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!
pans are a lot more potent than cubies - and a lot cleaner in my opinion.
Psilocybe Cyanescens, Psilocybe Subaeruginosa, Psilocybe Australiana are all another catagory again - they make cubensis look non-active :-)
As an experienced tripper, I honestly could not make such a statement as every trip is so completely different and the emotions and changes are so drastic, that I could not attribute my reactions to a specific strain.
Your observations may be true, but a double-blind test needs to be done to determine the veracity of the different strains / different buzz hypothesis.
Perhaps a group of shrooming friends will care to test this. To do this experiment properly, several conditions would have to be met:
1. All strains should be grown by the same cultivator(s) on the same substrate and under the same temperature and humidity conditions.
2. One person in the group needs to be the moderator. Only he/she will know which strains are which and should avoid tripping with the group for the duration of the experiment.
3. All the shrooms should be ground to powder (so that there are no visual clues as to its identity) and measured in exact doses. The doses may vary from person to person, but not from trip to trip.
4. Trips should be spaced two weeks apart to minimize tolerance effects.
5. A standardized questionaire needs to be filled out, or the answers verbally given to the moderator if the tripper cannot write, at specific times in the trip, with a subjective essay immediately after the trip and a final overview the next day.
6. The set and setting needs to be the same. I suggest no external stimuli such as movies or music as these can affect mood and color the outcome.
I would suggest a minimum of 4 strains and at least 4 trippers (more is better!).
Unless some group is willing to do this, this debate will rage for decades and will always be speculative.
>What about Papaver somniferum and Papaver giganthemum, they can be crossed and often are, but they are considered seperate species
I am almost certain that P. giganthemum is a sub-species of somniferum. Where'd you hear they were considered seperate?
>Does the ability to cross pollinate automatically mean they are the same species??
Hell no. If they had to be the same species, "cross-pollinate" would be an oxymoron. I guess any plants with a close enough genetic match could be crossed. But as for what it takes for a plant to be considered a seperate species, I don't have a clue. I think it's based mostly on flower morphology, tho' this obviously doesn't mean much for mushrooms or non-flowering plants.
Remember, taxonomy doesn't "really" exist. It's just a system of classification botanists use so that they know what one another are talking about. Some of it seems pretty arbitrary to me, not to mention counter-productive -- now that the genus Trichocereus no longer exists, who's going to know that Echinopsis lageniformis (or something) is synonymous with Tr. bridgesii?
Edit: Smokemon, do you have a reference for Cannabis indica being considered a variety of sativa? Everything I've read says they're two distinct species.