# Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Mine. I'll be away Thursday-Sunday, so you may have to wait a little there, but I'm sure I'll be able to find time to promote tomorrow if problems are resolved by then- there's nothing major anyway.

Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the images are problematic- it's not clear what "Photo by Workman" means, nor in what way (the?) Workman has released the images. Perhaps contact Alan Rockefeller?
"nowadays" A little colloquial
"from convex or conic with a slight umbonate," With a slight umbo, surely?
"annular zone" Jargony
"flexous" Again
I'd say either link both types of cystidia, or neither
Why is the "philosophers stone" point not mentioned elsewhere than the lead? Also, a mention of the possibility of it being an intermediate form in the lead would be good- it's a tad short right now.
type locality is a dablink
"Like most Psilocybe species, it is assumed to be saprobic." Ref? If you don't have a ref, I don't think we could really say this.
Perhaps open the recreational use section with a mention that it contains psychoactive chemicals, and is consumed recreationally? Jumping straight to the German report seems to cut out the important point.
How strong are these percentages? How does it compare to other psychoactives?
The legal status section looks a bit short- perhaps it could be padded with some general facts about the legal status of the constituent chemicals?
Formatting on refs 2 (perhaps), 6 (heavy capitalisation), 11 (lacks publisher location) and 12 (the original title would be a good addition)
Concerning Category:Entheogens, there is no mention in the article of the species being used as an entheogen.
I hope this has been helpful, and I hope the image issue can be resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick review JM, I'll work on this in the next couple of days. Am in no rush for promotion... will try to get images sorted out. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was a helpful review! I think I addressed all of your points above except for finding the original Japanese title of Gonmori & Yokoyama 2009 on the internet to copy/paste–I don't think the article will suffer too greatly without this. I've been in touch with Workman who's okayed the picture usage (will send to OTRS shortly), and might even be able to produce a higher quality spore pic for us. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking much better, I'm loving the expansion of the recreational use section. There is one remaining problem: Note 8- "Stamets (2000), p. 420." is never spelled out in full. I'm happy to take your word for it concerning the OTRS tickets- if you message me when you send the emails, I can quickly double-check it and tag the images. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the Stamets source. The email to OTRS was sent yesterday; Workman doesn't remember making the spore pic, so the status of that image may be questionable, but I won't be fussed if it has to be removed. Thanks for the review; the article is part of "background research" I'm doing with the eventual aim of bringing the List of psilocybin mushrooms up to snuff. Sasata (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the email conversation, I'm happy to accept the spore pic (though, if Workman sends you another one, it would perhaps be worth uploading it over the old one). I'll process the ticket and then promote the article- it's looking great. Best of luck with the psilocybe project; I'll most certainly be around to offer reviews where helpful, but I'm finding less time for writing right now, and I'm making an effort to do some writing on subjects that I am actually qualified to know about! Hopefully I'll find some time to write some mushroom articles next year. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great improvements! so are fungi in the section mexicanae (tampanensis, mexicana, atlantis, caerulescens) the only sclerotia producers? Is galindoi in mexicanae?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.213.29 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 

About the 2nd sentence of this entry, saying its been found in Mississippi.  To my knowledge, from everything I can find out - the original collection of P. tampanensis, Brandon. FL (greater Tampa metro south) is its only documented occurrence.  The 2nd sentence offers no citation for the alleged Mississippi occurrence.  But that's no mystery - the claim is familiar from an unsupported assertion from Stamets, 1996, PSILOCYBIN MUSHROOMS OF THE WOLRD.  The claim is baldy made with no details or evidence cited - i.e., nothing a mycologist could confirm or disprove, independently.
In a youtube titled "Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World - Paul Stamets 7/30/98" - he informally states the same.  Not just Mississippi, he adds Louisiana to its distribution.  I've made inquiries about this, including to Dr Gaston Guzman, a colleague, expert in systematics of Psilocybe.  He indicated he knows of no evidence to confirm the story and what it claims.  Just sayin' ...  I'd be intrigued and grateful if anyone can point me to a publication, specimen voucher  - what herbarium, what collection, what locale, identified by whom? - to substantiate the claim.  Not objection to question, counter 'interpretations' or arguments why this why that etc. (please and thank you).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Akersbp (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Akersbp|contribs]]) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Akersbp (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your colleague Guzmán might have remembered that he discussed this in his 1996 Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany publication, cited in the article (see p. 72). Sasata (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sasata - holy cow that is intriguing.  I'm grateful. That article is a new one for me.  It does substantiate Mississippi collection, valid identification and documentation. Looks like it was deposited in the fungal collections at the Institute of Ecology in Xalapa, curated by Guzman. Your informative reply is much appreciated, question rests.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 

Not published yet, but I just got ITS DNA sequences back from a new collection of P. tampanensis found a month ago in Florida, and it's a 100% match with P. atlantis.   Since P. tampanensis was described first, this name takes priority.
Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 04:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)