This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles
What about moving this page to Psilocybe semilanceata? As far as I know, the name Liberty Cap is predominantly used in the UK. 80.203.115.12 21:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
no real opinions either way, but Psilocybe semilanceata is probably best. --Heah 23:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree about moving it to Psilocybe Semilanceata, as it is in fact its real name. We should rather mention that it goes by the name Liberty Cap in some groups... Opiax 11:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. How is this different from any other organism with a common name and a scientific name? "Liberty cap" certainly wins the google test over "Psilocybe semilanceata". Also, for what it's worth, I believe "liberty cap" is the common name in US commerce, so it's hardly restricted to the UK. — Pekinensis 18:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I would expand the article as I was surprised at how little there was concerning such an important species. Modern use does focus on other mushrooms, but I feel it is neccessary to explain the recent resurgence in PS use... --DWA M217.158.132.35 15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
added pictures and edited a little --DWA M Psibaduh 12:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took action and moved the article back to "Psilocybe semilanceata". All other articles on Psilocybe species are listed under their scientific name, and this should be too, even if it does happen to have a common name that's actually in widespread use.
Hello. I was looking around the internet and according to http://www.shroomery.org/index.php/par/25319 the displayed photographs aren't Psilocybe semilanceata, but Copelandia cyanescens. Someone could clear it out? It's not only this page actually, one can just make 'image' search on yahoo.com both for P. S and C. C and he will find out that the people always mistake between these two.
Risk of mistaking this for other, potentially very poisonous mushrooms[edit]
In the Norwegian article there's a section on the risks of mistaking several other types of mushrooms for this one, and some of them are highly toxic. Shouldn't this be something the current article should discuss as well? __meco (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The gill attachment to the stem is adnexed (narrowly attached), and they are initially cream before tinting purple as the spores mature." From this wording, it's not immediately clear that "cream" refers to the color. Would you be opposed to appending it with "-colored"?
"particularly in wet, north-facing fields and other habitats well-fertilized by sheep and cattle feces." This wording implies that north-facing fields tend to be well-fertilized by feces. How about replacing "and other habitats" with "that are" ?
"It is widely distributed in the cool temperate and subarctic regions of the Northern Hemisphere, but it is known primarily from Europe. However, it has also been reported..." The words "but" and "however" are generally used to set up a contrast between two ideas. The use of both of them so close together sets up some kind of three-way contrast that is not readily decipherable. I suggest replacing "but it is known primarily from Europe" with "particularly in Europe" or something similar.
"it secretes antifungal compounds that help it compete for nutrients with other soil microorganisms." The use of "other" implies that the mushroom is a soil microorganism. I suggest removing it.
"It is the world's most common psychoactive mushroom, and one of the most potent." I am of the opinion that these pieces of information should be in the first or second sentence of the lead. It is both interesting and widely accessible, and it may very well be the reason that most readers hear about the mushroom in the first place (besides seeing it on the main page of their favorite online encyclopedia, of course).
A further thought: what is meant by "most common"? One possible interpretation is "of the psychoactive mushrooms, most common in nature". Another is "of the psychoactive mushrooms, most commonly (ab)used". I suspect it is the first meaning. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first, have clarified with your wording. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in his 1838 Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici" Is there an English translation of this name readily available? If so, I think it would be a useful inclusion.
Alas, no, I haven't been able to find an English translation. I suspect it's something like "Critique of mycological systematics" or "A critical system of mycological systematics", but that just OR. Myco-fans will immediately recognize it as a famous work, and others, I suspect, will skim past the title (just some old Latin book). Sasata (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Paul Kummer transferred it to the genus Psilocybe in 1871." Why?
Added a few words to explain why. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"P. semilanceata var. caerulescens (Cooke) Sacc. (1887), P. semilanceata var. microsporaSinger (1969), and P. semilanceata var. obtusataBon (1985)." Yikes! This is a very complicated list which requires significant effort by the reader to extract useful information. Here's one way of making it more readable without losing information: "The caerulescens variety described by Saccardo in 1887, the microspora variety described by Singer in 1969, and the obtusata variation described by Bon in 1985." I have no idea where Cooke fits in.
That is better, I used your suggestion with some small adjustments. Sasata (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Further, the name P. semilanceata had historically been accepted as lectotype" Shouldn't there be a "the" before "lectotype"? Or perhaps "lectotype" has an adjective form...?
I've definitely seen it without the the in the literature, but agree that it's clearer with the the, so I've added the the. Sasata (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"P. semilanceata shares this name with P. pelliculosa" In this sentence, it isn't clear if "this name" refers to "P. semilanceata" or "liberty cap". Perhaps "this name" could be replaced with "its common name".
"In the 18th century Phrygian caps were stuck on Liberty poles," I'd suggest avoiding the use of the vernacular "stuck on", as it's not clear if it means "attached via adhesive" or "carelessly placed upon".
Changed stuck->placed. Sasata (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As they explained, conserving the name Psilocybe in this way would have the advantage of avoiding a destabilizing name change for a very well-known group of fungi," What is a "destabilizing name change"? It sounds like something out of an Austin Powers film.
Is this any better? "... would prevent changes that would undermine the nomenclature of a very well-known group of fungi". Sasata (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though I don't think that "undermine" is a great word for this. How about "wikt:obfuscate"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More simply: "... would prevent nomenclatural changes to a very well-known group of fungi ..." Good? Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is sharply conical to bell-shaped" Can it be both of these things simultaneously, or is this a non-numerical range? Perhaps better would be something like "It varies in shape from sharply conical to bell-shaped" or "It can be sharply conical or more bell-shaped".
It is a range of shapes, so I've used your first wording. Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"often with a prominent papilla" Papilla desperately wants to be linked. Papilla is a disambiguation page, though it's not clear to me which article would be the better choice. If none exists, you seem like the kind of guy that would enjoy writing about fungal nipples, am I right?
You've got me figured out! Check out the hallucinogenic nipple pictured in the umbo article. I've now linked that term to this page. Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There are between 15 and 27 individual narrow gills that..." Where are these gills? I suggest prepending the sentence with "On the underside of the mushroom's cap, ..."
Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This film becomes apparent if a piece of the cap is broken by bending it back and peeling away the piece." Oddly instruction-manual-esque. Did a researcher actually make note of this technique somewhere?
Yes, a researcher actually did. It's more instruction manual-like in the source. Suggestions for rewording? Sasata (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article really benefits from its inclusion. You wouldn't expect to read "the brain becomes apparent if a piece of the skull is smashed to bits with a rock" in an article about cute cuddly otters, would you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I wouldn't be trying to identify otters to species by exposing their brain matter. I would, however, try to identify a little brown mushroom I suspected was P. semilanceata by peeling a piece of its cap back and seeing if there was a thin transparent film. It's a field characteristic one can use to help identify a mushroom, much like cutting the gills of a Lactarius to see the color of milk that comes out, or scratching a Boletus to see if it bruises blue. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This represents an asexual stage" There is no representation going on here. The anamorphic form just is an asexual stage.
Agree, changed. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In culture, grown in a petri dish, it forms a white to pale orange cottony or felt-like mat..." I'm not really sure what "it" refers to here. The fungus itself? The anamorphic stage? A diaspore?
The fungus, added. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Using standard antimicrobial susceptibility tests, Psilocybe semilanceata was shown to strongly inhibit the growth of the human pathogen methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The source of the antimicrobial activity is unknown." This begs the obvious question: Can this mushroom actually be used to prevent MRSA in a clinical setting?
Well, I sure you'd be able to find some candidates willing to test it out. Seriously, I don't think we can read anything more into this than just reporting what the source found. Also, it's not that the mushroom itself would ever be used for anti-MRSA activity, but whatever as yet unidentified compound present in the mushroom, which would have to be purified, identified, and tested before any clinical applications were considered. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the mushroom is known throughout Canada, where it has been collected from provinces bordering oceans:" Was the mushroom found near oceans? Or was it found throughout the provinces listed, not just near the oceans? This statement smells a bit misleading because there are only two Canadian provinces that don't border oceans: Alberta and Saskatchewan.
This wording came about because I wanted to describe its range in a general way, but by being more precise than "throughout Canada". It's not been reported from Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, so I thought this was a clever way to describe the distribution. Now that some time has passed since I wrote this, I see it's not so clever, so I've just rephrased it. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While "magic mushroom" refers to several different genera of fungi, it seems at least one of the sources uses it to refer exclusively to P. semilanceata. In either case, I think this is an important tidbit. Have you considered adding this moniker to the lead?
"Magic mushroom" refers to any psilocybin-containing mushroom, and redirects to psilocybin mushroom. I currently have psychedelic mushroom in the lead sentence, which also redirects there. So they are essentially equivalent, but one is more colloquial. On I'm the fence on this one: should I replace the more scientific term with the colloquial? My gut tells me that most readers would know the meaning of either equally well. The (mostly) scholarly sources I used to write the article are more likely to have used psychedelic mushroom. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that replacing the scientific with the colloquial would be the best solution. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. However, someone with very little education or who learned English as a second language is much more likely to recognize (and be able to pronounce) "magic mushroom" than "psychedelic mushroom", leading me to believe that the article's readability would greatly benefit from the inclusion of the colloquial term. How about this: "... is a psychedelic (or "magic") mushroom..."? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, added. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second infobox: The use of bolded text misleads the reader regarding the destination of the wikilinks. For example, I assumed that "or adnexed" would go to an article about adnexes(?). The current linking scheme also seems a tad illogical since hymenium is linked to three times. Your thoughts?
I agree, the linking scheme is not optimal and could use some maintenance. But that's a discussion better suited for the template talk page, as it applies to several hundred articles. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The anamorphic form of P. semilanceata has been described." The majority of the article is written with a focus on the mushroom itself rather the relevant research that has been done. As such, this sentence sticks out as being somewhat odd. I think it would better to discuss the anamorphic form in the context of the mushroom's life cycle rather than the body of research: "Within the first # years of its life span, P. semilanceata goes through an anamorphic form." Or something like that.
I can't really phrase it quite in the way you've suggested, as we don't really know for sure how long this species spends in this phase of its life cycle, nor even what exactly triggers the switch between these sexual/asexual life cycle changes. I did take out "has been described" and made that flow into the next sentence, which will hopefully make the wording more consistent per your first concern. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps it would be helpful to mention such a lack of knowledge in the article, assuming a source could back it up: "It is not yet known how long this phase of the life cycle lasts, nor what triggers the change between sexual and asexual phases." or some such. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could append a sentence something like this to the subsection: "Although little is known of the anamorphic stage of P. semilanceata beyond the confines of laboratory culture, in general, the morphology of the asexual structures may be used as classical characters in phylogenetic analyses to help understand the evolutionary relationships between related groups of fungi." Does that help any? Sasata (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works just fine! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added with ref. Sasata (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and may contain one to several tiny to medium-sized intracellular droplets." This offers the reader far more than enough choices. Does the average person really know the difference between a tiny intracellular droplet and a medium-sized intracellular droplet? Simplified version: "and may contain one or more small intracellular droplets."
"which included a description of the fungus, then known as Agaricus glutinosus Curtis" How does Curtis relate to the rest of the name? Is it a variety?
Curtis is the "authority"—the author who published the species. It's necessary to give this information to distinguish it from the several other species that have been given the name Agaricus glutinosus throughout the years by different authors. I have reworded to make this clear. Sasata (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1965, forensic characterization of psilocybin-containing mushrooms seized from college students in British Columbia implicated P. semilanceata." First, it doesn't really make sense to "implicate" a mushroom. The mushroom committed no crime. Second, what is the significance of this factoid? Was this the first recorded case of intentional recreational use?
Changed implicated to identified, and mentioned it was the first recorded case from Canada. Sasata (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1993, Gartz reported an average of 1% psilocybin (expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the fruit bodies), with a range of 0.2–2.37%, representing the highest psilocybin concentration reported for a mushroom." Which percentage represents the highest psilocybin concentration, the 1% average or the 2.37% maximum? In the case of the latter, I think such a fact would benefit from being split off from the ndash: "...with a minimum of 0.2% and a maximum of 2.37%, which is the highest psilocybin concentration reported for any mushroom."
Sounds good, done. Sasata (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Properties subsection, I think it would be helpful to include the psilocybin concentration of another mushroom for comparison. "1% concentration" doesn't really convey how potent this stuff is without some sort of frame of reference.
I've expanded this with some discussion about Paul Stamets' potency rating scale. Please check if the prose sounds ok. Sasata (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Gastón Guzmán, in his 1983 monograph on psilocybin mushrooms, claims it is the world's most..." It seems odd to use the present tense to describe something written in 1983. Suggested change: "...claimed it is the world's most..."
"The effects are similar to the experience following consumption of LSD, although milder, and usually without the unpleasant mood effects associated with that drug. Common side effects of mushroom ingestion include pupil dilation, increased heart rate, unpleasant mood, and overresponsive reflexes." [Emphasis added] The second sentence (and the one that follows it) seems to contradict the first. How can the mushroom be known to cause an unpleasant mood, yet somehow be unlike LSD for the main reason that it doesn't cause an unpleasant mood?
Good catch. I've taken out the "usually without the unpleasant mood effects"; although many take the drug without experiencing unpleasant moods, I've already explained that the experience depends on the personality on the individual taking it and their pre-exposure setting. Sasata (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"after higher dosages or long-term dosages." Not really sure what a "long-term dosage" is. How about "persistent use" instead?
Yes, better. Sasata (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1998, Swedish scientists reported the presence of the pharmacologically active drug phenylethylamine from samples collected in Sweden." It seems a bit silly to refer to Sweden twice in the same sentence. One possible solution would be to replace the opening with: "In 1998, a Swedish study reported..."
Replaced with "In 1998, a study reported...", as it may just be something funky about the Swedish shrooms. Sasata (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"One danger of consuming hallucinogenic or other wild mushrooms, especially by novice mushroom hunters, is the possibility of misidentification with toxic species. In one noted case, an otherwise healthy young Austrian man confused what he thought was P. semilanceata with the poisonous Cortinarius rubellus."
I removed this sentence from the two-paragraph lead because I believed it lent an undue weight to a single research study that has not demonstrated any lasting significance to the subject of the article:
The mushroom has also been shown to inhibit an antibiotic-resistant form of the human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus, and it secretes antifungal compounds that help it compete for nutrients with soil microorganisms.
Many agents have been shown to inhibit MRSA in vitro, but unless there are further sources demonstrating a particular interest in this property of P.semilanceata, it would be misleading to mention it in the intro, and would attribute to this finding more significance than is appropriate. While the lead should summarize the article's contents, this sentence certainly does not adequately summarise the "Ecology and habitat" section - we already refer to this section in the lead when we mention habitats and the mushroom's saprotrophic nature.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it some more, I agree. The lead could probably be a paragraph longer too, will work on it soon. Thanks for your note. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Among the article's references, the journal article[1] refers to the unfortunate man mistaking Cortinarius rubellus for Psilocybe semilanceata, with drastic consequences. However, it seems much more likely that he was instead hunting Psilocybe cubensis which resembles the Cortinarius much more closely than Psilocybe semilanceata. So the reference is certainly relevant (if only because it mentions Psilocybe semilanceata), but apparently for the wrong reasons. Comments?
Fairflow (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Guzman's 1998 "A worldwide geographical distribution of the neurotropic fungi, an analysis and discussion", P. cubensis isn't even found in Austria (where this incident occurred), while P. semilanceata is the most common European hallucinogenic Psilocybe; so if what you're saying was true, the victim was doubly mixed up. Regardless, our guesses about what he may have been looking for are merely conjecture, and on Wikipedia we have to stick to what the sources actually say. Sasata (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sasata, I stand corrected, on two fronts. It's probably clear I'm a novice Wikipedia editor so apologies for any deviation from the guidelines with this comment thread. Fairflow (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. I love the photo. I used to go mushroom hunting as a child so this article does interest me. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
World's most common psilocybin mushrooms in nature ?[edit]
Is it right to have this sentence in the introduction Of the world's psilocybin mushrooms, it is the most common in nature ?
Later on the article we can read : Psilocybe authority Gastón Guzmán, in his 1983 monograph on psilocybin mushrooms, claimed it is the world's most common psychoactive mushroom.Boussole folle (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've acquired a copy of Guzmán's The Genus Psilocybe : The genus Psilocybe: A Systematic Revision of the Known Species Including the History, Distribution and Chemistry of the Hallucinogenic Species. (ISBN3-7682-5474-7), and I found absolutely no mention of this claim.
The closet sentence I've found is "This is one to most common hallucinogenic species of Psilocybe growing in meadows in Europe and in North America (Canada and U.S.A.)". pp. 362
Do I miss something or there is an imposture somewhere ? Boussole folle (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the source per here. Sasata (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot more sense. Dgrootmyers (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you have a PDF of that? I have access to it as a series of JPGs, but it's a pain to use. Dgrootmyers (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't have a 'searchable' version either, but good news I've spotted what Bresinsky and Besl read on Guzmán's psilocybe monograph. This is located on chapter The known hallucinogenic fungi and their distribution in the world, from page 43 : P. semilanceata has a widespread distribution; it is known from 17 countries (see table 10)
Then when you read the chapter, you understand this is most widespread compare to the other species mentioned.
I have just modified 2 external links on Psilocybe semilanceata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Psilocybe semilanceata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The article presents the species' common name in North America as being its only common name; in the U.K., at least, it's known as the Magic Mushroom, not as the Liberty Cap. This can be confirmed by reference to most if not all on-line sources. --213.31.16.54 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
