Wile E. Peyote

Traditionally an aqueous extraction, although smoked bioassays report psychoactivity too.

I contacted Glaukus about the Psychotria plants, so let’s leave everything else here on offer and add a few things. Damn, it is looking like a pretty impressive list of goodies. This thread is banging! Next person gets... From me: 1 x small bag Piper methysticum root 1 x small bag Nuyutsia floribunda flower 1 x Psilocybe subaeruginosa spore print (for microscopy purposes) 1 x Psilocybe cyanescens spore print (for microscopy purposes) 2 x small bags of seeds that I think are Ipomea mislabeled as Argyreia From od101010: 15x blue hopi corn seeds 10x painted mountain corn seeds 10 x acacia cognata seeds 10x acacia acuminata seeds mix of un named chilli seeds From Bardo: 10 or so seeds of 6 different native acacia 10 or so Duboisia hopwoodii seeds : ) From Glaukus: Cactus seeds of my various 2018 oz tricho crosses From Dozer: Psychotria Carthayenensis seeds ~8 mimosa hostilis seeds 2 samples of rustica Vanilla toast snuff

Thanks, and good point Micromegas. There was another paragraph to the email that gives some context for my interest. Hopefully this paragraph will reduce perception of criticism. If I get no response I will have a friend send an email in Spanish from another address. In this second email I might avoid the Schultes/Wasson/Psilocybe references and just ask about the reasoning behind the Dahlia ssp ID.

Ok, so I’ve found two early papers published by Schultes relevant to Aztec use of psychoactive mushrooms. There doesn’t seem to be a copy of his dissertation online or available to purchase or borrow in print. Interestingly, neither of these papers refer to Psilocybe. They are both concerned with Panaeolus, with Schulte’s central argument being that the Aztec term "Teonanacatl" refers to "intoxicating mushrooms". I’ve sent the following in an email to the Museum; “I am interested in claims that Psilocybe aztecorum can be identified on this statue (Wasson, 1973; Schultes, Hoffman and Rätsch, 2001). The original publication of this botanical identification by Wasson (1973) is said to rely on observations by Schultes, and while Schultes does have experience researching Mexican ethnobotanical contexts, he does not appear to have published further detail regarding why he chooses to identify Psilocybe aztecorum on the Xochipilli statue. Psilocybe aztecorum was not acknowledged within the Xochipilli exhibit, in which the relevant motif was alternatively identified as a Dhalia ssp. I am wondering if the experts who composed the exhibit are critical of Wasson and Schulte’s identification? What is the reasoning for identifying this image as a Dhalia ssp?” Schultes, R. (1939) Plantae Mexicanae II The Identification of Teonanácatl a Narcotic Basidiomycete of the Aztecs, Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University, 7(3), 37-54.pdf Schultes, R. (1940) Teonanacatl The Narcotic Mushroom of the Aztecs, American Anthropologist, 42, 429-443.pdf

Sorry – I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. I agree, it is possible that Schultes, Wasson and/or the Museum are prejudiced, but I can’t access enough information to form a strong opinion. I have drafted an email for the museum but I’m hoping to read something more concrete published by Schultes regarding his identification before making contact. I’ll let you know if I make any progress!

Cheers Micromegas, I think there are fair criticisms to make of ‘outsider’ research, and I am definitely an advocate of participant inclusive methodologies. I'm not certain if prejudice against psychoactive substances is taking place in the museum, due to the acknowledgement of Turbina corymbosa. Still, the Psilocybe interpretation of Xochipilli is prominent in published literature and it seems like a shortfall for the museum to not engage with this interpretation at all, even if there is disagreement. In Wasson’s (1973) paper, he attributes primary responsibility for botanical identification to Schultes, although he does not cite a publication in which Schultes has identified Psilocybe on Xochipilli. Perhaps Schultes makes this argument in his doctoral dissertation ‘Economic Aspects of the Flora of Northeastern Oaxaca’ (1941) but unfortunately, I have not been able to access this text. I want to know the details of Schultes’ Psilocybe research in order to form my own opinion concerning its identification on the statue. It would be great if someone could connect me with some earlier literature published by Schultes concerning this. On a side note, I went to a grungy pulque bar in Mexico City called 'Peluquería las duelistas', where there was an awesome Xochipilli mural with mushrooms fruiting from his head. So there appears to be some local association of Xochipilli with fungi, at least…

I recently visited the ~16th century Aztec Xochipilli statue at The National Museum of Archaeology in Mexico City. They had a pretty detailed breakdown of the botanical imagery on the statue, with the museum noting the following as present; Asteraceae, Chiranthodendron pentadactylon, Datura, Nicotiana, Philadelphus mexicana, Phillodendrum mexicanum, Plumeria rubra, Polianthes tuberosa, Pseudobombax, Tagetes erecta, Tagetes lucida, Tigridia pavonia and Turbina corymbosa. I was surprised to see no reference to Psilocybe spp. in the exhibit. As I understand it, Schultes is the primary authority on the identification of Psilocybe spp. on the statue. Is this the case? Does anyone know which publication he originally makes this identification in? Is there a perspective critical of Psilocybe spp. identification on the statue?

I was in Vancouver last month. The best Cannabis environment I've ever encountered, it put Amsterdam to shame.

Aw go on, I'll bite!

Emily Blatchford is conducting a study for her Honours year in Psychology at Edith Cowan University. The study aims to investigate the relationship between drugs, social attitudes and personality. Emily is looking for participants living in Australia aged 18 years and over to complete a short, 10-20 minute online questionnaire. Some questions will concern drug use, but participants are not required to have any history of drug use. Your participation in this study may be useful in assisting future researchers with the development of psychological treatments and therapies that improve social cohesion and community relationships. If you wish to participate in this study, please click on the below link which will direct you to the online questionnaire. https://ecuau.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_08phLWjZKvws9OR Bonus picture of Emily at Vivero Cactus in Ajijic, Jalisco.

I wonder if preference for a low entropy ‘sweet spot’ is a contemporary trend. Maybe society is unbalanced by excessive order, and the psychedelic renaissance is an attempt to reorient ourselves.

Bunnings do seem to stock less Trichs than they have in the past. My best find there has been a TPSM. Hamilton's have stopped supplying Bunnings. If you're in the Western Sydney area I'd reccomend checking Hamilton's out. I got a rooted ~25cm peru crest there for $25!

I have a '2014 240w UV V2.0 Lighthouse Hydro BlackStar LED Grow light Flower 3W L027’ in the cupboard. Would this be sufficient for raising trich seedlings? I've tried this light with few other plants but haven't been impressed with the results.

Often there are people foraging for legal fungi in the same areas. Adding some Lactarius deliciosus and/or Suillus luteus to your basket is a good way of blending in.

I'm no expert, but I think the phyllodes look more like A. longfolia. I've attached some pics of the A. floribunda in my front yard - they have different looking phyllodes to those in your pictures.