Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead. | |||||||
Teotzlcoatl Teotzlcoatl Registered: 06/29/07 Posts: 2,421 Loc: South-Eastern US Last seen: 16 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
So your telling me MJ that there are no other mushrooms on earth that are psychoactive yet do not contain psilocybin?
-------------------- "We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
| |||||||
Salvia_Antics DMT Convert Registered: 01/28/07 Posts: 378 Loc: The Garden Of Ed Last seen: 12 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Amanita Muscaria ? -------------------- "The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
Quote: The actual name is Lepiota humei Murrill. Here are some personal conversation noted between Me,Michael Beug, Jeremy Bigwood and Peele about his Lepiota with a few notes from Dr. Tjakko Stijve. And comments on Mckenna Brothers, His wife Kat, Ott and others. It is good to get the Peele argument closed. From My personal files and letters. Quote: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX mjshroomer
| |||||||
Teotzlcoatl Teotzlcoatl Registered: 06/29/07 Posts: 2,421 Loc: South-Eastern US Last seen: 16 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Besides muscaria ,sorry
-------------------- "We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
There are Rusullas, Boletus and Heimii in New Guinea which supposedly are active. But anthropologists think that the natives image they are high. They do have one Psilocybe species there.
I might also add again, read the paper by Guzman, Me and gartz. its 100 pages of good data and a worldwide list of shrooms on each country, island and most continents. Its posted here at this site and if yo cannot find it then go see it at erowid.org mj
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
There are about six or seven Amanitas which are active. IF you want to play with fire, then thats your business. I personally do not recommend them to anyone who has sense.
mj There are enough Psilocybe species world wide to please anyone. And if that does not help you then move south to Georgia to Florida to Texas. OF course, there are a lot of inbred unfriendly people down there who love to hassle with shroom pickers. This is now also true for many Polynesian islands such as Hawaii, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga where locals hassle shroom pickers because they probably have pot growing in the mountainous regions. If you go to Samoa, the copes grow on the l;awn of the Mormon church. A few years back, a Mediterranean landscaping company delivered sod to a church lawn in Bern Switzerland. Within about a month, the lawn was covered wall to wall with Copelandia bispora, previously only known of form Central Africa, Hawaii and now Switzerland. Of course they did not come back the following year.
| |||||||
Teotzlcoatl Teotzlcoatl Registered: 06/29/07 Posts: 2,421 Loc: South-Eastern US Last seen: 16 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
ok wheres what we are looking for- shrooms which have chemicals that are psychoactive other than psilocybin, psilocyin, the other "normal" shroom chemicals and the psychoactive amanita chemicals...
"big laughing gym" is a good example as it contains chemicals similar to those in kava...that is what I'm looking for... -------------------- "We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
Apparently there is something wrong with the link in the info section of the shroom hunting part of the site on where to find
Here is the URL for the paper Quote: Here is the paper minus the references. Have fun: mj Well 104 pages is too long to post so I will only give you the text and minus the 39 Images. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX A WORLDWIDE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEUROTROPIC FUNGI, AN ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Gastón Guzmán, John W. Allen and Jochen Gartz SUMMARY The distribution of 214 species of neurotropic fungi in the world is discussed. The neurotropic fungi considered are divided in: 1) species with psilocybin's indoles, or probably with these substances, 2) species with ibotenic acid, 3) ergot fungi, and 4) species used as sacred fungi but without any reliable chemical studies. In the first group are Psilocybe (116 species), Gymnopilus (13 species), Panaeolus (13 species), Copelandia (12 species), Hypholoma (6 species), Pluteus (6 species), Inocybe (6 species), Conocybe (4 species), Panaeolina (4 species), Gerronema (2 species) and Agrocybe, Galerina and Mycena (each with one species), although in several species of this group, mainly in the Panaeoloideous fungi, there are no chemical studies. In the second group are Amanita muscaria, A. pantherina and A. regalis; in the third group is Claviceps purpurea and allies: 5 species of Claviceps and 2 of Cordyceps, and in the fourth group are bolets (two genera with 8 species), Russula (6 species), and 5 species of gasteromycetes in 3 genera. Concerning the distribution of Psilocybe, the majority of the species are in the Austral hemisphere, or close to this, mainly in the subtropical humid forests, where reside the most important ethnic groups that use the neurotropic fungi, as native peoples in Mexico and New Guinea. Mexico has the highest number of neurotropic species of fungi, with 76 species, of which 44 belong to Psilocybe (39 % of the world). More than 450 bibliographic references were considered. INTRODUCTION The fungi with neurotropic (hallucinogenic or psychotropic) properties, also referred to as hallucinogenic, narcotic, magic, sacred, psychedelic or entheogenic mushrooms, have a great diversity and a large world distribution. During the past 48 years since the rediscovery of the traditional use of the hallucinogenic fungi in Mexico among several groups of indigenous peoples native in the central or southern regions of the country, numerous species of neurotropic mushrooms have been identified. First they were studied by Schultes (1939), Singer (1949, 1958), Singer and Smith (1958), Heim (1956a, b, 1957a), Wasson and Wasson (1957), Heim & Wasson (1958) and Wasson (1959a, b). These fungi were so important in the traditions of Mexico, that Guzmán (1997) reported more than two hundred common names of them, many in Indian languages, as "apipiltzin", "atkad", "di nizé taaya", "shi thó", and "teotlaquilnanácatl" (that means: kid or little boy, mayor or leader, fungus of the genius, that eruptions thing, and divine fungus that describes, respectively), including the unusual and rare word "teonanácatl" (divine mushroom), first reported by Sahagún (1569-1582) and then by Schultes (1939), which is now so indiscriminately used to name any Mexican hallucinogenic fungi. Among the most common Spanish names used by the Indians when refering to the sacred mushrooms, are "san isidros", "pajaritos" and "derrumbes" (a Spanish saint of the agriculture, little birds, and landslides, respectively). These are the most common names used when describing Psilocybe cubensis *, P. mexicana and P. zapotecorum, respectively (Guzmán, 1959, 1963, 1997 ; Allen, 1997a). The studies on the neurotropic fungi in Mexico were so important, that Guzmán (1990a, b) divided the development of the Mexican mycology into two important periods: 1) before Wasson, Heim and Singer's studies on the hallucinogenic fungi, which ______________________________ * For the authors, synonyms and classification of the species see Table I, except for species not considered there. developed between 1954-1958, and 2) after Wasson, Heim and Singer's studies. This came about because, the studies by these specialists involved in the neurotropic fungi were so significant towards the study of other fungi, that they produced interest in other specialists to study all of the fungi in the country. In the late fifty's, only around 20 species of the neurotropic fungi were recognized, belonging to the genera Psilocybe (the majority), Conocybe (e.g. C. siliginoides), Stropharia (e.g. S. cubensis, later re-identified as Psilocybe cubensis), Panaeolus (as P. sphinctrinus), Cordyceps (two species), Claviceps (C. purpurea) and Amanita (A. muscaria); also considered were the edible species of Clavariadelphus and Gomphus, which were erroneously mixed with the properties of Cordyceps spp. (Heim & Wasson, 1958; Singer & Smith, 1958; Guzmán, 1959). Wasson and Wasson (1957) brought attention to the fact that Amanita muscaria was an important sacred fungus in the Siberian region (Russia) between the Chukchee, Kamchadal and Koryak peoples, as were the psilocybian fungi important amongst the Indians in Mexico. Later, Singer (1960), Heim and Wasson (1965) and Heim (1965, 1978) reported the use of Psilocybe, Russula and Boletaceous fungi as sacred mushrooms among several groups of aborigines in New Guinea. The criteria used to define the various neurotropic fungi are often confusing according to some of the mycologists who study them. For example, Olbridge et al. (1989) considered some polypores known to contain hordenine, N-methyltryamine and tyramine, as psychotropic fungi; e.g. Laetiporus sulphureus (Bull. : Fr.) Murrill and Meripilus giganteus (Pers. : Fr.) P. Karst. They produce certain chemical reactions in the central nervous system which resulted in dizziness and disorientation. However, the first species is a common and important edible fungus in Mexico (Guzmán, 1977a, 1997) as well as in other parts of the world (Dickinson & Lucas, 1979; Metzler et al., 1992), and from the latter species there are no reports concerning its use, as there are regarding other polypores. Thoen (1982) commented on the use in several regions of some polypores in religious ceremonies for magic activities, as Polyporus tuberaster Jacq. : Fr., Poria cocos (Schwein.) Wolf, Ganoderma lucidum (M.A. Curt. : Fr.) P. Karst., Fomes fomentarius (L. : Fr.) Kickx and others. Guzmán et al. (1975) reported the cult of Ganoderma lobatum (Schwein.) G.F. Atk. in a church in Mexico (in Chignahuapan, Puebla); that church was built especially in honor of the fungus. The Indians who reside in the region regard the fungus as a saint. This interesting fungus was found in the last century and is decorated in its inner surface with an arresting sketch, portraying a Christ with a sun and moon on each side of him. However, there is no evidence of neurotropic properties in this fungus, and probably its use in the cult is in relationship with the use of neurotropic species of Psilocybe used in the region, where they grow, as was discussed by Guzmán et al. (1975) (see also Ott, 1990). Ott (1993) presented a list of 97 species of fungi containing psilocybin with many bibliographic references. These fungi belong to the genera Agrocybe (one species), Conocybe (four), Copelandia (six), Galerina (one), Gerronema (two), Gymnopilus (seven), Hygrocybe (one), Inocybe (seven), Mycena (one), Panaeolina (two), Panaeolus (nine), Pluteus (five), Psathyrella (two), and Psilocybe (forty seven). In all of them Ott presented their bibliographic references about their studies, notes, problems or contradictions, as those in Gerronema, Hygrocybe and Inocybe, according to the work of Gartz (1986e). In those bolets reported by Heim (1963, 1966b, 1967, 1978) as hallucinogenic in New Guinea, Ott (1993) stated that they might not have any neurotropic properties. Two other species Phellinus igniarus (Fr.) Quél. and Fomes fomentarius were observed in Alaska as narcotic fungi. In Gymnopilus, there is the interesting study on G. penetrans (Fr. : Fr.) Murrill (Dangy-Cave et al., 1974), although this species is apparently independent of the neurotropic fungi. Hatfield (1979) reported that ibotenic acid was present in Amanita pantherina and A. cothurnata, of which their have been reported intoxications by these fungi in central Europe. Adewusi et al. (1993) considered Chlorophyllum molybdites (Meyer : Fr.) Massee from Africa with some neurotropic properties, based in their experiments in weanling rats and related it with the common name in the Yoruba tribe: "a jegba ariwo-orun" (that means: eat and hear voices from heaven). However, many reports (Lincoff, 1981; Guzmán, 1977a; Portugal et al., 1992; Duffy and Vergeer, 1977) concerning the poisonous properties of this fungus all considered this species as a poisonous mushroom. But, Pegler (1977, 1983) commented that there are considerable confusions if this species is toxic or edible. Singer (1969) said: "apparently not all forms or races are poisonous", and he reported cases of poisoning in the U.S.A., Argentina, Phillipines and East Africa. However, Heim (1978) considered Ch. molybdites as an edible fungus in Africa. Schizophyllum commune has also been reported as an hallucinogenic fungus in Australia (Southcott, 1974). However, this species is a common edible fungus sold in popular markets in Guatemala and southeastern Mexico. The confusion originated, because the Mazatec Indians of Oaxaca (Mexico) often referred to this fungus as "nise" (little bird) a name also used for Psilocybe mexicana, but without any relationship between them in their properties (Guzmán, 1997). Regarding the puffballs (Gasteromycetes, Lycoperdales), Burk (1983) discussed the magic and religious uses of several unidentified species of puffballs among certain tribes of North American Indians. The fungi which typically grew in circles (fairy rings) on the prairies, were referred to as "fallen stars". Guzmán (1994a, 1994b, 1997) discussed several puffballs used by the Mexican Indians in traditional medicine, some of them, as Lycoperdon perlatum Pers., forming fairy rings in grasslands, but none of these species have neurotropic propierties, and on the contrary, they are edible. However, Heim and Wasson (1962) and Heim et al. (1965-1966) reported the use of Lycoperdon mixtecorum and L. marginatum (both synonyms of Vascellum qudenii and Lycoperdon candidum, respectively; about Guzmán, in Ott et al., 1975) as a narcotic fungi among the Mixtec Indians of Oaxaca, Mexico. These fungi were later studied by Ott et al. (1975) in the same locality where Heim and Wasson first found them. Ott et al. (1975) observed that Heim and Wasson's fungi are edible and common in Mexico as reported by Guzmán (1977a, 1997), but in the Mixtec zone they are used in a confused way amongs some Indians for religious and/or magical proposes. Besides these two fungi, Ott et al. (1975) identified yet another six "sacred" species of fungi from the same locality, as Vascellum pratense, V. curtisii (Berk.) Kreisel, V. intermedium A.H. Sm., Lycoperdon oblongiosporum, Rhizopogon sp. and Astraeus hygrometricus (Pers.) Morg., reporting that the Indians used them indistinctly as a narcotic fungi, along with Scleroderma verrucosum Pers. which, during an experiment proved to be a poisonous fungus. Chemical analysis of these fungi (except in S. verrucosum) showed no psilocybin present. The conclusions of Ott et al. (1975) were that the Mixtec narcotic puffballs were a mixture or at least nine species of fungi containing no neurotropic properties. However, Schultes and Hofmann (1973, 1979) considered Heim and Wasson's fungi among the "narcotic fungi". In spite of the above observations these fungi are considered in the present work due to their popularity amongst certain groups of Indians and are noted in the bibliography (e.g. Schultes, 1976). Another example with the same confusions and conclusions as above is Dictyophora indusiata with its three forms (Guzmán et al., 1990) (see Table I) which are used as a special %u201Cnarcotic%u201D fungi for divination purposes among the Chinantec Indians in Oaxaca, Mexico (Heim and Wasson, 1958; Wasson, 1959a; Guzmán, 1997). Recently, some chemical studies on species of neurotropic fungi show the presence of psilocybin or other indole metabolites in these fungi, yet also cause confusion in identifying indole properties in mushrooms which are not neurotropic (Becker et al., 1988; Besl, 1994; Christiansen et al., 1984; Gartz, 1985a, b, c, 1986a, b, d, 1987a, c, 1989a, b, c, 1991b, 1995a; Gurevich, 1993; Koike et al., 1981; Kreisel and Lindequist, 1988; Semerdzieva et al., 1986; Stijve, 1987; Stijve and Bonnard, 1986; Stijve et al., 1985 and Takemoto et al., 1964a, b, c). However, several studies must be considered doubtful because of erroneous analysis, as pointed out by Ott (1993) and Stijve (1995). Bresinsky and Besl (1990) considered those studies on the hallucinogenic principles of Stropharia cyanea (Bolt. ex Secr.) Tuomikoski [also known as Psilocybe caerulea (Kreisel) Noordeloos] and Stropharia caerulea Kreisel [Psilocybe caerulea (Kreisel) Noordeloos] (Noordeloos, 1995), S. coronilla (Bull. : Fr.) Quél., Mycena pura (Pers. : Fr.) P. Kumm. and Amanita gemmata (Fr.) Bertillan to be doubtful. Samorini (1989) pointed out the same with Mycena pura. Stijve and Kuyper (1988) did not find psilocybin in Psathyrella candolleana (Fr.) Maire, Rickenella swartzii (Fr.) Kuyp., Gerronema fibula, Gymnopilus fulgens, G. spectabilis, Hygrocybe psittacina (Fr.) P. Karst. and H. psitaccina var. californica Hesler & A.H. Sm. Stivje and Meijer (1993) failed to find psilocybin and other psilocybian compounds in Gymnopilus spp., Panaeolina foenisecii and Rickenella straminea (Petch) Pegler. Frequently, a single species has been reported with and without neurotropic substances according to different specialists. An example is Panaeolina foenisecii, a very common fungus in the prairies of many parts of the world. Mantle and Waight (1969), Ott and Guzmán (1976), Beug and Bigwood (1982), Stijve (1987) and Stijve et al. (1984) did not find any psilocybin or psilocin in this species, but other papers, e.g. Roberts et al. (1969), Ola'h (1969), Fiussello and Ceruti-Scurti (1972), Pollock (1976) and Bresinsky and Besl (1990) reported psilocybin. Allen and Merlin (1992c) discussed doubts on the psychoactive properties of this fungus. It seems that P. foenisecii is a toxic fungus, more so than neurotropic, as is with the majority of the Panaeoleodeous fungi, yet one of the suthors (JWA) reports that some people make a tonic or herbal tea of this species which is known to contain tryptophan. Regarding Conocybe siligineoides, a species reported by Heim (1956b) and Heim and Wasson (1958) as a sacred mushroom in Mexico, no chemical studies have been made on this species, but C. cyanopus, C. smithii and C. kuehneriana were shown to contain psilocybin (Benedict et al., 1967; Ohenoja et al., 1987) (Mantle and Waight, 1969, wrote erroneously that Benedict et al., 1967, reported C. siliginoides contained psilocybin). It is important to observe that C. siliginenoides was collected only one time in 1955 by Wasson in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico, and there are no more reports of this species. Guzmán after extensive field work in Mexico for several years has as yet failed to re-collect this fungus (Guzmán, 1997). Concerning confusions in the chemical studies of the neurotropic fungi, there has been a problem with the mis-identifications of collected fungi. Unfortunately it has frequently been observed that during many of the chemical studies of the neurotropic there are no taxonomic basis, or sometimes a mixture of different species were studied and described as a single species. Guzmán, found a mixture of Panaeolus spp. and Psilocybe mexicana, together with P. coprophila (Bull. : Fr.) P. Kumm., all of them were identified as P. coprophila (in ENCB Herbarium at Mexico City), this included material used by Leslie and Repke to isolate psilocybin (Guzmán, 1983). Psilocybe pseudobullacea (Petch) Pegler is a not recognised as a bluing species (Guzmán, 1983, 1996) and no neurotropic properties have been found. However, Marcano et al. (1994) reported that they have isolated psilocybin and psilocin from Venezuelan specimens. It is probable that the Venezuelan material might possibly belong to an as yet undetermined neurotropic species. Høiland (1978) reported psilocybin in P. atrobrunnea. It is probable that Høiland%u2019s fungus is close to P. coprinifacies or P. maire, since P. atrobrunnea is not a neurotropic fungus (Guzmán, 1983). In the chemical studies on fungi the age of the studied specimens should also be considered an important aspect. Repke et al. (1977) showed variations in the presence of baeocystin according to the age of the studied materials, e.g., yet in some collections specimens of Psilocybe baeocystis and P. cyanescens revealed no traces of indoles in specimens analysed 20-60 days after the collection. This explains why the Mexican Indians wisely say in relationship with the use of the sacred mushrooms, that the old dried specimens kept for more than one year, are not good to use, and they throw them out. One of the authors (Guzmán), observed in an experiment that normal doses of hallucinogenic fungi (Psilocybe mexicana in one case, and P. caerulescens in other), were only little neurotropic or none-active in the persons who ate them, because the fungi were kept dried for almost a year. Ohenoja et al. (1987) detected a decrease of psilocybin in herbarium specimens of P. semilanceata, according to the age of the collections. They did find 0.014, 0.67, and 0.84 % dry wt. in specimens from 1869, 1954 and 1976, respectively. So here we have one collection dated over 130 years-old. It seems that psilocybin and psilocin are volatiles, as Guzmán observed one time, in his explorations in Oaxaca (Mexico) looking for neurotropic fungi in 1958. He experienced vivid colored hallucinations although he had not consumed any fungi. This occurred one night when he was trying to sleep in a small closed-door room of an Indian home, which was filled with a large collection of fresh or semi fermented neurotropic specimens comprising a mixture of Psilocybe spp. (P. caerulescens, P. cordispora, P. cubensis, P. mexicana and P. zapotecorum), that were gathered by him and his Indian friends. These mushrooms were kept in sacks and had been collected for commercial purposes. The air of the room was heavy and reeked with a strong acrid aroma of the fungi which permeated tthe room, causing him to experience hallucinations. He came out of the room, to breathe air, and the hallucinations stoped. In another case the age of the fungi, surely was the reason why Hofmann (in Heim and Wasson, 1958) did not find any indoles in specimens of Cordyceps capitata and C. ophioglossoides. These were gathered by Wasson in a popular market in Mexico, as sacred fungi and preserved for a long time. However, it should be mentioned that some collections are not dried or preserved in a proper method, thus causing the specimens to lose potency during their preservation. These two species of Cordyceps are very important to the Indians of Nevado de Toluca region in Mexico, where they are used together with Psilocybe muliercula, called "hombrecitos" (little men) and "mujercitas" (little women), respectively. It is important to observe that the genus Cordyceps is taxonomically closely related to Claviceps purpurea, the famous ergot that produces certain types of hallucinations (Ramsbottom, 1964; Schultes & Hofmann, 1973, 1979; Wasson et al., 1978). The species of Cordyceps are used in Mexico in special nocturnal ceremonies, where they are eaten with Psilocybe muliercula or ar alone. In the middle of the room of where the ceremony is held, a specimen of Elaphomyces (e.g. E. granulatus Fr., E. muricatus Fr. or E. reticulatus Vitt.), the host of those Cordyceps, is placed on the alter as a "director" of the ceremony (Guzmán, 1959, 1994a, b, 1997). It is interesting to observe, that these species of Elaphomyces are used by the Trique Indians from Alta Mixteca (Oaxaca, Mexico) as a help in the cicatrization of the wounds or to "rejuvenecer el organismo" (rejuvenate the organism) (Trappe et al. 1979; Guzmán, 1994a, b). The history of the neurotropic fungi, as suggested by Stamets (1978, 1996) can be divided into four historical periods. But presently we are now in a fifth period involving a recapitulation in the study of new species and new chemical analysis. These five periods are: 1) use of the fungi by the ancient peoples in several parts of the world, as in North America, Mesoamerica, Siberia and New Guinea, are considered among the most important; 2) uncertain or erroneous studies regarding the mis-identification of such fungi recorded at the beginning of the present century (where Schultes, 1939, stated that the neurotropic fungi in Mexico belong only to Panaeolus campanulatus var. sphinctrinus, a position later followed by Singer, 1949, who also considered Psilocybe cubensis, based on some unidentified materials from collections by Schultes in Mexico); 3) scientific investigations, starting with Wasson's studies in the 1950's (who followed in part the way of Schultes; 4) utilization of the fungi as a recreational drug and a degeneration of the traditional use of these fungi, mainly in Mexico, for the use of these mushrooms as recreation; this happened in the 60's and 5) recapitulation of the knowledge, descriptions of new species and more chemical analysis. The use of hallucinogenic mushrooms as a form recreation, forced the goverments of many countries, to forbid the use and commerce of these fungi. However, in U.S.A., Canadá, Europe and even in Australia, they continue using these mushrooms as recreation, but in an illegal commerce (Oldridge et al., 1989; Rumack and Salzman, 1978; Southcott, 1974, and Watling and Gregory, 1987). In this way, the tropical fungus Psilocybe cubensis has been reported from Europe, but only from illegal cultures or dry specimens collected in tropical countries. Presently, Psilocybe cubensis, Copelandia (Panaeolus) cyanescens and the sclerotia of Psilocybe tampanensis are now legally cultivated and sold in Smart Shops throughout the Netherlands (primarily Amsterdam). Furthermore fresh mushrooms are also currently sold in the open in some shops in Denmark. Besides the confusions in the taxonomy of the various species of the neurotropic fungi, a survey of the vast treasure of literature shows that the subject of their distribution is still poorly developed, although Grani (1980) and Guzmán (1973, 1983) have presented some essays on the subject. When these fungi were first rediscovered and scientifically documented (Heim, 1956a, b; Singer, 1949), the scientists who first studied them beleived that they only occurred in Mexico. However, numerous species of neurotropic fungi were eventually found in the U.S.A., South America, Europe, Siberia, SW of Asia and Japan (Wasson & Wasson, 1957; Heim & Wasson, 1958; Singer & Smith, 1958; Singer, 1959; Heim, 1965, 1966, Heim & Wasson, 1965; Heim et al., 1967, Allen & Merlin, 1992). Guzmán (1983) in his world monograph of the genus Psilocybe showed a great distribution of these fungi in all the continents, with the majority of species occurring in Latin America. Recently Guzmán, 1998, 1999; Guzmán et al. (1991, 1993a, b, 1994, 1997a, b, 1999) have described new species of neurotropic fungi belonging to Psilocybe from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Spain, Thailand and New Zealand, and Gartz et al. (1995) and Stamets and Gartz (1995) reported new species from South Africa and the U.S.A., respectively, confirming the broad distribution of these peculiar fungi. In this way it seems that the diversity, ecological and geographical distribution of the neurotropic fungi is so vast and complex, that the authors decided to present here, a discussion of a check-list of the known species in the world. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present work is an update of the knowledge of the distribution of the neurotropic fungi, and a revision of the list of neurotropic species published by Allen et al. (1992), where 128 species were considered, but without any discussion and geographical distribution. The concept followed on the genus Psilocybe, is that of Guzmán (1983, 1995); that is a modification of Singer (1986) excluding Section Chrysocystidiatae. Kühner and Romagnesi (1953) and Kühner (1980) concepts considered one genus and involved Psilocybe, Hypholoma and Stropharia (Geophila s. Kühner & Romagnesi, or Psilocybe s. Kühner is not followed. In this way, the species of Psilocybe s. Noordeloos (1995) are not accepted (e.g. P. aeruginosa, P. albonitens, P. aurantiaca, P. capnoides, and others). In the geographical arrangement of the present work, the authors followed an alphabetic order of the countries begining with North America. Sometimes, it was difficult to find the exact country of the species, so an approximation was considered. In the islands, the name of the islands were used instead of the countries the islands belonged to; that is, except with the British Islands. The bibliographical references, more than 450, in the check-list of the present paper, are based in part, on the most important works where information on the description of the species, uses, traditions or chemical studies are supplied. This includes the books or papers of Bresinsky & Besl (1990), Chilton (1978), Fericgla (1994), Furst (1962), Guzmán (1997), Heim (1978); Hobbs (1995), Mckenna (1993), Ott (1976b, 1993), Rumack and Salzman (1978), Schultes and Hofmann (1973, 1979); Wasson (1962, 1968, 1980) and Wasson & Wasson (1957), and others, who provided important general information on the subject. RESULTS There are more than 250 species of fungi reported as neurotropic of which the authors considered 214 species in Ascomycotina (Claviceps and Cordyceps) and Basidiomycotina (20 genera). Of these later, Psilocybe represents the majority of the species with a total of 116 (Table I and Figs. 1-18 and 20-39). To confirm that certain species of Psilocybe and other agarics are neurotropic, we followed Singer and Smith (1958), Guzmán (1983) and Singer (1986), who were the authors who considered those species with the bluing feature or with indolic substances or species which suggest that they have such substances as neurotropic. In the bluing species of Psilocybe there are those belonging to the sections Aztecorum, Brunneocystidiatae, Cordisporae, Cubensies, Mexicanae, Semilancetae, Stuntzae, Subaeruginosae and Zapotecorum (Guzmán, 1983, 1995). In this way, P. atrobrunnea, P. coprophila, P. pseudobullacea and others were excluded as neurotropic fungi, although they been reported as hallucinogenic, as was discussed earlier. Psathyrella sepulchralis Singer, A.H. Sm. & Guzmán was also excluded because it was erroneounsly confused with Psilocybe zapotecorum (Singer et al., 1958; Guzmán, 1959, 1977a) and it does not contain psilocybin (Ott and Guzmán, 1976). Another species, this time a coprophilous fungus Panaeolus antillarum (Fr.) Dennis [= Psilocybe antillarum (Fr.) Sacc., Panaeolus solidipes (Peck) Sacc., P. phaleanarum (Fr.) Quél., Anellaria sepulchralis (Berk.) Singer] is also excluded. This fungus is often erroneously identified as a Copelandia spp. by those people who use the fungi as a drug. This confusion occurs because both fungi present white fruit bodies and grow together in the same cow dung. However Panaeolus antillarum does not turn blue and is also considered to be an edible fungus widly distributed in the tropics, although it also occurs infrequently in Europe (Bon, 1987b; Palacios and Laskibar, 1995, as P. phalanearum; Gerhardt, 1996). The neurotropic fungi in the present paper are defined in four groups: 1) those fungi with indolic substances, such as psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin and norbaeocystin, mainly the bluing species of Psilocybe, Conocybe and Copelandia, but also found (or probably found) in some non bluing species of Agrocybe, Galerina, Gerronema, Gymnopilus, Inocybe, Mycena, Panaeolina, Panaeolus and Pluteus (see Table I); 2) fungi containg ibotenic acid such as Amanita muscaria, A. pantherina and A. regalis; 3) those fungi with the well-known ergot akaloids, such as Claviceps purpurea, C. nigricans, C. paspali, C. rolfesii and C. tripsicii, and probably two species of Cordyceps (see Table I); and 4) those fungi used as sacred by some tribes in the world, but without any reliable chemical studies; among these species are some bolets belonging to the genera Boletus (6 species), Heimiella (2 species), Russula (6 species) and gasteromycetes (5 species belonging to Lycoperdales and Phallales) (see Table I). In the Panaeoloidae fungi 29 species are considered. These include Copelandia with 12 species, Panaeolina with 4 and Panaeolus with 13 (Table I). Of these, Copelandia mexicana is considered as a good species, in spite of the fact that Gerhardt (1996) placed it as a nomen excluded. In the well known genus Psilocybe there are problems in the taxonomic definitions of some species. Psilocybe coprinifacies was considered by Guzmán (1983) to be a doubtful species because of insufficient understanding and several reported mis-identifications. However, some European authors (Herink, 1950; Pouzar, 1953; Semerdzieva & Nerud, 1973; Auert et al., 1980; Wurst et al., 1984; Semerdzieva et al., 1986) have recognized the species in Czeckoslovakia. But Sebek (1983) described P. bohemica Sebek based on some Czech specimens which were identified as P. coprinifacies. Krieglsteiner (1984, 1986) considered P. coprinifacies to be a synonym of P. cyanescens emend. Krieglsteiner. Furthermore, Krieglsteiner (1986) considered P. bohemica, P. maire and P. serbica to be synonyms of P. cyanescens. Concerning the distribution of the neurotropic mushrooms (Fig. 19) listed in this paper, many of them have been identified as far north as Alaska and Siberia in the Northern hemisphere and as far south as Chile, Australia, and New Zealand in the austral hemisphere and from California in the western United States of North America to China and Japan in the east of Asia and from the sea level to the high mountane regions up to 4,000 m elevation (e.g. Psilocybe aztecorum in high mountains of Mexico at 4000 m elevation). However, as Gartz (1996) well pointed out: "The mushrooms occur in abundance wherever mycologists abound". In the distribution of the fungi is also important to consider the speciality of the specialists. For instance, the interesting paper of Mueller and Halling (1995) on an analysis of the high biodiversity of Agaricales in Neotropical forests, did not take in consideration any species of Psilocybe, in spite of the fact that they are very common in the area (Guzmán et al., 1994, 1997b). Moreover, there are no records of neurotropic fungi from several parts of the world, as in the south of Russia, Mongolia, Arabia and Turkey, or in many regions of Africa (Fig. 19). In regards to Psilocybe, it should be noted that there are no records from Korea, Malaysia [GUZMAN---- ALLEN SENT YOU SPECIMENS OF P. CUBENSIS AND OR P. SUBCUBENSIS AND COPELANDIA SP. JULY 1999 FROM ALOR SELAR, KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA] (except Java and Summatra) and Hawaii, and even fewer from Alaska and Costa Rica, between others. Even in the U.S.A., mycological research is somewhat limited and scarces in several states, as Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, where there are no records of neurotropic species of Psilocybe. This is the reason that whenever we study materials collected from any region, we find new species (Gartz et al., 1995; Guzmán, 1998a, 1999a; Guzman et al., 1984, 1991, 1993a, b, 1994, 1997a, b, 1999; Stamets and Gartz, 1995). Species which cover a broad world distribution include Panaeolina foenisecii and almost all other species of Panaeolus (see Table I). Panaeolina foenisecii is a cosmopolitan fungus, but poorly known in its true distribution. In Japan where this species is very common, it is not recorded by Imazeki and Hongo (1983, 1987) and Imazeki et al. (1988), and it was only reported by Hongo (1986), who also considered another two species (Hongo, 1973a, b). It is surprising to see that there is not any report of this species from Central America and The Caribbean region. Cordyceps capitata, C. ophioglossoides, Claviceps purpurea and allies, Amanita spp. and some species of Gymnopilus and Inocybe listed in Table I are confined to temperate regions. Other species are tropical or subtropical such as Psilocybe cubensis, P. subcubensis and Copelandia spp. (see Table I), except C. cyanescens which sometimes grows in disturbed zones of the temperate regions, as in the Valley of Mexico, where Mexico City stands at 2220 m altitude (observed by Guzmán, and by Lincoff, pers. comm.), or in central Europe (Heim et al., 1967). In Maui, in the Hawaiian Archipelago, C. cyanescens grows at 3,000 alt. (Merlin & Allen, 1993). Amanita muscaria grows in a mycorrhizical association with Pinus and Betula in forests of the northern hemisphere (including Mexico), and/or even in pine plantations in tropical regions as in Brazil (Homrich, 1965; Stijve, 1995), Colombia (Guzmán, umplish. notes; Velásquez et al., 1998), Africa (Tanzania) (Härkönen, 1995; Härkönen et al., 1994), Australia (Cleland, 1976) or New Zealand (Hongo and Yokoyama, 1978). Psilocybe semilanceata is known from the temperate regions of Europe, India, Russia, Canada, U.S.A., Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia and Tasmania, but surprisingly it is unknown in Mexico (Guzmán, 1983). The majority of the neurotropic species of Psilocybe grow in subtropical, mesophytic, cloud or deciduous humid forests of Mexico, Caribbean region, the eastern United States and Central Europe (Guzmán, 1983, Guzmán et al., 1997a, b). In Mexico, for instance, of the 42 neurotropic species of Psilocybe reported in Guzmán's monograph (1983), 34 are from the mesophytic forests, 4 from the tropical forests, and 4 from the coniferous forests, in spite of the fact, that the coniferous forests have been more mycologically worked than others (Guzmán, 1977a, 1998b). It is important to point out that in the distribution of the neurotropic fungi there are some interesting patterns. Guzmán (1983) observed that in 85 neurotropic species of Psilocybe, the majority of those occurred in the austral hemisphere, e.g., 59 species in South America and Mexico, vs. 18 in the U.S.A. and Canada, and only 9 in Europe, although North America and European lands are more mycologically explored than those of the southern hemisphere. The relationships between the northern and austral hemispheres mycobiotas in the Americas were discussed by Guzmán (1973, 1983) and Guzmán et al. (1988). They observed that northern species such as P. caerulipes, are common in the deciduous forests of eastern North America, and reaches as far as northeastern Mexico (Zacualtipan, Hidalgo) through the same type of vegetation (known as mesophytic forest in Mexico). But southern species such as P. yungensis and P. subyungensis which are common in South America, also reached Mexico through the mesophytic forests. Guzmán (1975) analyzed the distribution of Pleurotus hirtus Fr. in South America and P. levis (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Singer in North America. He found that both species grow in Mexico, the first in tropical forests and the last in mesophytic forests or temperate regions. In fact, in Mexico there is a conjugation of both northern and southern mycobiotas, as it is observed with Psilocybe. In the map featured in Fig. 19, we show the worldwide distribution of the neurotropic species of Psilocybe. It is noted that there are more localities in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, in contrast with the high number of species in the southern hemisphere, as was discussed above, except in Mexico, the Caribbean region, Mesoamerica and Colombia, where there are a high concentration of species. South America, New Guinea, eastern Australia and New Zealand present a high diversity in Psilocybe, while they have been poorly explored in comparison with those species reported from Europe. In connection with the distribution of the neurotropic fungi, it seems inexact or somewhat exaggerated the world map as represented by Stamets (1996). He filled dots in the U.S.A., Mexico, South America, the central part of Africa, the central part of Asia, and the South of Australia. Horak (1983) observed interesting relationships among certain agarics and bolets in the South Pacific hemisphere. He reported that South American and Mesoamerican species of these fungi are closely related with those of Southeastern Asia (New Guinea, Indonesia and Australia), such as species of Cystoagaricus, Galerina, Mycena, Paxillus and others. This distribution is in strong relationship with that of some species of Psilocybe, such as P. samuiensis from Thailand and P. makarorae from New Zealand which are both closely related to P. mexicana from Mexico and Guatemala (all of them belonging to Section Mexicanae), and with P. aucklandii from New Zealand which is closely related to P. zapotecorum from Mexico and South America; both species belonging to Section Zapotecorum. Another interesting observation can be seen in the nine types of distribution which Hongo (1978b) discussed in the Japanese fungi. It is possible to observe this distribution in the neurotropic fungi throughout the world. The Hongo´s types of distribution are: 1) Cosmopolitan species, 2) Northern hemisphere species, 3) Eurasian species, 4) North American and Eastern Asiatic species, 5) Far Eastern species, 6) Southeastern Asiatic species, 7) Tropical and subtropical species, 8) Artic and alpine species, and 9) Endemic species. Examples of neurotropic fungi in the first type are Panaeolus spp. and Panaeolina foenisecii; species of the second type are Amanita spp., Cordyceps spp., Psilocybe pelliculosa and P. silvatica. Eurasian species are some of the later type, such as Amanita muscaria. North American and Eastern Asiatic species are not well known in the neurotropic fungi except with North and South America and Eastern Asia, where we find ties between Psilocybe graveolens, P. muliercula, P. pintonii and P. zapotecorum from America, which are very closely related to P. argentipes and P. subcaerulipes from Japan. Examples of the Far Eastern species (from the Japanese point of view) are not clear in regards to the neurotropic fungi. An example of a species growing in Southeast Asia is Psilocybe subaeruginascens var. subaeruginascens known from Japan and Java, while the var. septentrionalis is only known of from Japan. Tropical and subtropical species are P. cubensis, P. subcubensis, Copelandia cyanescens (with some exceptions), C. tropicalis and other species of the genus, and maybe Gerronema fibula that is reported from Malaysia, New Guinea, Solomon Islands and South America, but also is known from Europe (see Table II). The artic or alpine species are represented in Mexico by Psilocybe aztecorum var. aztecorum which only grows in subalpine and alpine habitats, of the high mountains, and it presents strong relationships with P. baeocystis from the Northewestern North America (Oregon, Washington and British Colombia) and with P. quebecensis from Quebec, Canada (Guzmán, 1978b); these three species belong to Section Aztecorum. Panaeolus moellerianus and P. olivaceus from the Faeroe Islands are two examples of northern species. Finally endemic species are Conocybe siliginoides, Hypholoma naematoliformis, Psilocybe muliercula, P. chiapanensis, P. laurae, and many others, that are only known in Mexico, P. columbiana, P. guatapensis, P. pintonii and others from Colombia, P. brasiliensis and P. paulensis from Brazil, P. hispanica from Spain, P. serbica from Central Europe, P. portoricensis from Puerto Rico, etc. and those species of Panaeolina described by Hongo from Japan and by Natarajan and Raman from India. Psilocybe cyanescens, P. fimetaria, P. pelliculosa, P. semilanceata and P. silvatica are common both in North America and Europe, while, P. stuntzii is only known in the NW of North America, and P. coprinifacies and P. serbica only in Europe. Referring to Africa, there are few records on Psilocybe because of the scarces mycological explorations, in contrast with the high biodiversity of that continent. There are only 6 or 8 known neurotropic species of Psilocybe in Africa. Of these, P. cubensis seems to grow in Kenya despite the confusing reports of Cullinan and Henry (1945), followed by Charters (1957, 1958) and Vedcourt and Trump (1969). Pegler (1977) reported only P. aquamarina from Kenya, a species close to P. cubensis (Guzmán, 1995). It is interesting to observe that P. cubensis is very common in Mexico, Central America and South America, growing on cow dung. But the cattle in America was introduced by the Spanish people in the XVI-XVII centuries and P. cubensis does not grow in Europe. It is probable, as discussed by Guzmán (1983), that this fungus was introduced to America through the slave commerce of the negros during the Spanish Colonial times. The only known neurotropic Psilocybe from South Africa is P. natalensis (Gartz et al., 1995), while P. mairei is known of from Northern Africa (Morocco and Algeria) (Malençon & Bertault, 1979; Singer & Smith, 1958; Guzmán, 1983) and from Europe (Czechoslovakia) (Semerdzieva and Nerud, 1973; Auert et al., 1980; Kubicka, 1985; Semerdzieva and Wurst, 1986; Guzmán, 1983). It is concluded in the distribution of the neurotropic species of Psilocybe, that these fungi may have had their origin in the southern hemisphere, mainly in South America, based in the high diversity there, and from that region reached the northern parts (North America and Europe). Concerning the traditional use of these fungi, the main ethnic groups are located in Mexico and in New Guinea, also maybe in Africa (Samorini, comm. pers.) and perhaps these fungi were once used in Colombia, where Schultes and Bright (1979) found interesting ancient gold pectorals related with the use of these mushrooms and from where Guzmán (1983), Guzmán et al. (1994), Pulido (1983) and Velásquez et al. (1989, 1998) reported 12 neurotropic species of Psilocybe. Today the country with the highest number of neurotropic species and varieties of Psilocybe is Mexico, with 44 taxa. In the U.S.A. and Canada only 21 taxa are reported and in Europe only 14 species of neurotropic species of Psilocybe. Table I. Taxonomy and synonymy of the neurotropic species considered in the present paper * ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors extend their gratitude to Dr. Gyorgy-Milos Ola'h of the Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, for his assitence in providing information on geographical locations of Copelandia and Panaeolus species. One of the authors (Guzmán) expresses his gratitude to Dr. Alexander H. Smith in 1971 and to Dr. Rolf Singer in many times, for providing important information, as well as photos. Guzmán also thanks F. Ramírez-Guillén and F. Tapia for their assistence in checking biographical references and to María Eugenia Ramírez for her work in the computation of this work; All of them from the Instituto de Ecología at Mexico. Thanks are also given to Giorgio Samorini, from Rovereto, Italy, and T. Stijve, from Switzerland, the former for his time and consideration in providing some bibliographical references and value information, and the later for provided pictures and bibliographic references. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Unless you use the pdf url for the site then you do not get to see the 39 photographs of species and their microscopic features. This is abotu 104 pages here minus the ref. mj
| |||||||
Teotzlcoatl Teotzlcoatl Registered: 06/29/07 Posts: 2,421 Loc: South-Eastern US Last seen: 16 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
-------------------- "We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
The text is from Heim and Wasson and from Wasson, Schultes and/or and Hofmann, and Roger Heim's research in the 1950s.
They still have not found nothing in any of them to show they are active in any manner whatsoever. Ott wrote of them in Pharmacotheon and Schultes and Hofmann briefly mention them in the Plants of the Gods.. I leave you with these articles and again, I stillnot have heard any response of if you are even reading any of these pages I post. NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Quote: Guzman's research in the later 1980s and 1990s was only classifying and handling taxonomy. He also, in the Sacred Mushroom Seeker talks of the puffballs but had no visuals or sounds during his attempt at eating some. The research is little because there is nothing in them to get excited about. mjshroomer From Allen and Gartz, A bibliography of entheogenic fungi
| |||||||
mjshroomer Sage Registered: 07/21/99 Posts: 13,774 Loc: gone with my shr |
| ||||||
Quote: You know, some of those very comments you looked up in the URL you posted were already printed in the paper I posted above. And still you need to stick to one special plant to study,. If yoo attempted to learn everything that can take most people most of their lives to learn, you really won't learn anything. mjshroomer
| |||||||
MusicLovr Registered: 01/03/10 Posts: 4 Last seen: 7 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
About a lifetime ago (1975ish), a couple of friends, Mike and Sunny, visited Palenque, and brought back a few tourist fruitz. They sent them to a fellow, in college, at that time, named 'Enos'. He sent back a very nice report, with destructions of the day (hokey glove-box, Wasson's pda, and and insane tms (with molybdenum sulfate, etc)), and some petri dishes with culture. I was the only kid that got fruit - though we all ate mycelium.
Anyhow - is he still kicking? And if so, where (was Ca, then)? I'd like to seek his (anyone's) opinion on sub-species, high in psilocybin, and low in psilocin. I've always preferred Hoffman's potion, and since my MI, I attempt to avoid anything that depresses CV function. I'd like to ask Paul S. the same question, but I'm not sure that answer would fall within the sphere of his admitted involvement. Any and all recommendations for seeing the sights, without the yawns, would be much appreciated?
| |||||||
PrimalSoup hyperspatial illuminations Registered: 11/17/09 Posts: 13,568 Loc: PNW Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
Interesting thread, thanks for resurrecting it!
Peace -PS
| |||||||
MusicLovr Registered: 01/03/10 Posts: 4 Last seen: 7 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Yeah - I stumbled across this 2.5 yr old thread, googling: L Enos shroom. It was #1 hit. Thought I'd jump in, a bit off topic, rather than start a new thread.
However, I should have asked: "strictly from the perspective of technical curiosity, will someone suggest cubensis subspecies that routinely display a high psilocybin/psilocin ratio". If I can't get an answer, somewhere, I'll just have to stick to caps, on the rare occasions I browse the planetary web. Thanks, P, for the reply...
| |||||||
PrimalSoup hyperspatial illuminations Registered: 11/17/09 Posts: 13,568 Loc: PNW Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
Don't quite understand the query though, as the ratio psilocybin/psilocin is primarily of interest for keeping qualities, not effect. Psilocybin is degraded to psilocin in the body before it becomes active - I suppose it would affect the timing of effects, but differences between species (and possibly strains) when equalized for potency is more down to other actives, SFAIK, and in my own experience, as near as I can tell, anyway.
Peace -PS --------------------
| |||||||
MusicLovr Registered: 01/03/10 Posts: 4 Last seen: 7 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Yup - I r an engineer, not a mycologist. And I've never read a word about "psilocibin mushroom toxicology". Perhaps I should start, googling. That's the reason for the original phrasing of my query - though I didn't expect a reply to what loosely sounded like a medical question.
I think I understand that psilocybin -> psilocin -> blue. However, I had no idea that psilocybin was not active, rather that psilocin was. As I originally mentioned, I'm trying to avoid the yawns, which I've been lead to believe result from depression of cardiopulmonary system - something that, for the last 10 years, I should probably avoid. I seem to have noticed that, in general, caps are much less yawny, than stems. And because stems (generally) blue more than caps, I mistakenly assumed (via circular logic) the yawns were coming from psilocin, which seemed more prevalent, in stems. I'll do some googling, and some lurking and reading, here, and perhaps, down the road, I'll figure out just what I'm trying to ask Much thanks for your time...
| |||||||
PrimalSoup hyperspatial illuminations Registered: 11/17/09 Posts: 13,568 Loc: PNW Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
Hm, well, yeah, sometimes you yawn, theory being that improves respiration. Caps vs stems, haven't seen that movie, but IME there's not any difference worth noting. I suspect stems blue more than caps because it's easier to handle them, never really tried to distinguish a bluing reaction between caps and stems.
Psilocin is the active ingredient that your body uses, it degrades psilocybin to psilocin before it becomes active - all I can see that it would affect is the timing of the peak effects. Good luck! Peace -PS --------------------
| |||||||
MusicLovr Registered: 01/03/10 Posts: 4 Last seen: 7 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Again, thank you for your time and patience. I feel a bit guilty, as this is not a correct forum subtopic, and I have not read the Shroomery FAQs (from this forums FAQ) which may address some of my issues.
I'll admit, my experience is long term, but far from vast. I've been a bit of an acidhead for 42 years - lots of experience, there. My first exposure to fungi, was about 8 years later. I always preferred the potion, because I found it, after adjusting for set and setting, to be much more predictable and consistent, in effect. Today, for me, at least, LSD is too expensive and difficult to obtain, thus I have a rekindled interest in the sacred fruit. I'l like to see if I can find out more about my original problems with the inconsistency in effect, and my more recent question about possible lower o2 saturation (the yawns). I never held much stock, in the stems vs caps issue, until quite recently. I got a sack, a few years ago, that was so potent, it was almost as if it were tainted with L. I didn't think so, but in anticipation of attempting to grow, I saved a bunch of unopened or barely opened caps, and munched only stems. Pretty ho-hum. Then, recently, after I got some of the spores going, I sampled those old caps. Very potent! There have always been folk who wanted only stems, or only caps. And I still hear the younger generation talking about difference in quality or effect. Anyway - the stems vs caps thing is a new movie, for me ;-p I am beginning to suspect, though, that my issues may be mostly a dosage thing, and that many factors may ultimately effect the dosage: quantity, ingestion method, and time to injest, contents of stomach, phenotype differences (with mixed spores), possible differences between stems/caps (maybe stems naturally decompoose, sooner?), age/condition at harvest, alcohol in blood, etc. Even the yawns may be a lower dosage thing, where higher doses blow right past them (do wish I had access to an o2 saturation meter, so I could experiment, there)? I'm off to read some FAQs. Then, I will probably look for an appropriate place to enter another query, about what subspecies may be able to thrive in well watered parks, in a local that has very short (1 month) Spring and Fall (where temps are in 70s), Summers hitting 110s, and winters scoring below 30. Crazy as seems, I'm thinking Tasmanian may be rugged enough despite the summer highs, to make a go of it, so I will be spreading some Taz inoculum, at the park, during the upcoming weeks. Take care, ml...
| |||||||
Achuma Aluminium Fedora Registered: 11/22/09 Posts: 865 Loc: Smegmaguay |
| ||||||
Exactly 300 days since last post on this topic. I noticed that not once in this whole thread was Phaeolus Schweinitzii (dyer's polypore) mentioned! I have read before (don't remember where) that it contains Hordenine, a phenethylamine compound found in cacti and other plants. I believe this compound is n,n-dimethyl-tyramine in structure. And the fungus contains other compounds that are nauseating and otherwise toxic and bad for you so it's not really a worthwhile source of hordenine, not that hordenine itself is worth pursuing, but it is psychoactive and it is in a fungus and it is not psilocybin, so I think it belongs in this thread.
-------------------- Achuma's Psilocybe Extraction Pictorial Pictured: crystalline extract derived from Psilocybe Cubensis. See link for detailed instructions, as well as a lengthy discussion on the properties of light.
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
What is the evolutionary reason mushrooms have psilocybin??? | Viking | 3,286 | 15 | 01/31/03 07:20 PM by the spiral | ||
Mushroom synonyms | susej | 6,861 | 8 | 08/24/02 09:08 AM by WYTBOI | ||
The chemical/biological action of entheogens | poke smot! | 948 | 2 | 06/09/03 02:10 PM by Phencyclidine | ||
How do mushrooms work? ( 1 2 all ) |
ToMmOrRow | 4,411 | 24 | 03/16/02 10:58 AM by cHeMiCaLoRaNgE | ||
psilocybin Vs. psilocin Vs. Baeocystin | roachsucker | 4,929 | 5 | 05/25/02 05:14 AM by roachsucker | ||
Re: What is the most potent mushroom species? | otto i love ta get blotto | 5,882 | 15 | 02/27/17 03:41 PM by PickleJam | ||
Mushroom tea.. how do you keep potency?? ( 1 2 all ) |
pillsbury420 | 10,048 | 29 | 03/03/03 05:39 AM by mjshroomer | ||
Why do mushrooms make you trip? ( 1 2 all ) |
Fr0ggy | 23,128 | 34 | 12/21/02 11:39 AM by Meph |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: psilocybinjunkie, Rose, mushboy, LogicaL Chaos, Northerner, bodhisatta 19,259 topic views. 1 members, 16 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||