Talk:Psilocybe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Removed reference to illegal drug trade from psilocybe cubensis since this mushrom is legal in most parts of the world as long as it isn't prepared (dried).

This article is a stub, most of the information is incomplete or downright inaccurate, and the list of species at the end of this article serves absolutely no useful purpose. This article is in need of a complete and total rewrite, something I hope to provide within the month. - Peter G Werner, June 23 2005.

Lists are ok, don't get rid of that. it is a list of the various species, whether there are articles for them or not. --Heah (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Species

I really feel like this list is just kind of a random element - an overly large, yet still incomplete listing of Psilocybe species, with little if any contextual information indicating whether the species are hallucinogenic, commonly found, etc. The point of an encyclopedia is to distill the best of current knowledge on a topic down to information that is useful and informative to the general reader - a guarantee you a long list of species names with no contextual information is little, if any, use to the general reader.

Also, the list is more or less a direct copy of the Psilocybe species listed on "A List of the Known Psilocybian Mushrooms" by John W. Allen, found on Erowid.org. That really needs attribution, BTW - otherwise its pretty much an act of plagiarism, even if Wikipedia doesn't have authors per se.

Tell you what I will do when I edit this article - I'll create a separate article called "List of Psilocybe Species" linked to from the main article, plus I'll update the information to reflect current taxonomy. Doing long lists like this as separate articles seems to be pretty much standard form for Wikipedia.

-- Peter Werner, May 24, 2005

Substantial Rewrite

I forgot to leave an editing note about this, but I did my first substantial rewrite of this article today. Its still not complete, and there are still a number of topics I want to add, but as it stands, the revision covers all the topics found in the previous edit and is far more thorough. More about historical, social, legal, etc aspects as I get to these topics.

I moved the List of Psilocybe species off into its own article.

Peter Werner - 21 Jun 2005

Macroscopic Characteristics

I'd like to see this great section become even tighter maybe with some concrete references for the cited colours, for example for the alleged rust-brown spored psilocybe...never heard of that (though I'm happy to be taught otherwise!), purple-brown to purple-black is usually given as standard spore colour for this genus. Peter, can you cite the rust-brown sporing species? as far as cap colour, it would be good to gather some standard descriptions and give the range in cap colour with some examples. I don't think orange-white is very typical for example, but I'd guess p. azurescens is meant, so one could cite that. --erasurehead

There really is a rust-brown-spored strain of Psilocybe cubensis - google '"red spore" OR "red boy" psilocybe' and you'll see what I'm referring to. Unfortunately, I'm having a harder time coming up with a permanent coherent link about the subject. As for color terminology, I'm using it straight out of Kornerup and Wanscher's "Methuen Handbook of Color" - orange-white is a typical color for Psilocybe (and many other mushrooms for that matter) after hygrophanous fading has occurred. Its one of the many colors that are often referred to as "buff" - kind of a beige color, but tending more into the orange range. --Peter G Werner 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The first paragraph in this article is both poorly constructed and of questionable veracity. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this particular subject can improve it? For example, it is certainly debatable that the Torah/Old Testament refers to psychedelic mushrooms, or psilocybes in particular. --Bumhoolery 06:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some nutcase keeps vandalizing this article with his odd interpretations of biblical references. If you see these, just revert them out - they're essentially vandalism. --Peter G Werner 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

headaches and psilocybe

removed: "Recent studies show that Psilocybe mushrooms, as well as LSD, have the ability to prevent cluster headaches. Not much is known, but more studies are being undertaken."

can this be cited?? --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 02:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You can read about it at clusterbusters

http://www.clusterbusters.com/

MAPS is helping fund this reseach. cf also their summary page:

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

So I would recommend returning this comment. -- Erasurehead 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ooh yeah, definitely, since i removed that i've come across some research and whatnot, but i guess i had forgotten that i had removed it . . . --Heah ^talk 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

micorrhizae

Would someone please confirm that psilocybe mushrooms cannot form mycorrhizal associations? I know it's kind of written. Also, how can we distinguish between liberty cap and Panaeolus foenisecii?--Mihai cartoaje 09:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All members of Psilocybe are saprotrophs growing on various kinds of decaying organic matter (wood chips, humus, dung, or other substrates, depending on the species). No Psilocybe species or any close relative of Psilocybe has ever been identified from a DNA profile of a mycorrhizal root tip. Indeed, the fact that Psilocybe species can actually be cultivated (often quite easily) is a direct result of the fact that they are saprotrophs and can be grown on substrate prepared by a mushroom grower. If these mushrooms were mycorrhizal, a grower would have to inoculate a living tree with Psilocybe mycelium in order to produce fruiting bodies - this kind of cultivation is not presenntly possible with most species of mycorrhizal fungi.

As for how to tell Psilocybe semilanceata from Panaeolus foenisecii, Ps. semilanceata has a viscid and greyish-green pileus and should exhibit at least some blue staining, while P. foenisecii should have a non-viscid brown pileus and no blue staining. That said, I really think you should get some guidance from in your area somebody more experienced with mushroom collecting to actually show you the basics of mushroom identification. Your local mycological society is always a good resource. Peter G Werner 03:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Two more questions that many people might find interesting:

• Do psilocybe mushrooms that can produce psilocybin always bruise blue or does it depend on the substrate?
• Can psilocybe mushrooms that can produce psilocybin grow in a faery ring in the grass? --Mihai cartoaje 15:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

merging Teonanácatl

I think the psychedelic mushroom page might be a more appropriate merge candidate for Teonanácatl than the the psilocybe page, since the psilocybe page is appropriately more focused on the botanical aspects of psilocybes, while the psychedelic mushroom page specifically addresses the use of psilocybes for their psychedelic properties and already references Teonanácatl.

Should the History and Ethnography section of the psilocybe page be merged into or at least included in the psychedelic mushroom page? Probably both the psilocybe page and the psychedelic mushroom page need a "History" section which will overlap heavily.

We're always going to have overlap between the psychedelic mushroom and the psilocybe page, but as discussed on the psychedelic mushroom talk page, I think it sensible to maintain both pages. --Erasurehead 07:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Psilocybe article needs a "History and Ethnography" section, just as any group of living organisms with important ethnobotanical aspects should have that mentioned within the article itself. That said, there's no reason not to cover it even more detail in a "Main article" referred to at the head of the section. This is a very common Wikipedia format; see the History of Portugal article for a good example.

The Psychedelic mushroom article as it stands now, however, is an absolute mess, due to the fact that that article fails to differentiate between psilocybin-containing mushrooms and Amanita muscaria. These two types of mushrooms have both a very different pharmacology and a very different ethnobotanical history, each playing a religious role in cultures very distant from one another (Mesoamerica and Siberia).

I hope to expand on the "History and Ethnography" section shortly. When it comes to "Medical and Psychitric" aspects, I start to get a bit out of my depth, since there's been a great deal of psychedelic/medical research on psilocybin from the 1960s up to the present, and I don't have a good overview of it. Much of this research has been done using purified psilocybin, however, so perhaps that topic is better covered under that article. I'm glad that somebody has chipped in some material on legal aspects, though this part of the article is still pretty US-centric. Examples of the legal situation in Europe (especially the Netherlands, where they're sold openly) or in Mexico (where they're illegal, even though widely used by some Indian groups). Also, the section is about "Social and Legal Aspects", so some material on the sociology of use/abuse of these mushrooms in modern societies would be appropriate. Peter G Werner 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you contend that the Psychedelic mushroom article fails to differentiate between psilocybin-containing mushrooms and Amanita muscaria, when, in fact, it states in the intro that:

They can be roughly divided into two groups: psilocybin/psilocin containing mushrooms found mainly in the genus Psilocybe and the muscimol containing mushroom Amanita muscaria...The fly-agaric Amanita muscaria contains the principal active muscimol which, however, is both chemically and symptomatically unrelated to psilocybin.

and further, the examples below explicitly state which culture and which mushroom, e.g.

The notion that Nordic Vikings used fly-agaric (Amanita muscaria) to produce their berserker rages...

That seems a pretty clear separation to me. Erasurehead 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look under "Effects" - do you see any differentiation between the effects of Amanita muscaria and Psilocybe? I sure don't. That would seem to imply that the effects of the two mushrooms are similar, which I assure you is not the case. The "History" section cuts back and forth between the history of A muscaria use and Psilocybe use, in spite of the fact that these mushrooms have different histories in different cultures. That's poor organization, in my book. I'm entirely unconvinced that the two subjects even belong in the same article - apples and oranges, really. Peter G Werner 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a note that that effects list applies to psilocybin/psilocin - but now the skeleton list for muscimol containing musrooms needs content AP 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why this article should and does discuss various types of psychedelic funghi (and not just psilocybin containing mushrooms) is that the term psychedelic mushroom is commonly used to refer both to psilocybin/psilocin containing mushrooms *and* amanita muscaria, and both are, by definition, psychedelic mushrooms. Hence, an article entitled psychedelic mushroom(s) must address both of these funghi, as well as any other funghi which are mind-manifesting (hence the brief reference to ergot and the kykeon). Also, there's something to be said for documenting man's historical use of various psychedelic funghi in one article, and in addition, psilocybes are not the only psilocybin containing mushrooms, which are the two main reasons why why psychedelic mushroom shouldn't just be a disambiguation page with links to psilocybe and a.muscaria. I don't see any alternatives, but am open to Suggestions. Erasurehead 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see the need for some kind of article discussing the history and ethnography of psilocybian mushrooms use more extensively than I have in the Psilocybe article. I've written about it there in as much detail as I think is needed for a general article - further expansion should go into a breakout article. I think the teonanacatl article is a good candidate, though at present, its kind of a superfluous article since it actually presents less detail than I've presented in my article. As for the psychedelic mushroom article, I'll say it again - the article is poorly organized and not particularly well-written. I'm not saying I'm the only person who can write a good article on this subject, but so far I have yet to see somebody step forward and turn "Psychedelic mushrooms" into a useful article - one that discusses human use of psilocybian mushrooms and Amanita muscaria and clearly distinguishes which mushroom is actually being referred to when it discusses history, effects, etc.

If it were up to me as to what to do with the article, I'd make into a brief article defining psychedelic mushrooms, noting that that category includes both psilocybin-containing mushrooms and A. muscaria, and referring from there to longer articles on "Psilocybe" (or "teonanacatl"), "Amanita muscaria", and other psychedelic mushrooms. However, there are several people who feel that the "Psychedelic mushrooms" article is useful in and of itself, hence, I'm not going to do anything with it beyond pointing out what poor shape it's in at present. If you think it's a needed article, then by all means, go ahead and give it the cleanup it clearly needs to turn it into a useful article. Peter G Werner 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Peter, I was a little off base last night...it was late and I was grumpy. I was slightly peeved, I must admit, by your general claim that there was no differentiation between p. and a.muscaria, when the article does mention this explicitly several times, and does so quite clearly in the intro. After I pointed this out, you only replied, "yeah, but look at the effects section...", so I think your original comment should have been more along the lines of "the effects section fails to differentiate...", and not "the article fails to differentiate...", or better yet, just have directly fixed this as simply as Aaron did, but no matter. I would like to retract the non-constructive statements I made, so have removed them from above (including your one-line reference to this provokation. Hope you don't mind (not sure what the wiki-etiquette on retractions on talk-pages is)). Anyway, I'm definitely interested in stimulating cooperation and not flame-wars.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that the general state of the psychedelic mushroom article is still "mess", though last August I did attempt to overhaul it. The state before that was "total mess"! I rewrote the intro, adding the explicit references to a.muscaria, ergot, the kykeon, and their various principle actives, pointing out quite explicitly and right up front that the effects are chemically and symptomatically unrelated, and added the explicit differentiation in the History section in an attempt clear up this very problem. cf. this diff (done before I registered):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_mushroom&diff=20153620&oldid=19885444I

Your general strategy of cleaning of psychedelic mushroom, making it tighter and shorter, with references for detailed reading in psilocybe, amanita muscaria and teonanácatl (and I would suggest ergot and kykeon) in break out style is definitely good. I also agree with your suggestion of making Teonanactl a break-out from psilocybe. Erasurehead 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that were more in agreement than not and I don't mean to come across as slagging any of your contributions. (The impression I get concerning the problems with "Psychedelic mushrooms" is that its a problem with having too many authors who have pieced it together in bits and pieces, not that any one author wrote a bad article.) I see the work you've been doing on it and its in better shape than it was. (In particular, the fact that under "History", Amanita muscaria and psilocybin mushrooms each have a discrete group of paragraphs, rather than wandering back and forth between the two subjects, which I thought was confusing.)

I'm actively working on "Psilocybe" again. I've expanded the "History and Ethnography" section to include more on modern history. I've expanded that section to my satisfaction for the general article; if I expand it further, I'll do it as a breakout article, probably "teonanacatl". I've also added a section on "Pronunciation and Usage", since that's a significant source of confusion. My main concern in terms of overlap, actually, is with the "Psilocybin" article (which, in my opinion, is in pretty good shape). I still have yet to do anything with the "Medical and Psychiatric Aspects" section (contributions are always welcome), but I'm thinking of taking that out and merging it into "Psilocybin", since most medical/psychiatric research on these compounds uses purified psilocybin in order to be able to give a controlled dosage and avoid the potentially complicating effect of other synergistic or antagonistic compounds that may be found in the mushroom. Peter G Werner 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation and Usage

Keenen was very quick to correct this, but it was a good edit and I entirely agree with his emphasis on descriptive pronunciation rather than proscriptive pronunciation. The only objection I have is that the pronunciation was only given in IPA - I know this is standard for Wikipedia, but most people simply don't understand IPA and Wikipedia fails to provide a good key to IPA pronunciation. Even I have a very hard time with IPA, even though I've taken anthropological linguistics and had some exposure to it there. I added a readable pronunciation after the IPA one - I would have rather used standard English phonetic symbols, but I have no idea how to enter such symbols in Wikipedia.

Also, I re-capitalized the U in "Usage" in the title - this is a matter of parallelism with all the other section titles. Peter G Werner 07:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What are "standard English phonetic symbols"? IPA is the only real standard I'm aware of. See pronunciation respelling for English for the bewildering variety of ambiguous and conflicting notations used by dictionaries. It's a pity that there isn't a clear standard just for English.

Also, I lowercased all the section titles according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings. —Keenan Pepper 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is no standard for English phonetic symbols. The Phonetic symbols in either the Merriam-Webster's or Oxford English Dictionaries are what I'd prefer to use, but I have no idea how to enter diacritical marks, schwa, etc in this format. The problem with IPA is that its indecipherable to most people, and Wikipedia doesn't help much in terms of providing a useable key.

I didn't know that sentence case rather than title case was the standard for Wikipedia section headings, but I'll use the former from now on. Peter G Werner 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Teonanacatl = "god mushroom"

This was mis-translated years ago by some author and the translation from Náhuatl as "God's Flesh" has been repeated until it is universally accepted. According to Thelma D. Sullivan's Compendium of Náhuatl Grammar: "The Náhuatl language is largely agglutinative. In other words, it is a language in which two or more stems, with or without affixes, are combined to form a new word." Teó-ti is god but her dictionary has no definition of nanácatl. My Náhuatl speaking friends in Mexico insist that nanácatl is mushroom. This online source confirms this http://ohui.net/aulex/es-nah/?busca=hongo&idioma=en. Sullivan does define flesh as nacáyotl so "God's flesh" would be teonacáyotl. She also defines meat as nácatl so "god meat" would be teonácatl. Perhaps this is where the confusion has come from since this is quite close to Teonanácatl" - literally "god mushroom". (Acute accents are used in written Náhuatl to show the syllable upon which one puts emphasis - usually the second to the last.) 216.67.161.197 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

That's interesting, but do you have a source we can cite, like a book or something? Verifiable sources are very important to Wikipedia. —Keenan Pepper 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Thelma D. Sullivan?216.67.161.230 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

How about The Wonderous Mushroom by R. Gorgon Wasson?216.67.161.230 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

This may stem from the spanish use of the word "carne" meat, being the same as flesh. I see that it litterally means Devine Flesh as well. Is this not the same as the body of Christ? Why does this information always get removed? Are you people some kind of secret obsessed cult or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.96.106 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 May 2006

Your edits to this article are reverted for good reason. I have discussed this further under your comments on my talk page. Peter G Werner 04:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about Náhuatl NOT spanish and yes, we are "some kind of secret obsessed cult or what".216.67.161.230 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Also we're NOT talking about christianity.

OK, according to Wasson's "The Wondrous Mushroom: Mycolatry in Mesoamerica" (I really need to get this listed as a reference), nanacatl means "mushroom". Its based on the root word ncatl meaning "meat" or "flesh", so the words are related. Until somebody can show me another source definitively arguing that "teonanacatl" should be translated as "god flesh" or "flesh of god", I'll stick with the "god mushroom" translation. Peter G Werner 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter: Actually the stem part of the word nanácatl is nanáca and the affix is tl. Náhuatl nouns frequently end in "tl", "tli" or "in". The affix is dropped in agglutinative forms. You are probably mistaken that it is based on the root word nácatl. If this was so then I would expect to find the "na(?)" part of the agglutination in a Náhuatl dictionary which I don't. Wasson says that as a part of the agglutinative word teonanácatl teó(ti) should be translated as wonderous. Maybe so but the text in the article that says that it literally means god mushroom is correct. Your contributions to this page are excellent.

nanacatl means mushroom. The word for mushroom is derived from the word for flesh nacatl throuhg a process called reduplication whereby the first syllable of a word is repeated. On of the functions of reduplication is to denominate something that is like something else but not the same. Nanacatl thus originally meant "something that is like flesh" - however now and in classical nahuatl it was completely lexicalised in the meaning "mushroom". So wonderous mushroom, mystic mushroom or divine mushroom are al acceptable tanslations.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasson is not a reliable source concerning nahuatl etymology.·Maunus·ƛ·

And every time I ask for some citation on this, something other than original research, I get none. However, I have found a recent article by Guzmán where he states:

Further to the east, the Nahuatls of Necaxa (state of Puebla) use Psilocybe caerulescens and P. mexicana as sacred mushrooms (Guzmán 1960). They call these mushrooms teotlaquilnanácatl, meaning “sacred mushroom that paints or describes.” As the blue-staining mushroom depicted in Sahagún’s Magliabechiano Codex bears a strong resemblance to P. caerulescens, and the contemporary Nahuatl word bears a striking resemblance to the enigmatic name teonanácatl originally reported by Sahagún in the 16th century, this author hypothesizes that they are one and the same.

I will incorporate a discussion of this into Psilocybin_mushrooms#History, which is really where extended discussion of this belongs, and include abbreviated discussion of that in this article. If you have any other sources for this information, by all means, share it. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies – I got this completely backwards and I see that, in fact, Wasson was arguing that it translated to "divine mushroom". I will change it back, but I still want to create an extended discussion of this based on published sources over at Psilocybin_mushrooms#History. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Italicization of Greek

Wowbobwow12 says "The Greek should not be italicized". Why not? According to WP:MOS#Words as words, whenever you're talking about words themselves, they should be in italics. —Keenan Pepper 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I referred to various Classical Greek language entries (e.g., Plato and Aristotle) as my examples, in which the words written in Greek characters are not italicized. However, I would not object to reversion if appropriate. Wowbobwow12 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Combining Psilocybe and Psilocybin

If we're comparing this to Saffron, then there is a lager section on biochemistry - thoughts? Cas Liber 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They definitely should not be combined. Discussion of psilocybin within the Psilocybe article could be expanded a bit, but keep the pointer to the Psilocybin article. An illustration of the molecule wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Peter G Werner 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - sounds good.Cas Liber 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Psilocybe new collaboration until April 1st)

Support:

1. Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Peter G Werner 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
3. M&NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Halved sandwich 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• the citations should be readily doable, also similar but slightly less well known than Amanita muscaria. may be easier to get to FAC successfully.

• I of course agree as well that its pretty far along. In addition to finding references to everything, there are some changes I'd like to make to the "Social and legal aspects section". Right now, the list of various countries laws concerning Psilocybe is way too long and should be broken out into its own article, replaced in the Psilocybe article with a paragraph summarizing the different legal approaches taken around the world. I also think that section should have some discussion about Psilocybe as a so-called "drug of abuse" (you can tell I have some biases in this area, so I'll have to be extra-careful to keep to NPOV if I write that part) and discussion of Psilocybe cultivation as an industry. I think the reference format will ultimately be need to be changed to the "ref" format used in the Galerina article, however, I'd like to wait until the article is close to done and most of the references have been added before doing this, since the downside of the "ref" format is that articles can become much more difficult to edit (due to all the embedded references in the raw text of the article).

• I removed the legal section because it belongs and exists in the psychedelic mushroom article. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal

It was suggested by Alan Rockefellar that much of the sections on Psychoactivity, History and ethnography, and Social and legal issues go in the article Psychedelic mushrooms. What I dislike about that article is that its a mish-mash of information about Psilocybin-containing mushrooms and Amanita muscaria, clearly two very different topics. However, if there was an article on Psilocybin mushrooms (which would cover the specifiallly hallucinogenic aspects of psychoactive members of Psilocybe and Panaeolus), then I could see moving some of these sections.

If interested, discuss this further at Talk:Psychedelic mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

legal status in amsterdam

I don't think this section is factual. I was IN Amsterdam less than a month ago and was able to purchase shrooms from a smartshop with no problems. They are labeled and regulated. This section needs revision —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can buy them does not mean that it was legal. You may be right though. What does the law say?

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

psilocybe bluing

i've seen no direct evidence that the bluing of bruised psilocybe mushrooms correlates at all with their psilocin content. P. foenisecii doesn't bruise blue, and NUMEROUS other species of mushroom that do not contain psilocin also bruise blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.44.215 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add a source that supports your suggestion and it can go alongside the cited statement that says otherwise. Sasata (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

zapotecorum image

As the same zapotecorum image currently appears here twice, I'll be replacing one of them with the Psilocybe sp. image that currently appears on Psilocybe cyanofriscosa since I think it's a pretty awesome image. Kevin (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Classification out of date

As of 2011, Psilocybe has been delimited to the blue-staining psilocin/psilocybin-containing species, with the other species now classified under the name Deconica. The article, particularly the classification section, will need to be updated to reflect that. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction with Psilocybe semilanceata

In this article is is stated that Psilocybe cubensis is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. In the article Psilocybe semilanceata though it is stated that Psilocybe semilanceata is the most common type of Psilocybe grown. Both statements have citations. We should be internally consistent though. One, or both of these, should be changed to state "According to..." or something similar I think. Zell Faze (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Psilocybe semilanceata is the most common psilocybian mushroom growing in the wild, widely distributed all around the world, and is therefore (and also because of its high alkaloid content) the most common target for psychedelic mushroom hunters. It can be grown in lab conditions, but this is considered to be quite difficult and therefor not common practice. Psilocybe cubensis, on the other hand, is considered easy to cultivate, and growing techniques are widely known since the seventies. While its alkaloid content per dry weight is only in the mediocre range, its fruiting bodies are larger than most other Psilocybe species, which makes its cultivation quite effective. --Diogenes2000 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In the USA the emphasis is always on the third syllable and this is true as well for the active ingredients psilocybin and psilocin:

psilocybin |ˌsīləˈsībin|

in My Oxford American dictionary. Since the references given for pronunciation with the emphasis on the first or second syllable, link to a phonetic spelling guide, not a reliable source, they should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at those pronunciations, it looks to me that both of them put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text. Maybe just fixing the text is all that's needed. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

---

As I explained in the summary of this edit, all I did is merely corrected the pronunciation notation in accordance to the prose in the same sentence. Even that aside, the notation is an utter mess to begin with. The respelling somehow doesn't use the {{Respell}} template and has an unclosed <small> tag, "silo" is arguably not one syllable, and /ᵻ/ can never occur in a stressed syllable. My edit could not possibly be less controversial. Nardog (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "silo" is probably two syllables. So the pronunciation should probably be sīləˈsībbē. A citation to a reliable source would be helpful, if you could find one. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm not aware of any rule that /ᵻ/ can never occur in a stressed syllable. Are you sure? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

100%. Please refer to Vowel reduction#Weakening of vowel articulation. Nardog (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the history. The notation originally given as a footnote, "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē", is an American Heritage Dictionary-style notation (which used to be used sparingly on Wikipedia but not anymore), which puts an apostrophe-like symbol that marks stress after the stressed syllable, unlike the IPA. So the original IPA notation /saɪˈlɒsəbiː/ is indeed in agreement with the AHD notation "sī·lŏs′·ə·bē" (although the last syllable is better transcribed with /i/ than with /iː/ – see Help:IPA for English). So no, the idea that the notations "put the emphasis on the third syllable, contrary to the text" was misguided in the first place (also, "ī" corresponds to /aɪ/, so that is another mistake in this edit right there). So again, my edit could not be less controversial, unlike whether or not such an unsourced notation should be included in the article which is a whole other discussion. Nardog (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Found a source.[1] Click on the notation to see the key, upon which I based the IPA and respelling. Nardog (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is how it is pronounced in American English. I tried to use that template a while back and it was FUBAR. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the pronunciation and it's still wrong. First of all that template always puts the stress on the first syllable as well as the other one you want and second, the first syllable is not pronounced like the third. This is why it spelled and pronounced as psilo with a soft 'i', and not "cy". Look at my pronunciation from Oxford. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" pronunciation, only ones that are prevalent and recognized and others that are not. And since Wikipedia demands verifiability, no one should add a notation which is not supported by a reliable source, especially not in exchange of an existing one with an RS.

The IPA notation, /ˌsaɪloʊˈsaɪbi/, and the respelling (which cannot be used without an IPA preceding it, btw), SY-loh-SY-bee, are both in accordance with "sī'lō-sī'bē" from the cited dictionary entry, if the key is to be believed. /aɪ/, y, and "ī" all represent the sound of price in the respective transcription systems. Many English words have multiple stresses, as does this one. While primary and secondary stress are represented with the ⟨ˈ, ˌ⟩ signs preceding the stressed syllable in IPA, the dictionary's system employs an apostrophe-like symbol after the syllable to indicate stress, with no distinction of primary or secondary, just like Wikipedia's respelling system, as in prə-NUN-see-AY-shən; in words where secondary stress precedes the primary stress, there is usually no need to denote the difference (click on the respelling to see a more detailed description). Thus the notations completely and uncontroversially follow the notation given in the source.

With all due respect, you have demonstrated quite a lack of familiarity with transcription of English words (ask anyone with linguistic expertise, e.g. IRL or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics). While I have no reason to doubt that you are well equipped to discuss and write about the subjects you specialize in, phonetics and phonology don't appear to be among them. It's horses for courses. Nardog (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, a word being pronounced with /aɪ/ by some and /ɪ/ or /ə/ by others is not at all an uncommon thing. Think of direct, diversity, etc. But that also doesn't change the fact that all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. Nardog (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages personal attacks. You should be respelling si-loh-SY-bee Senor Cuete (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't, even if I wanted to, unless there is a reliable source to support your statement. Nardog (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments on talk pages is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. I put my comment there because it referred to the text above it. You shouldn't have moved it. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that's unheard of. If anything, you're the one who edited my previous comment by putting your comment in between paragraphs of the same comment. As a result, the first paragraph of my comment looked like a separate, unsigned comment. If you still disagree, consult at WT:TPG. Nardog (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)