdites saying African natives eat the mushroom and refer to it as the mushroom which causes one to "eat and hear voices."

Quote:

Adewusi, S. R. A., Alofe, Fn., Odeyemi, O., Afolabi, O. A., and O. L. Oke. 1993. Studies on some edible mushrooms from Nigeria: I. Nutritional, teratogenic and toxic considerations. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition vol. 43:115-121.
The biological value of 5 mushrooms Chlorophyllum molybditis, Psathyrella atroumbonata, Termitomyces robustus, Termitomyces striatus and Volvariella esculenta from a collection of wild mushrooms were determined using weaning rats. The authors also discuss the possibility that in Nigeria, Africa, a known toxic species, Chlorophyllum molybditis is allegedly psychoactive. It's local name in Yoruba implies `a jegba'ariwo-orun' (eat and hear voices), and according to the authors of this paper this implies that it may be hallucinogenic. We believe that this mushroom has been mis-identified.




In America and most of the world, we know this mushroom as 'Green Gills', or 'Moragan's lepiota'; It makes one very sick. So we assume the African scientists who wrote this paper with no chemical studies whatsoever to back the claim that it is hallucinogenic and/or psychoactive, yet wrote so, is another example of someone identifying a mushroom as magic when indeed it is really not.

anyway I am done on this thread.

have a shroomy day.

btw, thats like law enforcement officials who tell courts that marijuana stays in the body for thirty days.

So what.

You are not high for thirty days. But then, millions of straight people who do not smoke pot, believe that story as fact. And many have noted that one is probably high for days after smoking pot.

mj


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/22/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: bluemeanie]
    #5607911 - 05/09/06 11:13 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Blue meanie,

There are only 13 species of identified active species of Gymnopilus and even Hessler and others who have studied them say it is sometimes practically impossible to identify them macroscopically so anyone couold easily misidentify the species in the genera as one or the other.

However, G. spectabilis is also known to contain noryahgonine, compound fouond in kava int he species, Others say trhey have detectred psilocine/psilocybine. Whatever.

But there is still much confusion in that genera.

This also comes into mine everytime I show [people who have only eaten shrooms a few times, a picture of galerina autuinalis, they confirm to me that they ate those before and had a great trip.

One has to think about those kind of people and would you eat mushroms they pick.

\A few years ago in Oregon we had a 2nd death associated with Galerina. One man died and the other survived. They thought they had picked P. cyanescens.

mj


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineoO_wombat_Oo
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 734
Loc: NSW, Australia.
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: mjshroomer]
    #5609545 - 05/09/06 07:08 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

What sort of detection methods did Gartz use? I put it to you that they were neither as recent (Jan 06) or as advanced (HPLC analysis) as the ones used in this study. Is it possible that the psilocybin content was too small for him to detect? Or that some types of mushrooms contain the chemical occasionaly, but not always, and he selected specimens to test that contained none? Or his detection methods were not accurate?

There are so many variables, and this is the problem with trying to prove a negative argument (i.e. there is none). I've said this over and over. In order to prove something, you have to prove the positive (i.e. there is some). It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to present a sceintificly sound proof of a negative. The best you can do is say it is "unknown" or at the very most "proved beyond reasonable doubt" (e.g. there is no psilocybin in peanuts). However there is obviously much doubt about Panaeolina foenisecii so I put it to you that nobody can state, as fact, that the species does not occasionally produce trace amounts of the chemicals in question.

And consider that even that statement flies totally in the face of this new study. It is basicly saying, without knowing the slightest thing about the scientists who conducted the study (apart from the fact that they are all extremely qualified chemical and botany scientists), that they have made a mistake that your average layman would not if they bothered to do 30mins of research on the Internet. For me that's a huge leap of faith in order to maintain old beliefs on a subject matter that, by all rights should be constantly being revised and modified anyway.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: oO_wombat_Oo]
    #5609572 - 05/09/06 07:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

OK, so some collections of Panaeolina foenisecii contain trace amounts of psilocybian compounds (not enough to make anyone trip). Thank you for bringing this new scholarship to our attention. Scholarly disagreement is a fact of every field of study, and the field of psychoactive mushrooms is not immune from it. This new study seems legit to me.  You the man Wonbat.  :cool:


Edited by shroomydan (05/09/06 07:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebearmtn
Stranger
Registered: 04/20/05
Posts: 88
Last seen: 7 months, 9 days
Re: Some Panaeolina foenisecii contain psilocybin. [Re: mjshroomer]
    #9935313 - 03/08/09 09:16 PM (5 years, 5 months ago)

And the debate goes on and on. Very unscientific to make broad sweeping statements that no foenisecii ever has had psychotropic properties. Again I can state with reasonable certainty that on extremely rare occasions it does. With many years of picking foes on summer irrigated lawns and literally thousands of specimens, on three occasions, on the same lawn, I picked foes that exhibited moderate bluing. These were the only foes that I have ever observed any bluing. This same lawn consistently produces foes each summer, but only produced these bluing specimens  during a two week period one late summer in 1980. They were definitely psychoactive. I can't explain what conditions or circumstances produced this. They were not subs (brown spore print, very slightly purplish).


Edited by bearmtn (03/08/09 09:17 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Kava Kava, Paul Stamets, Toilet Paper

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics >> Mushroom Hunting and Identification

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Official 2007 Panaeolina foenisecii Thread.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
coon 22,418 143 10/30/13 06:38 PM
by Tetragammatron
* Gerhardt's Panaeolina Foenisecii Worldwide studied specimens mjshroomer 710 0 05/13/07 01:35 PM
by mjshroomer
* Audubon's panaeolina foenisecii Photograph mjshroomer 1,353 8 06/06/03 01:57 PM
by Gumby
* Panaeolina foenisecii (aka The other "belted cap") World Spirit 743 5 07/19/10 03:00 AM
by orison319
* Panaeolina foenisecii vs. Panaeolus subbalteatus Minion 3,007 6 05/21/10 04:12 PM
by German Kahuna
* SW Ontario Agrocybe pediades , Conocybe albipes , Panaeolina foenisecii EvilMushroom666M 2,284 15 06/10/10 09:11 PM
by SomeGuy
* Just some Panaeolina foenisecii GGreatOne234 1,318 6 05/28/07 02:45 PM
by mjshroomer
* I see Panaeolina foenisecii and Blue Ringers Today-Tuesday mjshroomer 1,218 6 10/01/03 11:04 PM
by MagmaManiac

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, karode13, CureCat, Alan Rockefeller, TimmiT, Gravija
10,806 topic views. 4 members, 58 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2014 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 40 queries.