Talk:Amanita muscaria/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Japanese Cultural Use

In "Plants of the Gods" (Hoffman, Schultes, et al) it is claimed that the Fly Agaric has a long tradition of cultural use in Japan; supposedly, its use is connected with the tengu deity. And then I remember reading in "Soma" that Wasson first ingested the mushroom in Japan with some native mycologists. I'm a little too lazy to re-order the books from the library, but I think this line needs to be investigated more throughly. At the least, it would help to make sense of the whole Mario Bros. thing...

As far as I remember, there is no "tradition" in using this mushroom in my culture other than it being used symbolically to portray strength, and yes, that is why Mario becomes stronger when he takes it. But no, there is no tradition on it being used or eaten other than as a symbol. It is also an insignificant symbol, only used in stories, fairytales etc. Whether it has a tradition attached to it, no. And as far as I know, story telling symbology is not really tradition. I would also like to point out, foreigners like to magnify aspects on cultures other than their own, and they tend to emphasize on the smallest things making them appear to be bigger than what it is. It's best to cite information from an author from the questioning culture. --78.86.117.164 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

mycomorphbox

hello all- I've added a box, from a template I've made called mycomorphbox = mycological morphology box. The idea is that we can summarize across all the mushroom pages important characters used in identifying the mushrooms. I added it here first because this is an active page. Please give me your comments on it on my talk page. If the consensus is positive, I will work to get them placed on as many mushroom pages as possible. Debivort 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

appropriate external link?

I am not sure that [1] is a useful encyclopedic reference to include as an external link. Debivort 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree – I've deleted that along with several other questionable external links. Articles on hallucinogens seem to bring out a particular variety of religious ranter who seem to want to add all sorts of tendentious, off-topic material. Peter G Werner 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be a legend

it says

This was also not an uncommon practice in Siberia, where the poor would consume the urine of the wealthy, who could afford to buy the mushrooms [2].

Don't believe Strahlenberg understood the problem right. The reason for drinking urine of an Amanita-Eater is not that the mushroom can't be afforded (in fact they can be found everywhere). The reason is, that its quite dangerous to eat the mushroom, but it isnt dangerous to drink the urin. Plus: in a way which isnt exactly clear the hallucinogen effect of the urin is even stronger. Foreigner 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Eating the mushrooms is not dangerous. Even if you eat way too much you will only be sick, like with alcohol. I've never heard of anyone, ever, dieing from amanita muscaria. And yes, I have a lot of personal experience with this mushroom and have done my homework on it.

Yep, I reminded correct, its explained here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegenpilz#Der_Fliegenpilz_als_Rauschmittel

espacially: ... Eine Variante bei indigenen sibirischen Völkern besteht darin, den Urin des Schamanen zu trinken, nachdem dieser Fliegenpilz konsumiert hat. Das wird dadurch möglich, dass der Wirkstoff Ibotensäure zu Muscimol abgebaut und zum größten Teil unverändert durch den Urin ausgeschieden wird. Ibotensäure ist giftiger und hat eine geringere Rauschwirkung als Muscimol. Dieser Vorgang kann drei bis vier mal wiederholt werden. Das Urintrinken gilt als weniger gefährlich als der Konsum des Pilzes selbst, da die enthaltenen Gifte wie Muscarin vom Körper erst abgebaut und dann ausgeschieden werden.

Foreigner 15:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you take one mushroom (middle size) in alcohol, for instance wodka, and let it inside the bottle for one week, than you can drink the alcohol -one small glass of the schnapps- without any problems. So you can strengthen your nerves, that mean you have more energy. --Fackel 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About religious use of amanita in finland ;)

"It is not uncommon today in Finland to use Amanita muscaria as a recreational or psychedelic drug, especially amongst the younger people."


I'm From finland and can tell, that it IS wery uncommon to use this mushroom. Surely, it grows ewerywhere, as it propably grows everywhere elsewhere in northern hemisphere, but most of the finns still believe that amanita muscarias are dead-toxic. (As everyone else does in this world of misinformation and misunderstandin.) -Actually usage and collecting of psilocybes is more common what I have heard and seen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.220.226 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

variant formosa not European

The article said "Var. formosa (a poorly understood European variety) is orange-yellow.", with no citation. The linked sources include a link to it being in Hawaii, and the National Audubon Society Pocket Guide: Familiar Mushrooms says that in eastern North America this variant is more common that variant muscaria. I'm removing the parenthetical comment. GRBerry 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The name must apply to a European entity because Persoon described European mushrooms not North American ones. David T. Jenkins decided to employ the name "formosa" to yellowish muscaria-like taxa in eastern North America. Such material was shown by Geml et al. (2008) to be distributed in small subclades throughout their "species rank" clade for the distinctively North America "red muscaria." Tulloss and Geml have used the provisional name "Amanita amerimuscaria Tulloss & Geml nom. prov." for this species, which apparently has a very extended range in North and Central America. A manuscript on the morphological taxonomic separation of the American and Europea red fly agarics is in preparation by Tulloss and Geml. 76.98.3.128 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)R. E. Tulloss

Effects clasification

I believe according to Erowid, A. Muscaria is actually a disociative rather than a psychedelic. This would make more sense considering the effects of properly prepared fly agarics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.178.27 (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

I moved the business about "crushed, dipped, or sprinkled in milk." away from the insecticide comment to the consumption one, since it made "more sense" there. Or do insects regularly dip the mushroom prior to consumption, and subsequently expire?  ;-) mdf 13:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's how to kill flies.Cas Liber 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

...toward FAC?

OK, apparently it is better for the intro to be a brief summary of about 2 paragraphs outlining why this plant is interesting. I took some stuff out of characteristics, which was a pretty general subheading anyway. I have 'Soma' book which has some refs which I was going to add later. Anyone else have a few 'to do' type ideas.....Cas Liber 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Many FACs get objected to on the grounds that there aren't enough references. We could do with some more good ones.
  • Needs a better and more comprehensive scientific description.
  • Needs thorough copy-editing to smooth out some edits which don't fit in very well, or are in the wrong place.
The article is attracting a good level of interest amongst a variety of editors, almost all of whom are adding useful material. Working towards FAC status sounds a very good plan to me. --MichaelMaggs 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

images are getting cah-ray-zee

Hi All - I've rearranged the images a bit: 1) keeping at most one, right-justified photo per section. Ideally all of these should be relevant to their sections, and are currently not, except for the variety americana image which shows color diversity. 2) I removed the gill image which because of color ballance issues, fallaciously suggested that A muscaria has orange gills. 3) All other images I moved into a gallery a the bottom of the article. Debivort 19:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have been working in other areas and been informed that galleries are discouraged on pages. I agree the old bit started to look messy. I figure the 4 images showing progression in shape would be good to put under description, where they are realted to the prose there rather than way down the bottom. cheers Cas Liber 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about whether galleries are discouraged or not, but the gallery cannot go there - it overlaps with the taxonomic boxes on even high res browsers. I would be completely happy if it was deleted also. It also was placed under a section name that had no associated text, and these images, without better annotation cannot stand on their own as a growth series. It can stand on its own if labeled "image gallery." I'm not a big fan of the image of the lady with the basket - she distracts from the mushrooms - but it seems fitting in its current section.
I find the boxes which go underneath the taxoboxes frustating as they crowd the pages. Alright then. Realistically if you also agree the gallery should go then go it should. One of the photos displays Fly agarics in various stages of growth and as a single most discriptive piccy should stay somewhere. How's this then? Cas Liber 23:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking again I feel this one piccy encapsulates the description and should go next to it. I find rigidly sticking to right-justified piccies sterile but agree the top looks a bit crowded. I figure that with a third intro paragraph (which may be needed as the article may end up being rather long), should bump the description down a bit away from the boxes on right. I will just go and dig up the refs for identification with A caesarea....Cas Liber 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what's been happening here over the last few days, but I'm afraid I don't find it an improvement. The layout of the images on 5th Oct looked pretty good, with some visual interest. Now, after an abortive attempt at a gallery, several good images have been taken off without discussion in favour of some that aren't so well composed (eg the 'troop' image), and most are now simply plonked down the right hand side. I agree that a gallery ought to be discouraged, but would much prefer to revert the layout to something like this. Please can we come here to discuss radical layout changes before they are made? --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I initiated the image reformatting when 4 new ones appeared left-justified in a floating div right at the top. It was cluttered and interfered with readibility. The version you link to is OK, w.r.t. images, but frankly, while they are all nice images, they do very little to increase the information content on the page. Wikipedia is not a picture archive, and at some point, an article should reach a steady state in its number of images per word of text, if the new images are redundant to each other. What is the argument against galleries? Debivort 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Michael, I agree with Debivort, the images on the version you have there are all of the same thing; mature flattened Fly Agarics. Thus where image space is at a premium we have severl images doing the job of one. I know the troop one isn't great but it shows the caps in various stages of development nicely from 'button' to semi-mature.

Maybe the best thing is for everyone to list here the priority of images and how many they'd like to see on the page. I like the page as is now but would like to find some other colour variant images or iconic/religious ethnographic depictions and a mix of right and left justified. To do this the varieties bit will need to be beefed up.

Also the best thing in terms of galleries, I think, is a link to Wikipedia Commons gallery of Amanita muscaria (where there are loads of photos), this promotes Commons. Anyway, it is good to see we're all keeping up the dialogue here as there are no easy answers. cheers Cas Liber 10:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a link to Commons. Excellent plan.--MichaelMaggs 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, done (it's at the bottom under 'external links'. Question is, is this the best place for it or should it go up the page somewhere? cheers. Cas Liber 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Image for Taxobox

OK - we can start from the top: is everyone happy with the Taxobox image or do they think another is better. My vote is for the current one, but not by much. Cas Liber 10:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me - very iconic - a bit saturated, and I don't like the flash, but it's just fine for now. Debivort 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer games

This section shows signs of growing beyond reasonable bounds. No doubt there are hundreds of games that feature either (a) spotted or (b) psychoactive mushrooms, but do we want them all listed here? In many cases the only possible link with amanita muscaria is the presence of some spots and/or some psychoactive property. Would anyone object if I moved this section into a new linked page called Mushrooms in computer games? That could then have sections for other mushrooms as well. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's a good idea to transfer, thanks for taking the lead on this. Remember a link on this page please! Debivort 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Cas Liber 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. For the use of this mushroom in computer games, now see: Mushrooms in computer games.--MichaelMaggs 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

funny now that i see this the game Guild Wars and more specificly the expansion Eye of the North has certain areas where giant mushrooms can be found that look like they were drawn why some1 was tripping66.58.190.55 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed this section because it contains misleading/unsourced information:

Part of the reasons behind the medical misinformation surrounding A. muscaria is due to the fact that many people who have presented to physicians with stated "mushroom poisoning" were generally thought to have ingested Amanita phalloides. They then usually promptly administer atropine, which would be fine if one had indeed ingested this toxic mushroom. But it only exacerbates toxic effects of the raw A. muscaria several hundredfold, sometimes resulting in the death of the patient (and this only infrequently). Known deaths recorded from it are rare. These have usually been children who have eaten large amounts of the raw mushroom. One child died only after eating almost two dozen large raw specimens.

Amanita phalloides (death cap) contains amanitin, in which case administration of atropine will not have any beneficial effect. Atropine is used as an antidote against muscarine-containing mushrooms such as Inocybe, but I have never heard of the scenario described above (atropine being administered to patients with unspecified mushroom poisoning) being commonly reported. In fact, blindly administering atropine to all patients with stated mushroom poisoning would be a medical error. Also, there are no sources corroborating this assertion. Therefore, I have removed it. 193.217.243.135 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Successful collaboration for Feb 07

Support:

  1. Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Peter G Werner 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Debivort 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. M&NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  • iconic toadstool, loads to write on toxicity, religion, taxonomy etc. Though article a bit unwieldy currently. Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • definitely iconic, and much of the article is in pretty good shape, with copious references. Some of the sections could use a rewrite to make them more clear and concise. Still some missing into in a few places. More on biology and classification is called for – so far, the taxobox is the only place where the mushroom's mycorrhizal nature is even mentioned! Some of the statements about the hypotheses of Wasson and Allegro definitely need to be balanced, as these are actually highly controversial among Vedic and Biblical scholars, respectively. Also needing to be mentioned are a couple of reports of indigenous Amanita muscaria use in the New World Subarctic, among the Ojibway and the Dogrib (though the latter report is questionable).
  • The article has gotten into much better shape in the last 6 months or so now that the edibility aspect has settled down. Debivort 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Toward FAC...To-Do List

{{to do}}

I'll help out with as much of this as I have time for. Specifically, I'll redo the description and classification sections. I'll add some discussion of its microscopic characters and its place as part of Amanita section Amanita (A. muscaria, A. pantherina, A. gemmata, and the like). The section on mythology and religion is in strong need of a rewrite (right now, its just a glorified list). I should note also that the only region in the world where there's been documented and confirmed observation of indigenous use of Amanita muscaria is in the Arctic and Subarctic regions of the Old World (mostly Siberia, but also Lappland). Also, some unconfirmed observations from the New World Subarctic. All the rest is basically speculative and controversial. Finally, I think there should be a short section on the legal status of A. muscaria in different countries, but not restricted just to American law the way the section was previously. Peter G Werner 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll also note that I think the feature article on Saffron, even though its not about a psychoactive plant, is in many ways a very good model for this one. Peter G Werner 03:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A. muscaria in various stages of growth

I like this image with the various stages though a little blurry close up and lacks a good button mushroom one like the one on the page. Cas Liber 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Woodpecker of Mars

As far as I can tell, the term "woodpecker of Mars" goes back to classical literature, where the woodpecker was the sacred animal of the god Mars. Several translations of ancient writings (such as the work of Pliny the Elder) use the term "woodpecker of Mars". (I'm not sure what the term is in the original Latin.) The first person to mention it in the context of A. muscaria is JM Allegro in Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, who mentions it among his speculations about A. muscaria symbolism in the ancient Mediterranean world. This was later taken up by Tom Robbins in a 1970s High Times article about hallucinogenic mushrooms, where Robbins mentions it as a "folk name" for A. muscaria. It then is repeated in a number of publications after that. However, as far as I know, it never has been a folk name that's been in any kind of general use, either traditionally or in modern times. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, another mystery cleared up. I am glad I took it out as it wounds way left-field...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Really good review article

I highly recommend giving this article a read:

It should be a primary reference for this article. Peter G Werner 07:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Acrillic 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)== Questionable section ==

I'm considering deleting this part:

Ethnobotanist and ethnomycologist Giorgio Samorini suggests in his book "Animals and Psychedelics" a symbiotic relationship between toads, flies and fly agaric. Flies, after a lick of Amanita muscaria become inebriated and delirious prey for hungry toads that may have learned this, therefore hanging out around toadstools. This relationship within nature illuminates an etymological keystone and example of zoopharmacognosy. This would also provide further biosemiotic insight into the ancient mystery of toads, flies and mushrooms appearing together in popular mythology and fairy lore.

I know this is the published speculation of an "ethnomycologist", but from a biological point of view, its simply flat-out pseudoscience. Furhermore, I think this section is giving undue weight to a pseudoscientific theory expounded by only one author that I know of. Any opinions on whether it should be kept in any form? Peter G Werner 07:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read "Animals and Psychedelics" by Giorgio Samorini you might hear his plea for more reasearch in these field's, he seems pissed off at the lack of reasearch, funding and information about naturally occuring entheogens that are ABUNDANT in nature but often igonored like the occult field of his research called ethnozoopharmacognosy. Yes i think it should be kept. In fact expanded upon! Your opinion about pseudoscience baffles me. The "Lazarus hypothesis" chapter from Samorini's book provides biological evidence, observable in nature, that flies, toads and fly agaric share both a biological relationship and also a etymological relationship (See mushroom etymology). This seems like original pioneering research to me, in the emerging "pseudoscientific" (your term) fields that ask wheather Animals and Plants and Nature is Minded somehow? and whether DRUGS are a part of the interface with this Mind of nature. I reserve the word pseudoscience for comedic routines and "ironic" puns. Wd/ you like to expand Peter? -- Acrillic, Friday 6th Aprill. 17.40 GMT

Deaths from fly agaric

Stuff similar to the following keeps sprouting in the article:

Deaths from A. muscaria are extremely rare. A historical journal article reported 2 fatalities occurring in North America. Although it is unlikely fatalities would occur with modern medical treatment.

Which is probably true. I'm having trouble finding sources for the statement, though. The referenced paper is from 1897, which means it doesn't provide support for the first sentence, makes the second one a bit misleading, and provides no support for the third. Isn't there any better info out there? --Sneftel 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this book will have that kind of information:
  • Benjamin DR. (1995). Mushrooms, Poisons and Panaceas: A Handbook for Naturalists, Mycologists, and Physicians. W H Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-7167-2649-1
I'll have a look at it later to see if it contains the kind of information you discuss. Peter G Werner 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


The Mushroom Poisoning Case Registry has been tracking mushroom poisonings in North America since 1997. They release an annual report each year that lists the species involved, and in 2004 released "An Overview of Mushroom Poisonings in North America", available here:

http://www.sph.umich.edu/~kwcee/mpcr/4mfl.htm

It says "With pets, ingestion of Amanita muscaria, Amanita pantherina (and look-alikes), and probably some species of Inocybe can sometimes lead to death, while the same species are very rarely lethal in humans (and then only in humans with underlying infirmities)."

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lifespan?

Does anyone know the lifespan of the Amanita muscaria? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.44.56.108 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The lifespan of the mycelium or the fruiting body? mic 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Fungi don't have a "lifespan" in the sense that animals do, as what constitutes a fungal "individual" is not so clearly defined; 2) Amanita muscaria aren't any different from other fleshy mycorrhizal basidiomycetes in their basic biology. Peter G Werner 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your question is a bit like asking what is the lifespan of an apple. The mushroom one sees above ground is just the fruit of the organism that lives below ground and can, presumably, survive for years or decades.Debivort 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article post-collaboration

The February collaboration on this article resulted in some definite improvements. However, I still think its a B-class article, as it has some significant gaps. The section on psychoactive properties really needs expansion (there's been plenty published on the A. muscaria "experience"), there should be something on its legal status (and not just in the USA), and the part on popular culture could use some expansion too (since only contemporary popular culture use is mentioned, and its use in popular art and symbolism is long-standing). Cultural history could also use a bit more fleshing out and the more dubious passages could use counter-balancing or even outright deletion. Even with these gaps, some good work was done over the last month. Peter G Werner 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way it goes. Will keep looking at it. It is one of those articles that for some reason needs a load of massaging to get into shape.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that the Amanita muscaria-related info in Psychedelic mushroom go here, while the psilocybin mushroom-related info go into a new article, Psilocybin mushroom.

Discuss at Talk:Psychedelic mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded a photo

Not sure how it works so, [3] Fly agaric from above. (Sjöðar 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

The color and marginal striation look more like amanita caesarea to me. Debivort 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

reversion of Ott statement

I did this revert of the article, and left a {{subst:uw-vandalism}} at User talk:74.210.44.212. The anonymous editor replied there, as did I, and I am moving the text of that exchange here since it pertains to the article:

If you actually read the diff, you'd see that later in the paragraph the ethnobiologist was refuted. I moved the refutation to the topic sentence of the paragraph so future readers won't waste time thinking that Santa Claus has anything to do with the toadstool.
Why did I write "idiot" in the change history? Well, why Wikipedia does have an entire paragraph devoted to the rantings of a madman? The ethnobiologist was an idiot. You'd know that if you RTFA.
By the way, surrounding your revert with useless "Have a nice day!" language is infuriating. Do I look like I need to make a test edit? Dumbass.
Do you actually read what you revert, or are one of those people who like hitting the revert button? -- anon.
I don't know if I need to dignify your personal attacks with a response, but here is one anyway: the statement "Jonathan Ott has suggested that the idea of Santa Claus and tradition of hanging stockings over the fireplace is based centrally upon the fly agaric mushroom itself" is true. He did state that. Your version: "Jonathan Ott has incorrectly suggested that the idea of Santa Claus and tradition of hanging stockings over the fireplace is based centrally upon the fly agaric mushroom itself" may be true but represents a novel synthesis of primary literature, and is therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm going to move this conversation to Talk:Amanita muscaria so we can continue it there. Debivort 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "novel synthesis" of "primary literature." It is a solid fact that the modern day Santa Claus is red and white because those are Coca Cola's colours. If I went to the article on evolution and claimed it was "just a theory" and thus should be discounted, it would be absurd. Ott's claims are absurd, and do not merit placement in the world's encyclopedia. However, since editing articles on Wikipedia is impossible without a fight (witness this exchange), I made a minimal change, thinking that would pass.

And yes, you need to dignify a response when you do something as anti-social as revert an edit made in good faith and call it 'vandalism'. If the cops rolled around and cited you with vandalism because you cleaned up litter in a park, you'd be irate as well. --anon.

Whatever you say anon. I'll let others weigh in on this, as I am not as emotionally invested in it as you are. Debivort 01:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Others on the Talk page also noted the absurdity. (RTFA! Why is this basic rule of Internet culture missing on Wikipedia?) -- anon.

(Edit conflict with one of your revisions to your comment.) The previous discussion on the talk page noted that there are sources for the link (Ott, obviously), and that's why the section was retained. As for "revoking my status" I expect anyone who bothers to look will find my postings rather tepidly reasonable. Debivort 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For me, the default is to ignore the rantings of anons. I'll assume good faith for the rantings of a registered user, but not for an IP address. Adding the word "incorrectly" turns the statement from descriptive to prescriptive, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Its incorrectness should stand or fall on the basis of the evidence, not because an IP address has a beef about it.--Curtis Clark 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology correction

The alternative derivation doesn't seem to be correct. In Russian the name of the mushroom is "Muhomor" which translates literally to fly killer. A coincidentally similar naming in English, but with a different source (insanity) doesn't seem logical. "An alternate derivation proposes that the term fly- refers not to insects as such but rather the delirium resulting from consumption of the fungus. This is based on the medieval belief that flies could enter a person's head and cause mental illness" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksverdlov (talkcontribs) 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That seemed odd to me too, but in the article cited, in the section "The name of the mushroom," the authors lay out the full case, including insanity-related names in other cultures, and the theory that "the original meaning was evidently forgotten or misinterpreted over time, giving way to the so-called insecticidal activity." I think the wikipedia article strikes the right balance in explaining both possible derivations. -Agyle 03:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Children's Culture?

Fantasia and Super Mario Bros are not just related to children's culture, just because one is an animated film and the other a video game doesn't mean they only apply to children. For fear of starting a heated argument I'll ask this first before changing things around: is there someone that can tell me why they should be categorised under children's culture? Gh5046 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "Literature and Entertainment." Gh5046 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mushroom.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Mushroom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote not in text (?!)

"The British writer Robert Graves theorizes in a preface to his book, The Greek Myths, that the Dionysian rites were conducted under the influence of this mushroom."[1]


I have a copy of this book and damned if I can find any reference to this in it. I don't get it, was it taken out of newer editions or what....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity: Unclear

In the toxicity section, the first paragraph ends with "Ibotenic acid has shown to be highly neurotoxic when injected directly into the brains of mice and rats." There are few substances which do not cause cell death when injected directly into brain tissue. For example, Tang™ is not a toxic substance but if injected directly into brain tissue would cause cell death. --173.17.17.197 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


I suggest going to www.NAMA.com, i provided references for my additions, yet they are still deleted, if you really want both sides, why removes my additions?

The reported deaths from muscaria are ambiguous and unfounded.

Here is my journal on Amanita muscaria.

Ibotenic acid and muscimol have similar structure to glutamic acid and GABA(Krogsgaard-arsen P. et al.,2000).

Ibotenic acid is structurally similar to glutaminic acid and mimics its effects in animals. Ibotenic acid is rapidly converted to muscimol, which structurally resembles GABA. Muscimol has a high affinity for GABA receptor sites and imitates the action of GABA in animals and humans, inhibiting and controlling the recruitment and multiplication of nerve impulses mediated by many positive neurotrasmitters (Page, 1984).

Muscimol and ibotenic acid administered to rats and mice intraperitoneally affects brain in the levels of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine), noradrenaline and dopamine as do LSD, psilocybin and mescaline (Koenig-Bersin et al., 1970; Waser, 1979).


Muscmol binds to the same GABA receptors as benzodiazepines and barbiturates. GABA regulates anxiety, learning and neuronal excitability. Low doses of muscimol show anticonvulsant and antispasmodic activity; much like Valium. Higher doses work as both a stimulant, anticonvulsant and deliriant.

I think there is great potential for muscimol as a treatment for seasonal depression, anxiety, phobias, ADD, as a sleep aid, weight control and maybe even epilepsy. It doesn't work for everyone; what drug does. One thing is clear, the history of the chemistry of Amanita muscaria demonstrates the tortuous path and halting progress of science. The muscaria chemotaxonomic group of Amanitas (muscaria, pantherina, cothurnata, gemmata, parcivolvata, strobiliformis(Japan), frostiana, regalis, velatipes and more) contain no amatoxins or phallotoxins, and are not hepatoxic.

http://www.namyco.org/toxicology/poison_syndromes.html NAMA in regards to the above mushrooms. "In humans, there are no reliably documented cases of death from toxins in these mushrooms in the past 100 years, though there is one case where a camper froze to death while in the comatose state."

Neither muscarinic nor tropinic effects have been observed in poisoning due to A. muscaria or A. pantherina. Occasionally, sweating and salivation have been reported (Lampe, 1978; Waser, 1979; Benjamin, 1992). Seizures are observed primarily in children (Benjamin, 1992).Miosis as well as mydriasis or intermittent mydriasis were observed in children (Benjamin, 1992)


As early as 1900, George Atkins wrote in his book, Studies of American Fungi, that while the mushroom is “deadly as ordinarily found,” it is eaten “. . . as food in parts of France & Russia, and it has been eaten repeatedly in certain localities in this country without harm.”

A substantial fraction of ingested ibotenic acid is excreted in the urine unmetabolized. Virtually no muscimol is excreted when pure ibotenic acid is eaten, but muscimol is detectable in the urine after eating A. muscaria, which contains both, ibotenic acid and muscimol. The ibotenic acid that does pass through the body is excreted rapidly, between 20 and 90 minutes after ingestion (Chilton, 1975).

In fact, the urine retains the pharmacological activity of the Fly Agaric, and in the sacred rituals in eastern Siberia, the urine of the Shamans and their acolytes was ingested by some followers and considered a better inebriant or hallucinogen (Efron et al 1979).

The isoxazoles are not distributed uniformly in the mushroom. Most are detected in the cap of the fruit, then in the base,with the smallest amount in the stalk (Lampe, 1978; Tsunoda et al., 1993).

Drying A. muscaria in the sun or with heater caused an increase of muscimol in the mushroom, though a lot of precursors of ibotenic acid was lost. Ibotenic acid and muscimol in the mushroom were stable on storage under dry or salt conditions (Benedict et al., 1966; Tsunoda et al., 1993). Whilst ibotenic acid and muscimol are rapidly released from the mushrooms by cooking and boiling, these processes do not eliminate all toxic substances.

The muscaria group will be getting renamed soon, Amanita muscaria var. flavivolvata will become Amanita amerimuscaria. The European muscaria will get split into two species, Subalpine and general Eurasian populations. Interestingly the color of the cap predates the speciation event and is a polymorphism, this means cap color is not a reliable indicator of species however it is still a reliable indicator of the varieties within each species when taking the geographic information into consideration along with microscopic information.

The Pacific North West (PNW) yellow variant will get its own variety status under Amanita muscaria, it will be the only muscaria left in the continental U.S.


The species name Amanita muscaria var. formosa is obsolete (nomen ambiguum) because it has been used to describe the cap color of both the Eurasian and Eurasian subalpine clades, we know through DNA testing that the cap and wart color are polymorphisms found in all three clades.

"A 2006 molecular phylogenetic study of different regional populations of A. muscaria by Geml, et al. found three distinct clades within this species representing, roughly, Eurasian, Eurasian "subalpine", and North American populations. (Alaska contains examples of all three clades, leading to the hypothesis that this was the center of diversification of this species.) The study also looked at four named varieties of this species; var. alba, var. flavivolvata, var. formosa (including var. guessowii), and var. regalis from both areas. All four varieties were found within both the Eurasian and North American clades, evidence that these morphological forms are simply polymorphisms found throughout the species rather than distinct subspecies or varieties."

The experiences of Waser (1979), who experimented himself the effects of pure substances (ibotenic acid and muscimol), merit to be mentioned here: "A 20 mg ibotenic acid dose ingested in water tastes like mushrooms, but produces little immediate action. Within half an hour a warm and slightly flushed face was noticed, without changes in blood pressure or heart rate, with no physic stimulation, but lassitude followed by sleep. A day later a migraine with classical one-sided visual disturbance developed for the first time in my life. The occipitally localized headache continued in a milder form for two weeks.

Next I turned to muscimol. A dose of 5 mg in water orally ingested had little effect except a feeling of laziness. Ten mg produced a slight intoxication after 90 minutes with dizziness, ataxia and elevated mood, psychic stimulation (in psychological tests), no hallucinations but slight changes in taste and color vision. Some myoclonic muscle twitching followed, then sleep with dreams. After two to three hours I felt normal, rested and able to undertake anything, even work. During the next night I slept well, deep and long. No other signs followed.

With 15 mg of muscimol administered orally the intoxication started after 40 minutes and was more pronounced. Dizziness made walking with closed eyes impossible, but reflexes were not changed. Speech was sometimes inarticulate and dysarthric. Appetite and taste were diminished. After a phase of stimulation, concentration became more difficult. Vision was altered by endlessly repetitioned echopictures of situations a few minutes before. Hearing became noisy and sometimes was followed by echo. Most disturbing were repeated myoclonic cramps of different muscle groups. I felt sometimes as if I had lost my legs, but never had hallucinations as vivid and colorful as with LSD. The pupils remained always the same size. After 2 hours I fell asleep, but I cannot remember any dreams. Two hours later I awoke again and was glad that the muscle twitching was less frequent. I did not feel relaxed and fresh as after 10 mg muscimol but rather dull and uncertain. Blood pressure was only a little elevated during the psychoactive phase".

Muscimol induces a state of psychosis with confusions, dysarthria, disturbance of visual perception, illusions of colour vision, myoclonia, disorientation in place and time, weariness, fatigue and sleep. Concentration tests showed improved performance with small doses (5 mg) but diminished performance and learning with an increased number of errors with higher doses (10 to 15 mg).


Anti-Stress Drug?:thumbup: Posted on: Wednesday, 19 November 2008, 09:10 CST

Doctors are finding promising effects from a drug that could make stress disappear.

In a small test on rats that were put under stressful conditions, researchers found exposing them to a small dose of muscimol -- a drug that temporarily inactivates the amygdala region of the brain -- eliminated the effects of stress completely.

“It was as if the experience had never happened to them,” Lauren Jones, a University of Washington psychology doctoral student, was quoted as saying. “Inactivation of the amygdala took the stress away.”

Neuroscientists say stress can have long-lasting effects on cognition, including memory, learning and decision making processes. Stress can also contribute to anxiety, depression, schizophrenia and drug-use relapse in humans.

Doctors caution more tests will need to be done to understand how deactivation of the amygdala relates to stress.

SOURCE: Presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2008


http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00005925?term=Epilepsy&rank=28

Brain Infusion of Muscimol to Treat Epilepsy

This study is currently recruiting participants. Verified by National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), June 2008

Sponsored by: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)

Information provided by: National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00005925

Purpose This study will examine the safety and effectiveness of infusing a chemical called muscimol into the brain to control seizures in patients with intractable epilepsy (frequent seizures that persist despite therapy). Muscimol, which is similar to a naturally occurring brain chemical called GABA, has been shown to reduce seizures in rats. After the infusion study, patients will undergo a standard surgical procedure for controlling seizures.

Patients 18 years of age or older with intractable epilepsy may be eligible for this study. Before entering protocol 00-N-0158, candidates will be screened under protocol 01-N-0139, Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Epilepsy, with a medical history, physical and neurologic examination, chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, blood and urine tests, electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head.


Stress hinders rats' decision-making abilities Published: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 16:09 in Psychology & Sociology Learn more about: experience stress lauren jones muscimol rats society for neuroscience uncontrollable stress A little bit of stress goes a long way and can have far-reaching effects. Neuroscientists from the University of Washington have found that a single exposure to uncontrollable stress impairs decision making in rats for several days, making them unable to reliably seek out the larger of two rewards.

The research was presented here Tuesday (Nov. 18) at a press conference on "Our Stressed Out Brains" during the Society for Neuroscience's annual meeting by Lauren Jones, a UW psychology doctoral student.

Jones, working with Jeansok Kim, a UW associate professor of psychology, found that stressed rats took significantly longer to respond to a change in rewards given to them in a maze and their performances never matched those of other rats not exposed to stress.

Another group of rats was given a small dose of the drug muscimol, which temporarily inactivated the amygdala in their brains, prior to being subjected to the same stress. These rats were unaffected by the stress and performed as well as the animals that were not stressed. The amygdala is located in the forebrain and processes information about such things as fear (the so-called fight-or-flight response), stress and rewards.

"Stress can be long lasting, depending on what it is. The rats that received the drug were tested on the maze the day after they were exposed to stress and it was as if the experience had never happened to them. Inactivation of the amygdala took the stress away," said Jones.

"Whatever stress these rats experienced was not being processed," said Kim. "They seemed to be immune to the stressful experience."

Stress is known to contribute to a number of psychopathologies in humans including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia and drug-use relapse.

Neuroscientists also know that stress affects cognition, and believe research exploring how it relates to learning, memory and decision making will help them understand potential problems stressed people experience in their daily lives.

The UW researchers worked with three groups of rats – a control group, a stress group and a stress plus amygdala inactivation group. All of the rats were acclimated to an automated figure-eight shaped maze that consisted of a center track leading to two loops that ran to the left and right and back to the center. The animals were trained for several days until they were able to complete 40 laps or trials in less than 30 minutes. For each trial, a rat would start in the center, then was allowed to freely run to either the right or the left loop, consume a water reward and return to the center for the next trial. Both loops always had an 80 percent chance of containing 0.04 milliliters of water, and the animals made a comparable number of visits to each loop. The animals were kept on a daily water restriction schedule to motivate them to run the maze.

After this, rats in the stress group and those that were given the drug were restrained and subjected to an unpredictable series of tail shocks for one hour. The following day, all of the rats were returned to the maze for a new series of trials. Once again the animals could run either loop of the maze, but this time the reward amount was increased on one side to 0.12 milliliters.

Within three days the control group and stress plus amygdala inactivation group were reliably able to navigate the maze and collect the larger reward on 35 out of 40 trials. The stress group, meanwhile, was only successful on about 23 of 40 trials, and after several more days their performance only increased to about 26 out of 40 trials.

"The stressed animals took longer to learn and weren't adjusting their behavior in the maze," said Jones. "From this research we can see the effects of stress on rats and how one episode of stress impairs their decision making for several days.

"We know humans have to make numerous higher-levels decisions, some of which are complex and require deliberations. Rats are guided by survival, and seeking out the larger of two rewards for the same effort should be fundamentally easy. The fact that stress can have such an effect on a simple but critical task is amazing."

Kim added: "Decision making, both large and small, is part of our lives. People are prone to make mistakes under stress. Look at what has been going on with the stock market. People are under huge amounts of stress and we have to question some of the decisions that are being made."

I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorsoul (talkcontribs) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Infomal peer review

Casliber asked me to take a look over the article, so here are some thoughts that I couldn't fix myself.

  • "Similar to its English common name, the German ... Hungarian légyölő galóca and French Amanite tue-mouches, are derived from its use in Europe as an insecticide, sprinkled in milk." This sentence isn't awfully clear. I'd personally remove the comma after tue-mouches, and add "all" after "are". Also, shouldn't it be use in Europe as... when sprinkled in milk? Same is true of the same phrase in the lead.  Done and  Done
  • "have had little cultural connotations throughout European history." Have had few? (yes - well spotted)
  • One line paragraphs (end of taxonomy section) generally don't look great. (agreed. common thread sort of in last three paras so combined)
  • If this is going to go to FAC, there's generally opposition to images being added on the left directly below section titles. See the MOS section on images.
  • "by Geml and colleagues"- this is the first time he's mentioned, and there's no Wikilink. A full name and brief description may be nice- "John Smith, writing for the Society of Examples" or something may be nice.  Done
  • A little more description of non-fully grown specimens would be nice.
  • Some references regarding the similarities and difference with other mushrooms would be good. It would probably also be best to merge all of them into one paragraph.
  • Again per WP:MOSIMAGES, the description section crams text between two images (or does on my screen). Not sure what can be done about that, or whether anything needs to be done. (I always find description sections a problem as that is where one always wants to put images. I will cross my fingers that exapnding in may ameliorate the problem a little, otherwise I am musing on removing the mature pileus image)
    • Moving the image down a paragraph is an acceptable compromise, according the the MoS. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

*"and South America, where it usually occurs under introduced pine trees." Reference? taken out for the time being pending a future reference turning up. I am sure I read it somewhere, just can't for the life of me find it now.

  • Distribution and habitat again has the left image starting a section, and again has the text cram (worse this time). (removed second image )
  • "When imported to a new country, A. muscaria can jump to native species (for example, Eucalyptus in Australia). It can then be exported with its new symbiont (for example, from Australia to Argentina)." Short paragraph, no references. (partly reffed now. tricky one above)
  • "Deaths from A. muscaria are extremely rare." Reference? (Mr Bungle has helped here :))
  • "extremely rare. A historical journal article reported two fatalities occurring in North America.[51] A fatal dose" Mid sentence doesn't flow naturally from or into the others. Rephrase needed.
  • "The active constituents of this species are water soluble, and boiling and then discarding the cooking water will at least partly detoxify A. muscaria." The reference for this statement isn't clear.

More to come, just saving the comments so far for fear of losing them. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, carrying on (feel free to split up or strike out my comments as appropriate, by the way)-

  • "Indeed, ibotenic acid's strong water solubility means that it could not distribute into the brain without an active process like a transporter; this, and the lack of any reports of permanent brain damage following A. muscaria ingestion (which would be the result of ibotenic acid entering the brain due to its effect as an NMDA receptor agonist) make it unlikely that ibotenic acid enters the brain following A. muscaria ingestion. However, no studies have directly investigated ibotenic acid's ability to permeate the brain." No references cited.
    • Sounded like OR so removed.Mr Bungle | talk 02:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a possibility of an image in the pharmacology section? A diagram of the mentioned bonding, or something?
  • "Vanadium is present in fruit-bodies as an organometallic compound called amavadine." Perhaps a link to Organometallic chemistry, if that's the same thing? (good point - it is - done.)
  • "The effect is highly variable and individuals can react quite differently to the similar doses." Does this mean that John can have a different effect each time he takes it, or merely that John and Tom will be affected in a different way? (more the second, but mushrooms too have varying doses of psychoactive and toxic agents)
  • "anticholinergic or cholinergic poisoning" Again, wikilinks?
  • "With modern medical treatment the prognosis following poisoning is typically good following supportive treatment" - repetition of "following" does not read well.

Done for now, I will look over the rest of the article later tonight. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, finishing off.

  • "If a fly agaric is eaten, it is usually not fresh, but in its dried or cooked form, where ibotenic acid is converted to the more stable and far less poisonous muscimol." Ref? removed
  • "It is less often also thought to be the amrita talked about in Buddhist scriptures.[100]" Single line paragraph, and does it really belong in that section?
  • "On the whole, muscimol, the psychoactive ingredient, is a mild relaxant, but it is widely known, as with all drugs that it can create a range of reactions within a range of people[102] and it is possible that it could make a person incredibly angry, as well as make them "very jolly or sad, jump about, dance, sing or give way to great fright".[103]" Very long, confusing sentence. (agreed)
  • "He concludes the use of the mushroom must have been "the best kept secret in the world" as it was so well concealed for all this time.[106][107]" I'm assuming it is meant that he concludes that if the theory was true, it would be the best kept secret? The current phrasing makes it sound like he agrees with the theory. (gah! how did I leave that out?)
  • "a partly grown A. muscaria, as shown right, is clearly the fungus upon which this icon is based." Original research? Also, the whole "see diagram" thing is not really done on Wikipedia. Instead, just write naturally, and link the image into the text using the caption. (yes, 'twas a bit ORish)
  • "although a Psilocybe species has also been suggested." Ref? Paragraph is also a little short. dubious section when looked at closely - whole segment removed.
  • More references in the art section would be good. Also, an image of a painting by a notable artist that they appear in would be great.
  • There's an element of insconsistency with the references. I would move any of the book references where more than one page is cited to the general references section, then cite them in the footnotes themselves with the "Surname, p. #" format. If you're up to it, there's also a way to link the footnotes to the full citation, but I've never used it. Looks really professional though. Further, I would place all the references into citation templates for consistency. One of the big inconsistencies is how the author and co-author's names are formatted. I would go for: Smith, John; Jones, A. B.; Jill, Taylor. Example Book Title (etc...)" as that's the one that the citation templates use. However, any is fine, as long as there is consistency.

*External links could do with a trimming. agreed

Ok, there, I'm done. Page watchlisted. Hope these issues can be resolved by some editors more familiar with the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

which pharmacological image to add

I am torn - File:Muscimol-lg.png is more informative I guess, but I really like File:Muscimol3d.png. I have added the former but would prefer the latter...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, as one used to seeing structures every day I greatly prefer the former. Sasata (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(sigh) I know you're right :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Casliber- the second looks so much prettier, but I just know that the first is more useful... J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Informal peer review #2

I'll add a few comments to what J Milburn has mentioned above. I've made a few minor changes already, wikilinking and some copyediting. Cas, are you planning to go through GA or straight to FA? If the former, it's good to go after addressing JM's notes above. If the latter,

  • where's the section on spore description and microscopic features? The "spores under microscopy" pic has no supporting context.
  • A. muscaria as ectomycorrhiza?
  • I agree with JM that more description of the egg stage is needed, and if possible, a picture of a cross sectioned specimen in the egg stage. I can check out Mushroom Observer for a pic if you'd like.
  • There's dozens and dozens of interesting research papers that could be integrated, depending on how comprehensive you want the final article to be. For instance, here's a sampling of recent publications:

A Study of Cultural Bias in Field Guide Determinations of Mushroom Edibility Using the Iconic Mushroom, Amanita muscaria, as an Example
Rubel, W; Arora, D
ECONOMIC BOTANY Volume: 62 Issue: 3 Pages: 223-243 Published: 2008

Evidence for strong inter- and intracontinental phylogeographic structure in Amanita muscaria, a wind-dispersed ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete
Geml, J; Tulloss, RE; Laursen, GA, et al.
MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Volume: 48 Issue: 2 Pages: 694-701 Published: 2008

Three cases of Amanita muscaria ingestion in children - Two severe courses
Hoegber, LCG; Larsen, L; Sonne, L, et al.
CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY Volume: 46 Issue: 5 Pages: 407-408 Published: 2008

Pigments of fly agaric (Amanita muscaria)
Stintzing, F; Schliemann, W
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR NATURFORSCHUNG SECTION C-A JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCES Volume: 62 Issue: 11-12 Pages: 779-785 Published: 2007

Taking advantage of the experience in ethnomedicinal use of mushrooms: Anti-inflammatory and related pharmacological activities of fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) ethanolic extract deserve a modern evaluation
Biziulevicius, GA
MEDICAL HYPOTHESES Volume: 69 Issue: 4 Pages: 946-947 Published: 2007

... and many others. I could easily add another 50k to the length. Also have some books here that delve into traditional uses by various cultures in more detail. Of course, it would take time to add all this... If you want to pass GA first I would let that happen before I started messing with it :) Sasata (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was planning on fixing up J Milburn's points, embellishing the Soma and Amrita bit and taking to GA. After that, more material on traditional cultures and having a browse through the papers above would be next move I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

David Arora just sent me a copy of a recent Economic Botany article he wrote, "A Study of Cultural Bias in Field Guide Determinations of Mushroom Edibility Using the Iconic Mushroom, Amanita muscaria, as an Example" (abstract). I'll give it a read shortly and incorporate the info into the article soon. Since a lot of this might represent David Arora's opinion on a contested topic, I'll be sure to be careful to adhere to NPOV when summarizing it. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! I was hinking of chasing that up...much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Legality

The last issue to address (well, I have to look for some material on amrita too) is finding references for the legality, as none of my book refs do and a brief look online leads to more blogs etc. If anyone has some leads here this would be much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

breadth of discussion on amrita

I was wondering how notable or widespread this was. It is sort of linked to soma, and the word gets a mention in Wasson but not picked up upon until later by this other paper. Shall we keep it in? Is it only the one journal? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuff it - googling reveals it to be maybe in one reliable source only, so removed to to-do bit for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing headache

I always preferred (for a hypothetical author "John Smith") - "Smith J", to "Smith, J." but run into problems when I try and use full names, as one then has to reintroduce a comma. I am wading my way through trying to get as many first names of principal authors as possible but...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Smith J" always looks clumsy to me. I definitely prefer "Smith, J." and I think it is consistent with "Smith, John", which is what we need to be looking for. Of course, full names would generally be preferred. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "Smith J" is now the preferred reference style according to contemporary style guides like Scientific Style and Format and the Chicago Manual of Style. And I also think its a better format, in that many publications, especially scientific ones, have multiple authors, leading to clumsy looking and excessive use of commas in multi-authored works when using "Smith, J" style. For example, "Smith J, Brown KC, Klein CJ. (2009)." as opposed to "Smith, J, Brown, K.C., and Klein, C.J. (2009)." Peter G Werner (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you should avoid using full names unless you're prepared to do this for every single reference. The bibliographic style in any given Wikipedia article should be internally consistent rather than a hodge-podge of styles. In fact, that's something that will need to be cleaned up in this article at some point. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh great. In the past I have stuck to initials but had people expand first names in my references if possible - certainly had alot more of that than the other way. Question is, I wonder if it is possible to get all the first names....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I use two styles. My preferred style is "J. Smith, B. Kunnig, C. Amsler (2005)" which I find has the best flow. The other I use is "Smith, J.; Kunnig, B.; Amsler, C. (2008)" usually because it's easier to parse than "Smith, J., Kunnig, B., Amsler, C.". I religiously loathe the "Smith, John, Kunnig, James, Amsler, Charles" or the slightly better "Smith, John; Kunnig, James; Amsler, Charles (2008)" some people use. It's just horrible. I also usually avoid full names because there's always a reference used that doesn't give the full name the author, and I find something like "John Smith, B. Kunnig, Charles Amsler (2008)" to be inconsistant. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, been thinking about this all day - I am changing all to Pubmed style --> Smith J etc. Done down to top of distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
In order to do that with the existing template, you have to put it in as "|author=Smith J" rather than "|last=Smith |first=J". I can do the reformatting over the next few days if you wish, since I've gotten pretty good at tricking the Wikipedia citation template to look like standard modern scientific journal format. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this discussion- I went ahead and changed them all to a style consistent with the cite template. Anyone else welcome to change them to any other style, or even revert me completely. As long as the end result is consistency, I personally don't mind. As noted above, any other style would have to either not use the citation templates, or "trick" them. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Muscimol or muscarine?

The lead says that the main pharmacologically active component is muscimol, but I don't think that's right, I think it is actually muscarine. It makes a big difference because muscimol is a GABA antagonist while muscarine is a cholinergic antagonist. Not changing this myself because I don't have much confidence in my knowledge here. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No it is muscimol - one of the great myths is that it is muscarine. The irony of the name is that there is very little muscarine in Amanita muscaria. This should be clear from the middle of the article. I might mention that in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance painting

Looking at this website [4], this painting The_Myth_of_Prometheus_(Piero_di_Cosimo) - has a basket with some mushrooms, one of which is a fly agaric - damn hard to see...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a comment related to this issue to the FAC- basically, there's a better image that's mentioned in that source. However, the section as a whole could do with some work. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded an alternative, but it looks a little big in the article. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I love the Rubezahl pic. If we reduce the heaadings may be better aesthetically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Caution with amanitas

I realised this was one sentence:

However, the consumption of Amanita species as a food source is a controversial topic within mycological circles, with some authors holding that some species are safe to consume, while others advocate avoiding any Amanita.

I had thought would be easy to reference but wasn't and in any case wasn't intended for this fungus, but more things like blushers and coccoli etc. Anyway, I have removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The edibility of A. muscaria is a controversial topic, and I've heard advanced word that there's going to be at least one rebuttal in the works toward Arora and Rubel's article. Both sides of this do need to be covered in a balanced way as per NPOV. As per cites on Amanita edibility in general, one can simply contrast the views on this stated by Arora in Mushrooms Demystified versus the views of Michael Kuo on his site. That topic belongs in the Amanita article at the very least. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(gasp, splutter...WP been unavailable for a few hours) Peter, do you think what is in the article now is sufficient, or do you think any further clarification is needed? I figured it was self-explanatory as is but appreciate an outside view on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: Not surprised a rebuttal is in the works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think its fine for the time being until a rebuttal or criticism is actually published somewhere. However, I do think something on the controversy around edible Amanita should be added to the Amanita article; I can add a sourced section on this to that article in the next several days. It might be called for to link the "Culinary use" section here to that topic in the Amanita article. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

T. I. Itkonen

The article mentions:

The Finnish historian T. I. Itkonen mentions that it was once used among the Sami people, sorcerers in Inari would consume fly agarics with seven spots.

There is an article on him in Finnish wikipedia, but I don't know what the policy is on providing links to foreign-language Wikipedias. In any event, I'm going to try to request a translation so this can be linked. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind – I just added it as a stub with a request for translation. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New pic

A nice photo recently appeared at [Mushroom Observer]. If you like, I will upload it to Commons. Sasata (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, nice. I have been tramping around as it is late summer here and we've had a bit of rain..but no luck :( Still a bit early for mushrooms (peak time here is eastertime). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of pictures - do folks think we need both images in the Distribution and habitat and Psychoactive use sections? Not usre they add anything new as such, though the latter is cute :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they both illustrate something (the former illustrating the habitat through the fact it is half-buried, the latter illustrating the fact that they are collected) but I would support removing the one in the distribution and habitat section. The other should, I believe, stay. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I am easy any which way on these; and I am in agreement with your reasoning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Aargh, another nice pic... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Paper on classification

this looks interesting; I wonder how we should summarise it and how firm the evidence/consensus is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First, here is a direct link to a pdf of the paper.
It looks like its a followup to the Geml, et al (2006) paper that is discussed in the last paragraph under "Classification". A coauthor of the latest paper is Rod Tuloss, who at this point is probably the world expert on Amanita alpha taxonomy. And the results are totally consistent with earlier papers I've seen on ectomycorrhizal population structure, which found a high degree of genetic differentiation (and possibly cryptic speciation) in species like Russula brevipes. So, yes, I'd put a lot of stock in what the paper is saying.
Peter G Werner (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added - Further molecular study by Geml and colleagues published in 2008 show these three genetic groups, plus a fourth associated with oak–hickory–pine forest in the southeastern United States, and two more on Santa Cruz Island in California, are delineated from each other enough genetically to be considered separate species. - do you think that is (a) accurate and (b) detailed enough for the article, or should it be elaborated more? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a read and see if there's anything more worth adding here. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spores and update

  • Yes, a better photo of spores would be much appreciated.
  • Now, Phillips has spores as 9.5-10.5 x 7-8 micrometres and broadly ovate
  • Zeitlmayr has 9-11 micrometres long and broadly egg-shaped
  • Arora has 9-13 x 6.5-9 micrometres and broadly elliptical

Any others? Use most inclusive? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Having done spore stats like this for many years, the variance between authors doesn't surprise me. Spore size can vary somewhat between populations, and also, taking an accurate measurement using a eyepiece micrometer is a real pain. I personally only consider spore statistics comparing one population or species to another to be accurate if they're done by the same person with the same equipment. These days, microscopes with a camera attachment and digital measurement software can make measurement of spores and other micro-features a great deal more accurately, but hardly anybody in mycology has made use of this technology so far.
As for Arora's statistics, he seems to have taken that directly from Harry Thiers "Agaricales of California I: Amanitaceae" (except that the width should be 6.5–9.5 µm if he's getting from that source). Its specifically for Amanita muscaria var. muscaria, and probably mostly from California collections. I think his stats are as accurate as any you'll find and seem to be the most inclusive, so I'd use those.
Peter G Werner (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was beginning to think the same myself - thanks for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Why I have dealt with little bits so far rather than more involved is the lack of a block of time to focus on trickier ones. Available time can be unpredictable..Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS: Could folks please strike through points they think have been addressed on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amanita muscaria page, as it will make the page easier to read. If not, please elaborate and I will see how/what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to use the data that has been collected and processed using a known methodolgy. I would be glad to offer my data on spores of muscarioid material. Spores are not the only valuable microcharacter in muscaria. The depth of the subhymenium is also very valuable. My methods is described on the web. Click "methodology" in the navigation bar on the Amanita Studies website < http:eticomm.net/~ret/amanita/mainaman.html >. R. E. Tulloss 76.98.3.128 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Welcome. I will indeed look at the website. Would you have any images of A. muscaria in egg stage available that we could use here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is one there, because I just saw it the other day on this page. Can we get your permission to use this, Dr. Tulloss? Peter G Werner (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed article as "maintained"

I put a "maintained" tag at the beginning of the article listing Casliber and myself. If anybody else wants to be included, then add your name (with a "User" link) to the "Maintained" template on the top of the page. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some notes from Rod Tulloss

Two notes from Rod Tulloss via the Bay Area Mushrooms email list. I thought it would be good to repost them here.

Peter,

I have just had an exchange this morning with Cas Liber regarding the wikipedia muscaria page. As a result, I am trying to put significant statements from as yet unpublished papers into the Amanita Studies web pages for A. muscaria subtaxa that will provide quotable statements about relationships.

It is a bit hard to treat all of the muscarioid taxa on one page. For example, you don't try to handle A. concentrica (of Japan), A. heterochroma (of the Mediterranean region), or A. breckonii, which are muscarioid. At present, as I mentioned to Cas, some of the varieties will be raised to species rank in papers that are already drafted. Some of the varieties will become synonyms of a name at species rank. There will not be many varieties left; most of the European varieties of muscaria will be synonyms of A. muscaria. Some varieties will disappear entirely because they (with present evidence) have turned out to be color variants (individuals or populations that can't [yet?] be segregated by morphology or DNA EXCEPT with regard to color) of one of the species rank entities.

The number of microscopic characters is LARGE in Amanita as opposed to (say) Russula. Bas began the exploration of the microscopic characters (in a BIG way) in the 1960's, culminating in his 1969 thesis. Tulloss' work began to expand on these techniques in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Yang came in the same tradition in the late 1990's and emphasized the anatomy of the volva. Tulloss treats dozens of microscopic characters in every species on which he publishes; Yang, only slightly fewer.

I do not know how Amanita sect. Vaginatae can be treated without emphasizing the multiple variations on the form of the subhymenium and other parts of the lamella trama, although prolific European mycologists refuse to adopt the Bas-Tulloss-Yang line of microanatomic methodological development.

The European red fly agaric (and occasional color variants) and the North American red fly agaric (and occasional color variants) can be segregated by spore size, spore shape, commonality and geographic ranges of their color variants, thickness of the subhymenium, and by molecular phylogeny (DNA) studies. The Geml et al. (2008) paper cited in the "talk" for the muscaria wikipedia page, includes a phylogenetic tree that separates the American and European fly agarics into two phylogenetic species. With material in good condition, I can segregate a red fly agaric into Eurasian or North/Central American by examining spores and subhymenia.

At the moment, I have just rewritten the muscaria var. muscaria and muscaria subsp. flavivolvata pages on the Amanita Studies site. Earlier today, I sent a couple of emails of suggests to Cas.

I forgot to mention that the author citation for Amanita muscaria has a part missing. It should read "(L. : Fr.) Lam."

I will be very glad to answer questions from you or Cas or any of your colleagues working on the page. If there is a way for you and Cas to share my emails with your colleagues, I hope that you will do so.

When you are at a point when you want an review of the page (I really don't have the time to do it repeatedly), I will be more than happy to provide such a review.

I apologize if I didn't respond to everything in your email. Throw the omissions back at me, please.

Very best,

Rod Tulloss

Peter,

I guess, I should ask you what you mean by "species complex." Do you mean a set of related species such as would be implied by an informal phrase like "muscarioid taxa" or do you mean the collection of infraspecific taxa that have been proposed: forms, varieties, and subspecies. My guess is that you mean the second, but I'm not sure. My previous email should be a start in case, I've guessed correctly.

You ask what defines the "muscarioid" group. Let's suppose that I were to define some infrageneric entity that would include only the muscarioid taxa. Since I've drafted up something like that, I'll run through what I did.

First, this infrageneric group would like within sect. Amanita. It would exclude the powdery-topped species that lack clamps on their basidia, the pantherinoid group (similar absence of clamps), and the gemmatoid group (rare clamps on the basidia).

At this point, one might suggest something like this:

The <infrageneric level name> Muscaria[e] is defined by having amyloid (inamyloid - PGW) spores [subgenus Amanita], a well-developed bulb at the base of the stem resulting from eccentric (high) placement of the developing pileus in the primordium [sect. Amanita], common to plentiful clamps at the bases of basidia, ...

Now let's see what happens with this definition. Well the first thing that comes to our attention is that we have some Gondwanan critters that we might want to deal with separately. These amanitas share all of the characteristics in our roughed out definition; but they also have a well-formed sac enclosing the bulb or least fragments of such a sac (e.g., a volval limb on the bulb)...which is a very peculiar trait when compared to things most similar to muscaria.

We really are faced with a choice, do we allow the strange amanitas to be in our infrageneric taxon with muscaria? I would bet that once we have enough DNA evidence, the "strange ones" will turn out to be basal to the muscarioid taxa or even to all of sect. Amanita. Bas' hypothesis about clamps is that they are presence is a "primitive character"; and, once they are lost in the evolutionary process, they cannot be recovered. Hence, since the muscaria clade of Geml et al. (2008) is relatively young with the possible exception of A. concentrica and one or two other known taxa, and the taxa we know from Australia, New Zealand, and Chile may fall in a clade based on a common ancestor of 10s of millions of years ago (prior to tectonic separation of the three cited countries). Species like A. ushuaiensis, A. umbrinella, A. pseudospreta, and A. lanivolva are LIKELY to fall in a clade "much more basal" than the muscarioid clade that we now know from Geml et al.

According to available evidence, we might want to separate the two groups of contemporary species in our taxonomy. They can be differentiated morphologically; and, as has been noted, there is a good bet they be differentiated in some way molecularly Say that we make the decision to limit the number of clamped taxa in the muscarioid group. Then we could rewrite our attempted definition like this:

The <infrageneric level name> Muscaria[e] [vers. 2.0] is defined by having amyloid (inamyloid - PGW)spores [subgenus Amanita], a well-developed bulb at the base of the stem resulting from eccentric (high) placement of the developing pileus in the primordium [sect. Amanita], common to plentiful clamps at the bases of basidia, lacking a well-formed (friable or membranous) volval limb on the stipe base, lacking a saccate volva, ...

Now there are several odd taxa over which we still might have concern: I am tempted to exclude them because so little is known about their relationship to muscaria. Exactly how we would finish the formal definition of our infrageneric name will have to be left open for the moment. But I can spell out the problem. Here are the taxa that we might want to keep together as (let's say) stirps Muscaria:

Amanita breckonii (Calif., USA) Amanita concentrica (Japan to Nepal, at least) Amanita frostiana (eastern North America) Amanita gioiosa (Mediterranean) Amanita heterochroma (Mediterranean) Amanita ibotengutake (japan) Amanita muscaria and infraspecific taxa (f., var., subsp.) (endemic to N. Hemisph.) Amanita pseudoregalis (Europe) Amanita regalis (approximately circumarctic and montane) Amanita subfrostiana (China) Amanita subglobosa (China) [Note: One last time, there's guess work in this, I don't personally know the Oriental species, but the Chinese species were very thoroughly described by Dr. Yang.]

Now let's make up stirpes for the other small groups.

Let's call this "dark taxa" group, "stirps Umbrinella" Amanita nigrescens (NZ) Amanita umbrinella (Oz) (possible syn.: murinoflammeum) Amanita ushuaiensis (Arg. & Chile) (possible syns.: merxmuelleri & grauiana)

Let's call this the "saccate" group, "stirps Lanivolva" Amanita lanivolva (Brazil, Guyana) Amanita pseudospreta (Arg.)

Let's call this the "bright powder" group: "stirps Aurantiovelata" Amanita aurantiovelata (Chile)

Let's call this the "subgemmatoid" group: "stirps Orientigemmata" Amanita orientigemmata (China) Amanita toxica nom. inval. (Chile) [Note remember that India was part of Gondwana. It probably ferried many amanitas to the Northern Hemisphere...including ancestral toxic Phalloideae.]

Let's call this the "densely powder covered" group: "stirps Sinensis" Amanita sinensis (China) Amanita sinensis var. subglobispora (China)

Let's call this the "pink-gilled" group: "stirps Roseophylla" Amanita roseophylla (Alabama, USA)

Let's call this the "brown pyramidal wart" group: "stirps Morenoi" Amanita morenoi (Arg.)

Let's call this the "odds & ends" group: "stirps Umbrinelloides" Amanita umbrinelloides (Oz)

There it is for what it's worth. It's unpublished and very sketchy in several parts. Note how the INFORMALLY proposed stirps Muscaria is composed largely of Eurasian and North/Central American taxa. With few exceptions, the other stirps (all smaller) are associated with land formerly part of Gondwana or with countries immediately adjacent to such land (predominantly, Argentina and China). Of those Chinese taxa that have been molecularly sampled for multiple loci, they are nearly all (all?) basal to the species of stirps Muscaria. My guess is that they will not be basal to sect. Amanita as a whole, but it is only a guess.

Very best,

Rod Tulloss

(via Peter G Werner (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Whew! Thanks Peter (and Rod) - my attempts to forward Rod's to you like his to me were bouncing. This is all rather fascinating (NB:Last time NZ, Australia and Chile were joined (via Antarctica) I think would be the mid-late Cretaceous (!) - on a complete aside which makes the fact that the appearance of a Waratah Telopea speciosissima and a Chilean Fire Bush Embothrium coccineum very very ancient indeed (sorry I digress, but I have been fascinated by some of the evolution of the Proteaceae in this area.
I think the best way for Rod to have an open discussion is to have an account and post here for a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New image in "description" section?

Higher quality?

The image currrently used in the description section, File:Amanita muscaria tyndrum.jpg has been delisted as a featured image on Commons. However, the image on the right is currently nominated for featured status, and is heading the right way. Perhaps it could be replaced with the higher quality image? J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh this is so hard :( ...I do like this one, although the Tyndrum one does show a flattened pileus which is a plus. This one is good at showing the floppy ring though. So hard....can see reasons for either way so happy to go with consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd personally support the new one, as it has a chance of passing FPC here, and needs to be in an article to do that. This article seems to be the natural choice! J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. OK, change away and think of a good caption :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Direction and scope for this page

Reading Rod's post above is fascinating and poses somewhat of a dilemma regarding the scope of the page - the bulk of the page refers to subspecies (and soon-to-be-species) muscaria (in fact just about all outside the subspecies section, and modifying the distribution section. problem is the sourcing as the material supporting the split is very new and new species names yet to be published:

Options are:

(1) Reduce scope of page to Amanita muscaria muscaria and call it the subspecies page soon-to-be-species. Tricky I suppose having an article on a subspecies...but then again it is pretty notable. We can change to species once information properly published.

(1a) Reduce scope of page to Amanita muscaria muscaria but note it as species and that other subspp. are about to be published as species (and cite Dr Tulloss' webpage)

(2) Keep as Amanita muscaria but add in some taxa described above. This could get messy though.

(3) Suspend/withdraw the FAC until material properly published - no big deal as all info is here and we can readily send it out again.

All input on what we should do much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep as Amanita muscaria sensu lato, describe named subspecies and species directly segregated from A. muscaria, and also have some notes about other "muscarioid" taxa. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
OK I think we can do this fairly readily, (wow there are a few aren't there...) feel free to add these yourself or I will try a bit later on. Shall we list what should go in here? I figured what to add now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
added very brief notes on the three remaining spp Rod Tuloss says in broad treatment - should these be expanded at all Peter? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Folks I changed ref 25 per Dr Tulloss. I have to hop off now. Are we happy with this as I couldn't figure out another way to do it in cite web format. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We can only implement the additions Tulloss recommends if they're actually published somewhere. I really do want to add some of the things he's noted concerning the micromorphology of the muscarioid group. Right now we have nothing on micro features and it would be a good thing to have in the article. I'll have to find something to actually cite, though.
In other news, somebody gave me a fresh California A. muscaria today, and I'm at the Merritt College microscopy lab right now. Expect some micro images soon!
Fantastic on getting a sample! Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

basket of fly agarics image temporarily removed

I have removed Image:Basket of Amanita muscaria.png as the licencing really needs a OTRS ticket. Once done it can be reinserted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bufotenin & heart flutter

From what I've read about this mushroom, there's also Bufotenin in it and it can cause heart flutter, fibrillation and palpitations. I'll work more on this later. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


One paper in 1953 (Wieland & Motzel) claimed to find bufotenin in A. muscaria extract but all subsequent research failed to confirm this result. Bufotenin is not believed to be present in the muscaria-class amanitas.

The report that A. muscaria and A. pantherina contain the 5-oxygenated compound bufotenin is almost certainly an error (Tyler, 1 964a). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorsoul (talkcontribs) 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had never heard it before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)