Talk:Psilocybe cubensis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed


Where does this figure for "roughly double" come from? I think this should be worded differently to try to prevent people from making their mushrooms twice as powerful by combining it with an MAOI, which as far as I know could have other potential problems as well (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the idea that MAOIs increase potency/toxicity to potentially dangerous levels might not actually be true. According to Denis R. Benjamin, 1995, "Mushrooms: Poisons and Panaceas", published by W. H. Freeman and Company, NY, NY; Mono Amine Oxidase (MAO) enzymes are not significant in the elimination of psilocin. This he attributes to psilocin's high lipid solubility, which is apparently unusual for a biogenic amine. If this is correct then Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs) should have little effect on the potency/toxicity of psilocybin mushrooms, unlike their known dangerous interactions with Ayahuasca for example.

According to the book, which is medical and scholarly in approach, Benjamin is a practising pathologist and consults on mushroom poisonings. (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High Doses, Overwhelming[edit]

In what way does this sensate repletion occur? Sources, citations, any descriptions at all?

Obviously anytime you take too much of something the set of symptoms will become exaggerated and eventually overwhelming. In my experiences 3g+ is a relatively high dose and can cause bad experiences including nausea and anxiety. Take you pick for citations: -- (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miscellaneous Contentions[edit]

What about Liberty cap (Psilocybe semilanceata)? The entire Psilocybe is btw known for it's effects. // Liftarn

Not so. Psilocybes are just mushrooms of the right shape that spore print purple to purple brown or black, just as agarics print brown, amanitas print white, etc. There are species such as the Conifer Tuft Psilocybe that aren't hallucinogenic and are considered edible by even the straightest guide books. (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there are many more mushrooms that are known as magic mushrooms. As Liftarn says, there is the Liberty cap and indeed all (or at least most) of the 186 known Psilocybes. In addition there are the other genus as gymnopilus, inocybe and panaeolus. At least the most common and their common names (like Philosophers Stone) should be mentioned on the Magic Mushrooms page.

"Psilocin, psilocybin, and psilocin were all phosphoric acid esters..."? --Suitov

Psilocybin is the phosphoric acid ester of psilocin. It is hydrolysed into psilocin in the body. (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DMT and serotonin in psilocybe cubensis? Never heard that anywhere here, so I'll remove it. In addition to psilocybin and psilocin, there's also baeocystin however.

There is much in this article that is too general and really belongs in the articles "Psilocybe" and "Psilocybin". This article should specifically concern information specific about Psilocybe cubensis. - Peter Werner, May 22, 2005.

Safety / Mushroom Identification[edit]

Should there be some kind of mention along the lines of "Many mushrooms are poisonous and the above information is not sufficient to identify mushrooms in the wild," lest some kid think he knows what magic mushrooms looks like and ends up eating something poisonous?

IMHO there should definately be a safety page. Check galerina.

I agree, but all Galerinas have a rusty brown spore print, whereas all Psilocybes (except for the PF-Tek red spore variant) have a purplish brown spore print, and I think that was mentioned in the article (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The picture of P. Cubensis is rather unrealisticly large. Maybe we should find a smaller one.

There is no scale on the picture, how can you tell? Onco p53 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I saw that picture on a website selling grow kits a while ago, as an example of an unusually large mushroom. Unfortunatly, I can't find it now, so I guess I can't prove it.
I think its a wonderful picture. perhaps not the most anatomically accurate, but perhaps more accurate in other ways . . . --Heah 08:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a photo of cubensis dried and ready for consumption would be useful.

I dont like the picture. While the mushroom itself is clear and illustrates what it should, the setting is sterile and clinical. Perhaps it is because I am a naturalist, but I'd much prefer a picture of it in a more natural settting. Anyone? Jens Nielsen 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too think that the picture is not an appropriate one, an image of a wild plant in its natural setting would be better and not just for aesthetic reasons. Mushrooms in artificial culture often show distortions in their growth due to the influence of excess carbon dioxide build-up in the culture enclosure. An extreme example would be the difference in appearance of Fammulina velutipes in the wild and Enokitake in the grocery store. Surely the folks at can be talked into allowing one of their wild photographed images to be used here. (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Just Trying to HelpReply[reply]

The image shown, while done in artificial conditions, did not suffer from excess carbon dioxide since it received air exchange every hour. The photograph shows exactly what a P. cubensis mushroom looks like; the ones in the vault are of poor quality and do not show what the fungi in question truly looks like. The images are small and the mushrooms overly opened. If it makes you feel any better the mushrooms in question were grown entirely on dung and not enhanced in any way. If you are dissatisfied with this image perhaps you should go through all the images of plants and fungi on Wikipedia and delete those that are not in their wild habitat and in no way interfered with by humans.Wowbobwow12 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Safety / Mushroom Identification[edit]

This entry focuses on the spesific genius: Psilocybe cubensis. Therefore I don't think identification advice would be as necessary as for a broader subject such as "Magic Mushrooms".

Well, IMHO identification advice would be fine. It doesn't really need to focus on how to identify them because this article is about them, so if it's about them why hold back information directly relating to identifying there species? I also don't think people should hold back information on doses and such simply because this mushroom is mostly known because of it's psychedelic properties, and it IS a hallucinogenic tryptamine. It is also under the category Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. - Xer0X 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bye bye pic[edit]

So we've lost our main picture for this article it appears. Does anyone have a public domain substitute? are these p. cubensis? Kit 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmm that's too bad. hard to tell from the pic. i'll see if erowid has any public domain pics we can use. --Heah talk 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAIS the mushrooms on the picture are very similar to Liberty Cap. Actually they look like North-West Russian variety (e.g. Saint Petersburg and nearby). --Xrgtn 12:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought Semilanceata was not doable outside nature. The mushrooms in the pic seem so clinical that i'd guess they were grown indoors. Correct me if i'm wrong.-- (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psilocybe semilanceata can be grown indoors, but like all grass loving Psilocybes it is difficult to make it fruit. I don't think the mushrooms in the picture are Semilanceata. They look more like a woodlover, perhaps P. azurescens. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dosage Accuracy?[edit]

The article currently states: "For most people, 3.5 dried grams (1/8 oz) would be considered a high dose and likely to produce a very intense experience." In my opinion, and others whom I have asked, 1/8 oz is considered an average dose, not a high dose, and to describe this quantity as "very intense" seems a bit of an exaggeration. May I ask the editing community what it thinks about this issue? —This unsigned comment was added by Wowbobwow12 (talkcontribs) .

Well, wikipedia has to work on we can cite/verify, not what us or our friends think . . . although regardless i would be inclined to agree with what the article already says. perhaps "very intense" is an exageration; however, it should probably be qualified with something like "may be" very intense, rather than removed . . . everyone reacts differently . . . and some mushrooms are stronger than others. I would call one eighth "moderate" but not "average" . . . it all depends . . .
My feelings aside- As for the citations: Erowid is a much maligned but quick source. they call 2.5-5 grams "strong", as opposed to "heavy", which is the above 5 gram range[1]. and in this instance, they have cited their own sources at the bottom of the page, so it's usable.
So perhaps it should be modified, yes, but it should be maintained that one eighth can engender a quite overwhelming experience, depending on circumstance . . .
--He:ah? 06:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
inconsistent: a little bit ridiculous... "For most people, 3.5 dried grams (1/8 oz) would be considered a high dose and may produce an intense experience; this is, however, typically considered a standard dose." This statement does not make sense. It claims that 3.5 dried grams is both a high dose and a standard dose. Some decision needs to be taken otherwise it reads as an incompetent use of language. It might just as well, for example, claim in the same sentence that the dose is high, low, standard, tiny and enormous!

Beryllium Ore[edit]

The article states the following with regard to Psilocybe mushrooms: "in texture they are similar in appearance to Beryllium Ore". Having visited the beryllium entry and looked at the picture of beryllium ore, I am left wondering about the above statement. Does it really look like beryllium ore? Does it look enough like it to include the comparison? Is there some precedent for comparing the two? Wowbobwow12 15:20, 5 June 2006

Beryllium ore

Lacandón god pots[edit]

Although I have found information pertaining to god pots, I have been unable to find any link between god pots and P. cubensis use. Can anyone provide a citation? Wowbobwow12 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spore Legality[edit]

I have attempted, by means of Erowid, to make the spore legality part of the article correct. For some reason the article said that Ohio, not Idaho, was a state in which psilocybin spores are illegal. I just corrected the acticle according to Erowid's mushroom law page, however, if anyone else has information that is different, please feel free to help me out. Wowbobwow12 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Psilocybin mushroom use in Mexico[edit]

I have removed the Mesoamerican use paragraph since the section is not specifically about P. cubensis mushrooms, but rather psilocybin mushrooms in general. I believe this information would be better suited to the Psychedelic mushroom article, if it is not already included therein. Wowbobwow12 18:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverting recent edits[edit]

I have reverted most of the recent edits on the grounds that they were either POV, repetitive or belonged in the Psychedelic mushrooms article. Wowbobwow12 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repetitive and unnecesary information[edit]

I've deleted some of the sentences that describe the mushroom since those characteristics are included in the Mycobox. Any objections? Wowbobwow12 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

add shroomology to external links[edit]

I think that should be added to the external links. Shroomology is a forum website that is dedicated to all things mushroom, but has a forum dedicated to psilocybe cubensis. This forum has a lot of information about Psilocybe cubensis, and also has a lot of photographs of different mutations, like leucistic or albino mutations.

Though shroomology is new, it is a very nice website, and is quickly rising to be a very respected authority of mushroom information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomologist (talkcontribs) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please provide a world wide perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section on legality is not very useful as it does not specify what country or legislature it refers to. I propose erasing it unless someone is happy to contribute a better section.MFdeS (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given no action on this, I will erase most of the contents legality section. Since it doesn't specify which country it refers to, it is completely pointless. I will leave the link to the article on legality of psilocybin mushrooms in place. MFdeS (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distribution map[edit]

The distribution map is wrong, as it shows Tasmania, Australia, as being within the range of P. cubensis. Tasmania, with a temperate climate, is too cold for this species, and no formal collections exist from there. MFdeS (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These mushrooms are not poisonous in any way[edit]

The edibility section contains a statement that is blatantly false. "It is recommended not to be eaten as it may be poisonous.[10]" P. Cubensis is not poisonous in any degree besides its psychoactive properties, and the LD50 of psilocybin for humans is unknown but believed to be orders of magnitude above high recreational or entheogenic doses. The book referenced is probably wrong or the statement is taken out of context. I tried deleting this and provided an explanation but a bot called "BSMIsEditing" reverted it without explaining why. In addition, the "It is recommended..." is written in the Passive Voice without really explaining who recommends it or what the poisoning agents are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



_"Rye grain is said to be the most suitable substrate for growing Psilocybe cubensis"_

The most common method of cultivation is to innoculate sterilized grains with spores or a liquid culture (nutrient fluid containing mycelia), grow out the mycelium through the grains, then introduce the myceliated grains to a _bulk substrate_ -- often consisting of coco coir with amendments, or pasteurized cow dung.

Grain is not refered to as a "substrate." Colonized grains are "spawn." Rye is indeed widely considered an excellent grain for grain spawn, but the mushrooms generally are not fruited directly from grain spawn, as is suggested by the reference to growing in jars..

The whole section is a bit odd, outdated, and misleading. 2604:CA00:108:BBEA:0:0:E61:716E (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]