 | Psilocybe yungensis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the psychedelic mushroom Psilocybe yungensis (pictured) is used in mystic rituals by the Mazatecs? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Stipe edit
I'm confused. The caption below one of the photos says that the "stems are densely covered with whitish fibrils," but the summary box descrbes the stipes as "bare". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The stipe parameter in the mycomorphbox template is only really intended to indicate whether it has a universal veil (ring and volva), partial veil (ring or cortina), or neither, but I see why calling it "bare" in this instance causes confusion. Please bring it up at the template talk page if you think it needs to be tweaked. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Uses edit
This section ends by stating "There is, however, no established record of hallucinogenic mushroom use in that area,[17][18] and it is possible that the mushroom could instead be a psychedelic species of the wood-dwelling genus Gymnopilus.[19]". That's a very nice schrodinger's cat sentence. On one side there is "no established record of hallucinogenic mushroom use in that area" while on the other that same apparently non existent mushroom that is apparently not used could be a different mushroom, Gymnopilus... There should be an IQ test to edit wikipedia, just like captchas only IQ problem instead. I think it will save everyone a lot of time, the chimps writing this kind of illogical nonsense, the people wasting their time reading it, and the wiki editors wasting their time trying to correct/maintain a certain standard. Oh and guess what, the last reference, the one suggesting that the non existent use of the non existent mushroom could be a different one ofcourse has a ISBN number that does not return results anywhere. I wonder if its because the "information" obtained from that reference is based on a news paper article or something equally, utterly useless? "Magic Mushrooms Around the World. A Scientific Journey Across Cultures and Time" a reference and title that's laughably, obviously written by some triphead, moron, wannabe "scientist". Further it does not help that the two other references are from 1966 and 1969, the latter being named "Hallucinogens of plant origin"... Meaning the idiot who wrote it did not even know that mushrooms is a different kingdom than plantae and was so defined 13 years before this author's writing. This is just pathetic...--84.209.8.208 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)