Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Laila

truffles contain 'bliss' molecule

Recommended Posts

Heres an interesting article.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141221-truffles-contain-bliss-molecule

'Maccarrone believes truffles use it to attract animals to eat their fruiting bodies, so that their spores are spread more widely and they have a better chance of reproducing.'

I wonder if there are other fungi/ plants that rely on humans in particular to spread spores/ seed.

Edited by Laila
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe that it most definitely isn't. It's a defense mechanism, as are all psychoactive alkaloids. Can you imagine a small animal, stoned out of it's mind, surviving for very long in a forest or a field, where most psychoactive species grow? However, it clearly has that function with humans, but it didn't evolve with us in mind.

On the other hand, I can easily believe that truffles contain something bliss inducing, there's no other reason people would otherwise eat and so highly value something that disgusting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i a can speak from personal experience, after watching a crow stumble around my back yard in a 6 hour stupor after helping itself to a bridgesii, that it probably is a defence mechanism, the poor bird really didn't have any clue of it's surroundings, if a predator were to take advantage it would have had no chance

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once let a mosquito drink freely from my wrist for about a minute, whilst in the throes of several black microdots...it wasn't flying too well afterwards. I bet that mozzie felt like your crow stu!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I was just sitting on the couch thinkin bout this post I made and had similar thoughts. I came back to reword my question to 'I wonder what other plants rely on humans to spread their seed'. Editing.... now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The psilocybe "subaeruginosa/azurescens/cyanescens" group certainly loves humans, and commonly grows along trails, in parks, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess itd also be a question of what seeds or spores can survive the human digestive tract

Edited by Laila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came back to reword my question to 'I wonder what other plants rely on humans to spread their seed'. Editing.... now

I doubt any of them evolved with us in mind, but that is how evolution happens, those creatures that are best suited for new conditions survive. And humans propagate everything that is 'usefull' to them, and spread them everywhere, so it's easy to assume that those species or forms will adapt and survive. We already caused tremendous chaos in most ecosystems, which will eventually settle into something completely different than they once were.

Or, if you want to believe the new agers, psilocybin mushrooms were put on this earth by transdimensional aliens to communicate with us and force our evolution. They probably want to eat us or somesuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, probably ;)

Yeah we do eat a large variety of plant/ fungi.. could it be said that there are no plants/ fungi that we are able to consume that other animals can not.. (note, a big mac doesnt produce a seed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the fact that we are tool users plays into it. Maybe its a desired food that is poisonous to all animals in its natural state but weve evolved with it over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book "The Botany of Desire" covers this concept almost exclusively...although I didn't really like the book that much. It's geared more to the average reader than the plant-nerd.

But plants and humans have gigantic symbiotic relationships in nearly ever sphere of human endeavour, which now encompasses the majority of the planet. How we shape the fortunes of plants and they shape ours is one part of why ethnobotany is so interesting, to me at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this was a fascinating thread and i enjoyed every post.

i wonder if its like caffeine - toxic to insects but useful for us? By accident these group of plants have guaranteed their success because their defense wakes us up.

I did read somewhere that primate brains rely more on the serotonic system than other animals but i tend to agree thst it is a defence mechanism at least initially.

it is weird how psilocybe mushrooms do love to thrive in our manicured, mulched garden beds but then again so do galerina and L.ceres - both if which contain constituents that are clearly defense mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that all alkaloids are defensive is overly simplistic.

Many have such roles, but they may in many cases have several roles.

Many for example are subtle variations on amino acids, such variations may entirely lack defensive roles and could arise through simple mutations. This could provide a trait for further alterations and selection towards defensive roles.

Consider also that several pigments are alkaloids. The idea that they are defensive is overly simplistic. One might not consider the sun to be a predator, thus a protective role of a pigment is not defensive in a formal manner.

Many active components of various life forms are also defensive, or not, but are not alkaloids but belong to some other molecular category.

In many cases molecules clearly promote symbiosis and propagation, consider the sugars of fruit, and the colors of flowers, these molecular traits play important biological roles that are not defensive or protective.

One interesting plant is the Kentucky Coffee tree, which contains a caffeine analog. It is believed to have been largely distributed by North American megafauna like mastodons. The methylxanthines in this species evidently did not deter the animals. It is possible that a molecular trait could protect a species and at the same time act as an attractant to a symbiotic organism. This is quite evident in plants which produce food for insects, as many acacias exemplify. These species often produce alkaloids which while capable of catering herbivory of some species also do not deter others.

Needless to say the biological roles of so called secondary metabolites including but not limited to alkaloids, is multifaceted and not easily understood through a simplistic claim.

That being said, it is true many tryptamine based alkaloids can reduce survivability in species which ingest them, including our own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe evolution is far more intuitive and mystical than ppl give it credit for... one example that blew my mind was zebra. To you or I a zebra stands out like dogs balls but big cats only see in black and white so to a lion zebras are almost invisible standing against long blades of black and white grass... How the hell did evolution know a lion can only see black and white? It's just to random to be coincidence and imo there has to be something going on we don't quite understand. So I totally believe a plant could evolve to have a symbolic relationship with ppl or animals... I hope that make sense

Edited by cactuscarl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the theory of evolution would simply say that all the other variations of zebra were killed over thousands of years, and only those best suited for their environment, i.e. they could blend in with the grass so the lions wouldn't see them, survived and multiplied. :P

We complicate things which nature tries to simplify.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are other fungi/ plants that rely on humans in particular to spread spores/ seed.

lol....cannabis

R. Clarke's and M.Merlin - Cannabis evolution and ethnobotany

is good read if you are interested in a plant that hitched a ride for advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that all alkaloids are defensive is overly simplistic.

Many have such roles, but they may in many cases have several roles.

Many for example are subtle variations on amino acids, such variations may entirely lack defensive roles and could arise through simple mutations. This could provide a trait for further alterations and selection towards defensive roles.

Consider also that several pigments are alkaloids. The idea that they are defensive is overly simplistic. One might not consider the sun to be a predator, thus a protective role of a pigment is not defensive in a formal manner.

Many active components of various life forms are also defensive, or not, but are not alkaloids but belong to some other molecular category.

In many cases molecules clearly promote symbiosis and propagation, consider the sugars of fruit, and the colors of flowers, these molecular traits play important biological roles that are not defensive or protective.

One interesting plant is the Kentucky Coffee tree, which contains a caffeine analog. It is believed to have been largely distributed by North American megafauna like mastodons. The methylxanthines in this species evidently did not deter the animals. It is possible that a molecular trait could protect a species and at the same time act as an attractant to a symbiotic organism. This is quite evident in plants which produce food for insects, as many acacias exemplify. These species often produce alkaloids which while capable of catering herbivory of some species also do not deter others.

Needless to say the biological roles of so called secondary metabolites including but not limited to alkaloids, is multifaceted and not easily understood through a simplistic claim.

That being said, it is true many tryptamine based alkaloids can reduce survivability in species which ingest them, including our own.

I dont think anyone would claim definitively that the indole compounds are in this group of mushrooms primarily as a defence mechanism. it is entirely possible that they served an entirely different purpose. Many animals that may have consume mushrooms apparently had brains that dont as readily rely on the serotonin system thus these indoles may have a lesser effect on them (although it also possible that they have an increased effect).

But I dont see the argument that they may have primarily a defensive role is at all simplistic. Often in science the most likely possibility and the easiest explained scenario is the most probably - Occam's Razor and all.

There are two known species of mushroom that contains indole compounds that arent directly psychoactive and in both those cases the data is scetchy and unreliable. This suggests that the indoles dont appear as a spectrum of inactive to prominently active indoles and that its just a coincidence that some are serotonically psychoactive. Secondly mushrooms that do not contain indole compounds are just as vigourous and healthy suggesting that the indoles dont play a primary role in the healthy of vibrance of the mushroom. A very stained mushroom through indole oxidisation will just as successfully drop its spores as one that hasnt had its indole content drained by oxidisation.

Further there are myriads of examples of other species of mushrooms containing nasty toxins like amatoxins that degrade RNA synthesis in victims who have injested them. it would be argue that these lethal toxins have any role in the mushrooms other than a defensive mechanisms. On the other hand there arent any strong examples of other species of mushrooms containing other constituents that are produced for symbiosis with mammals or insects - the only example are mycorrizhae with trees and plants.

This of course is conjectural rather than definitive but I have always firmly believed that the stoned ape theory of human serotonic evolution being catalysed by psilocybin-containing mushrooms is a load of crap. And i dont buy that suggesting the indoles are in this specific group of mushrooms as a defensive mechanism is simplistic.

over the years Ive found that people have resisted this possibility more because they want to believe the mushrooms have a higher purpose and seek some sort of symbiosis with humans which is possible as well but a more romantic notion than usually proves true in the harsh realities of evolution.

Edited by Zen Peddler
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caffeine consumption in humans is the perfect example of a defense mechanisms against insects becoming attractive to humans by accident. it does happen no doubt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, certainly, but the chemical precedes the usefulness, not the other way around as some here suggested, it just happens to be a desirable trait somewhere down the line, and in turn ensures the species spread and survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that all alkaloids are defensive is overly simplistic.

Many have such roles, but they may in many cases have several roles.

...or sometimes maybe no role at all. I often run across the idea in evolutionary discussion (not specifically this one) that every aspect of every organism must have a purpose. But if an organism is functional, and the trait isn't a significant disadvantage to its reproduction, then there is nothing to stop a useless trait from being passed on. Critters don't have to be the absolute high-functioning pinnacle of critterdom, they just have to work! Likewise 'function' is not the same as 'purpose'. Evolution is not forward-thinking.

The study of evolution, symbiosis, etc has so many awesome accidents and mysteries, and examples of incredible biological elegance too... I just get baffled when people try to make it even more complicated. I feel like saying "this critter over here has evolved the ability to create its own light! Isn't that amazing enough? Why bring concepts like purpose & meaning & cosmic plans into it? Can't it just be?"

(p.s. Gunter, this wasn't directed at you!, it was just your post that got me thinking about other ideas)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that parsimony is often flawed.

I saw a study of viral evolution, wherein they took phages and cultured them in multiple locations and sequenced them regularly.

Parsimony stated the simplest changed that explained the end result are the most likely, but the study found otherwise, the attenuation was marked by complex variation and changes.

This study cast serious doubt upon certain bioinformatic methods.

I took it to heart, for it demonstrated that the simplistic answer was often the least likely.

As for evolution, its lack of intention may be what produces the amazing results.

In regards to certain fungi, a defensive role is indicated as only one facet of their chemstry, many animals which have dung that they grow upon do eat them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×