Talk:List of psychoactive plants

Archived sections

Expert attention/Dispute warning

From a botanical standpoint alone, this page is so full of errors as to be harmful, potentially fatal. It must be reviewed; generally speaking, I found pre-1980s sources usually unreliable as regards taxonomy and often chemistry also (The 'shroomers usualy seem to get it right, funny enough as Fungi systematics is harder still than botanical). Also the layout is very bad, renders the page a pain to read. Maybe smaller sections with gallery underneath? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Article has 83 sources; If you find errors, please fix them" - no I certainly won't bother with these so-called "sources". "Magiska Molekylers wiki", "Bluezoo.org" and the likes are not the kind of sources needed here. From a biologist's standpoint, the entire page must be scrapped and started from scratch, with clean scholarly references especially for taxonomy. For example, of the Desmodium species listed here, most are nowadays not in this genus according to a scholarly and rather reliable source. Taxonomy changes, you need to stay on top. It's not like you can simply eat some morning glory and expect to live to tell the tale.

Don't get me wrong, my aim is that this page will help researchers to better understand entheogens and other psychedelics and I would totally rebuild this page, but it is SOOOO HUGE

So let me start with a few suggestions:

• clean up tables. Would it not be better to have:

Aizoaceae:

DMT	Delosperma (D. acuminatum, D. cooperi, D. ecklonis, D. esterhuyseniae ...)
5-MEO-DMT	Delosperma (D. acuminatum, D. cooperi, D. hallii, D. harazianum, D. lydenbergense ...)

(and I think the style is clumsy. I see sleeker tables - dont really grok tables - but they look different)

• clean up images. Anything before 2003 in Aizoaceae for example is liable to be in the wrong genus even! (You do not want to confuse your Fabaceae for example. Potent stuff. Some of it you can use to poison mice in your lab or flat.) The sheer numbers... some are bound to show not what they purport to. And in any case, images might be restricted to taxa that have no own page, because if they have you can show much more of variation in phenotype there, which is important. Might also use taxon galleries.
• galleries below family or whatnot account to show common moleculse. This would be repetitive, bout you'd be able to visualize evolution of compounds, backbones etc throughout plant biodiversity. Which is cool.
• clean up taxonomy. The only stuff that goes into italics is genus species subspecies variety form. Not subfamily, tribe, family, order ... you get the pic. Check for synonyms. I do many genus pages these days; if I do I usually annotate in the source why
• clean up systematics. See, we got a bright shiny thing called APG II system in case you heard not yet. See the sources at Brassicales. I am trying it on families and genera, and it works like a charm. You can trace the frickin evolution of psychedelic and other cool compunds like never before! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see tables like that (this is just a fictional example):

Name	psycedelic substances	toxicity
Delosperma
Delosperma acuminatum	DMT (0.05%), 5-MEO-DMT (0.02%)	toxic to cats and dogs, human toxicity unknown.

Psychedlic confusion

One way to limit the size of the article would be to have a main article called "Psychoactive Plants" which would include subheadings for Psychedelics, Dissociatives, Deliriants, and any other subcategories of psychoactive plants I'm forgetting, each of which would have a link to their own separate article. Upon clicking on one of these links, one would see a list and picture galleries of plants of said subcategory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firth m (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

TO ADD TO THIS: - psychedelics are, as the greek root would insinuate, substances (plants in the case of this article) that allow you to explore your soul, usually with hallucinogenic properties. Following this definition, many of these plants should be omitted. I have never heard of khat and kratom having any psychedelic properties (they are, however psychoactive), and Kava kava (Piper myst....) is definitely not psychedelic. Additionally, Calea Zacatechichi is no more psychedelic than a naturally occurring dream. I do not know many of the plants on this list, but seeing how inaccurate most of the article is, they should probably all be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.152.227 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information about Mirabilis species

Mirabilis belongs to Nyctaginaceae, not Convolvulacea, and this genus does NOT contain lysergic acids. The root acts as a potent purgative, but LSA is not present to my knowledge and I can't find any credible source that states otherwise (aside from self-referential links which cite this article). Additionally, if Mirabilis species could synthesize LSAs, this would be rather earth shattering news in the scientific community because these compounds are only known in the genus Claviceps, some lower fungi, and in members of the Convolvulacea, possibly only due to symbiotic presence of endophytic fungi within its seeds. Please cite a source for this information because it would be very interesting news to a lot of people. Simplistic Linguist (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't know how to start a new discussion. I'd edit it myself if I didn't think it'd get reverted immediately. It claims Blue Lotus contains "Apomorphine" (in the right column) which it does not, after claiming it contains "Aporphine" (in the left column), which it does. This should be fixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.144.3 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate weight of images for a List

May I remind contributors to this potentially delightful page that it is entitled List! It took about 15 minutes to load all the images on a GSM mobile connection (5kB/s)! Whilst on pages with a handful of images, it may be appropriate to leave the thumbnail size setting to the wiki software and the users preferences, on a page such as this, they really need to be specified, not only in order to load the page in a reasonable time on slower connections, but to keep some appearance of a list rather than becoming an image gallery. I would suggest no more than about 60px on the longest dimension (80px if it's a really thin one). I'll come and help when I have time (!) Trev M ~  10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat later... I've reformatted one section – List_of_psychedelic_plants#Plants_containing_beta-carbolines. You may care to copy the format to the other sections. I've used css and html because adding styles to a 2-deep wikilist is beyond me! Trev M ~  14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

make sure all these are on the list!!!

Entheogens (Botanicals which produce entheogenic or psychedelic effects)-

• A list is visible in the edit window for this section, but now hidden here to keep this page half sensible. Trev M  ~  22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Medicinals and Other Ethnobotanicals (Botanicals which do not have inebriating/intoxicating effects, but have other intriguing uses. This may include medicinals, some mild psychoactives or other interesting and/or useful botanicals)....

Also... we should reorganize this page by genus in alphabetical order!

use the word "psychoactive" instead of psychedelic!

the word psychedelic means the same things as the word entheogen... things like kratom and khat are NOT entheogens or psychedelics so use the word psychoactive instead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.17.64 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

moved beta carb plants, needs its own list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants_containing_beta-carbolines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

each it's own table

each family needs it owns table, but im new to the wiki thing, help me out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE CHANGE NAME

Please change the name to "psychoactive plants/flora/botanicals" and NOT psychedelic plants as it is inaccurate, this covers more than strictly psychedelic plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

pic, bot, des

we need a picture, a botanical name, a common name and brief description for each plant.

can somebody put these into tables? I'm willing to put a lot of work into this, but need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

help!

i reorganized the entire list into families and organized a bit but I need help making it look nicer and cleaning it up!

please help me put them into tables, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Psychoactive plants

Other Psychoactive plants list has been merged into the list above it, delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did so much work, please change it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfromhere001 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fungi, stimulants... and overwhelmed editors passing in the night

...moved somewhat later, as it says, TM

I'm not sure how to "discuss" in these forums, so I'll write my input here. Fly Agaric, as well as the Pslocibin species are not plants, as they are fungi. This article is already much to general, to talk about all psychedelic substances would be ridiculous, as it would then extend to other sorts of fungi, bacteria, gasses. Secondly, how is Camellia Sinesis a psychoactive? Because of its stimulant properties? Should we, in this case, include all stimulants, from the obvious ones such as coffee, but also everything containing sugar, and b-vitamins, all recognized stimulants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.152.227 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the page shows a conflict of editors and intentions: it's a young page that has had some ambitious editors working on it who've realised they've met their match. But I think it is a valuable collation. If you have the interest to work on it, I suggest you pick a task you can follow through - and then investigate it. Is there a list of pyschadelic fungi – as they are not plants and shouldn't be on this page? If not, look into creating it and move content from this page to there, or something similar for plants with stimulant properties that aren't psychadelic etc. It's also easier for experienced editors to keep an eye on what's happening if you give yourself a username - you'll get more help and tolerance. At the moment I'm just keeping an eye on the page and dealing with formatting rather than content issues but of course I'm interested in the subject. When you've seen this, I suggest you cut and paste this paragraph and the one above it into a new section, at the bottom of the page (use the main edit tab at the top of the page to do this all in one hit). This keeps it a bit chronological and understandable, as this thread is not related to the bit above it in this section! (type this ~~~~ after your reply to "sign" your posts. I'll move this section if you don't). Best, Trev M  ~  22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What is WP on commercial cites listing themselves as External Links

It seems like some external links on this and other pages exist primarily to sell cannabinoid research chemicals. 174.253.247.137 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 60

Reference 60, which is the reference for many of the DMT containing plants on this list, is dead. New references need to be gathered for all of the plants on that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.118.173 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)