Talk:Panaeolus

The earlier version of this article was so poorly-written and full of misinformation, that complete elimination of the earlier article and replacement with a stub was justified. Peter G Werner 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unidentified Psychoactive Compounds"

The article mentions that "a number of (other) members of this genus contain unidentified psychoactive compounds". This is the first time I've heard any mention of "unidentified psychoactive compounds", which is a surprise to me as I've done quite a lot of reading about Panaeolus. The citation is from an outdated identification website, and I can't find any other reliable source suggesting this on aquick Google search. Yes Panaeolus contain many different alkaloids, like Serotonin, 5-htp etc. and perhaps these chemicals could affect the psychoactive experience of the known psycoactive chemicals (namely psilocybin, psilocin, Baeocystin & Norbaeocystin), but I doubt any of them are psychoactive in their own right. So I'm suggesting that maybe it should be removed from the article unless someone has a better source or other information that it is likely accurate. I won't remove it myself as I am not well informed to be sure it's not just something I've missed. Gul e (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on hallucinogenic species

Right now, the stub, such as it is, gives undue weight to the hallucinogenic species. One would never guess from the context of the article that most species of Panaeolus, are common, largely innocuous LBMs with no particular hallucinogenic properties. Peter G Werner 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And useless. Typically the useful varieties get "undue weight" (because it is actually due), whether they are edible, medicinal, recreational/spiritual/hallucinogenic. While there is certainly some point in saying "this is a genus of mushrooms, and there are lots of good ol' purdy mushrooms in it", there is certainly more point in saying, "and this one does this, and this one does that". 69.143.228.242 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but just because you happen to think non-hallucinogenic species are "useless" doesn't mean discussion of them isn't extremely important. Hell, why am I bothering to respond to such a clearly stupid comment. Peter G Werner 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more information added to this article regarding non-hallucinogenic Panaeolus species. A lot of them look really cool, some more photographs would be nice.

Several species in this genus have been found to contain 5-htp and serotonin, and it would be interesting to know which other alkaloids can be present. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism

Check citation #2. Completely plagarized. 69.143.228.242 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote it. Peter G Werner 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit subbalteatus?

Currently, panaeolus subbalteatus are listed in the species list. Should this be updated to cinctulus seeing as how the name has changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.219.180 (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I made the change. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 08:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panaeolus. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]