Talk:Psilocybe aztecorum

Psilocybe aztecorum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
April 7, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 20, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the "children of the water" were considered to be the "flesh of the gods"?

Current status: Featured article

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Psilocybe aztecorum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine- people are always so quick to claim these ones! Interesting looking article- one that could well be of interest to those who don't normally care for mushrooms. Review to come soon. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JM; this one's headed to FAC, so don't hold back :) Sasata (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I think the fact it is found only in central Mexico should come before the habitat.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The mushrooms have convex to bell-shaped caps 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) in diameter, atop slender cylindrical stems that are up to 7.5 cm (3.0 in) long." Comma seems out of place- if it was "which are found atop" or something, then it would fit. However, the sentence looks a little short without it...

Changed to "set atop". Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"two psilocybin mushrooms candidates considered to be the Aztec teonanacatl ("flesh of the gods"), reported" mushrooms candidates? Also, again, the comma doesn't feel quite right

Reworded this part. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"in this publication" You've not named a publication- "in the same publication", perhaps? Also, the claim he described P. mexicana seems at odds with the fact he'd previously named P. aztecorum as a variety of P. mexicana?

Reworded all of this too. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link on P. caerulescens, annoyingly, goes to an article on a different variety, making the link somewhat misleading

P. caerulescens var. caerulescens is the nominate variety ... I may just rename this article to plain ole P. caerulescens (after I've done some reading; it's on the to-do list). Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"lignicolous" Jargon

Linked. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this synonymy is confirmed by neither of the taxonomical databases MycoBank nor Index Fungorum." Rephrase?

Ok. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the captions for the microscopic shots where spores are visible, it would be great if the variety could be identified.

Judging from the elevation the samples were collected, I'd guess it was var. aztecorum, but at 3480 m, it's close to the borderline between the two varieties; I'll ask Alan at MO to see what he thinks. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say the "pleurocystidia ... are ... similar to the cheilocystidia in form and size", but you're yet to introduce the cheilocystidia.

Swapped these sentences. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Natarajan and Raman" Full names on first mention?

Cannot find their first names, so gave the initials (will look harder later). Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"progenitor" Jargon

now "ancestor" Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Northwest North America and of P. quebecensis in Northeastern North America." Over capitalisation? I may be wrong.

Uncapped. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"of Mexico and Morelos, and Distrito Federal" Odd phrase (also, dablink)

changed "Distrito Federal" to the English equivalent (and fixed dab), does this work? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be some odd choices of when to link in "Entheogenic use" para 1

Shuffled links. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guzman source is listed separately from the notes- perhaps the same for the Stamets source?

Yes, done. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article, with some fantastic illustrations. If you don't have anything lined up after psilocybe at FAC, I think this one would be worth a shot; all I'd like to see there is a little more on how the mushroom is used today by the Mexican groups. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, if it is heading to FAC, then yeah, I'd want to see more on its current usage. Are there specific things these people are looking for? Are there particular rituals associated with the use of the mushrooms? Are there any beliefs about the mushrooms? J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this would be a good addition. I think I might have some more success by checking Spanish-language sources (it is only in Mexico, after all), and by searching for the people rather than the mushroom. Will do this before I submit to FAC.

Perhaps try looking in the religion section of the library, rather than the mycology one? I'll have a snoop myself at some point- if I find anything, I'll scan it in for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, I'm jealous of J Milburn.~~ If you'll common name him in the lead, I see a 5x hook! Thx ;) Much GA/FA success with it! Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for submitting the DYK, Rcej. I'm on the fence about including non-English common names in the lead ... any opinions about this? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I'd say not, but this does look like it could be a special case, in that, firstly, there is no English common name, secondly, these are names in languages local to its range (while English is not) and, thirdly, speakers of these languages do consider the mushroom to be something significant. On balance, however, I'd say it's not necessary, though I wouldn't object to its inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look-through, the prose is a smidge choppy in places, but I am sure that this is something that will be worked out. I'm happy to promote. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microscopy images

Some indication of the magnification, e.g. scale bars, would be useful on these images. And, an image without the graticule of the crush mount might be better if there is one available. Thoughts? Graham Colm (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both your suggestions. I'll try to get in contact with the photographer, Alan Rockefeller, and see if he can help. Sasata (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entheogenic use

It seems to me that some of the information in the section on usage is in fact about other species, or possibly valid for multiple psilocybe species. For example Frank Lipp's account of the Mixe usage does not specify that this was the aztecorum variety, and it seems unlikely that this variety should grow in Oaxaca since the Oaxaca species found by Wasson are P. mexicana and P. wassonii. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that some of the usage info is valid for multiple species. I'll have a closer look at the Knauth source you added and see what I can do to expand with more species-specific info. Sasata (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various corrections made

I've made a number of linguistic and ethnographic corrections. Wasson's participation in the ritual ingestion of psilocybe was among the Mazatecs not Mixtecs. Nahuatl is the name of the language not the people who are called Nahua. Aztec is another name for the Nahua people, usually only applied when describing the pre-conquest period, it is now no longer used to describe contemporary Nahua peoples. The translation "flesh of the Gods" is a mistranslation which apparently traces all the way back to the chronicle of Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, and which has since been repeated, by Schulte and others. The word teo:tl means "sacred","divine", "mysterious "or "of the Gods", and the word nanacatl means "mushroom", when compounded (the prefixed noun loses its -tl suffix) that gives something like "sacred mushroom". The mistranslation comes from confusing the word nanacatl "mushroom" with the word nacatl "flesh/meat". Similarly the word apipiltzin means "little water children", and us comoposed of a:tl "water" and pipiltzin, the plural diminutive of pilli "child". The spanish usage niñitos does not correspond directly to the Nahuatl word, but Singer's example is. I've also added a reference to Knauth's article in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, which could be used for a major expansion of the section on usage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the corrections! BTW, Guzman (2008) uses "Nahuatl" as a shorthand (or perhaps as an adjectival form?) for Nahua people, but I agree your corrections make things less ambiguous. I hope to bring Psilocybe zapotecorum to FAC next year, and will probably make many of the same errors due to my unfamiliarity with the region & language ... may I ping you for a critical read when the time comes? Sasata (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon that scholars form other fields use the term Nahuatl for the ethnic group as well, but this not strictly speaking a correct usage - and also we have an article on the Nahua people which wasn't linked from the article which only linked to the article on the language. Please do send me a note when P. zapotecorum is up for FAC, I'd be happy to take a read through, and I'm fairly familiar with the ethnographic sources on Indigenous hallucinogen use in Mexico. Well done with this article and congratulations on FA and mainpage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psilocybe aztecorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331105044/http://www.fungimag.com/summer-2011-articles/FungiSUM_GenusPsilocybeNA_LR.pdf to http://www.fungimag.com/summer-2011-articles/FungiSUM_GenusPsilocybeNA_LR.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to <removed>

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found outside Mexico

It is no longer correct that P aztecorum is known only from high elevations in Mexico. It has been found in the US states of Colorado, Arizona, and Maine, and in Ontario and Quebec, in Canada. 2604:CA00:118:7A3:0:0:61:C3D7 (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]