I am of the opinion that the very first sentence should mention the fact that this drug occurs in nature.
"R. Gordon Wasson described his experiences ingesting psilocybin-containing mushrooms" Who's this guy? Life author, mycologist, or junkie? I suggest adding "mycologist" before "R. Gordon Wasson".
- Added "American banker and ethnomycologist" Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and developed a synthetic method to produce the drug." Which is synthetic, the method or the result? I suggest swapping this out for "and developed a method to produce the drug synthetically".
- Good catch, changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"depending on species or cultivar of mushrooms" What is "cultivar"? As a non-shroomster, I have never heard this word and its meaning is not readily apparent.
- Linked cultivar. The term is most often used for plants, but the same meaning applies here for mushrooms. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and reports of lethal doses from ingestion of the drug are rare" Some of the words here seem a bit redundant. Could this be shortened to "and reports of lethal doses of the drug are rare"? Or perhaps "and reports of fatalities from ingestion of the drug are rare".
- Changed per your first suggestion. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and ceremonial mushroom use was driven underground" I lolled when I read this. Is this literal in the sense that the mushroom were put underground? Or literal in the sense that the mushroom users went into their caverns? Or figurative in the sense that they simply hid their practices?
- Have reworded to be less figurative and more literal :) Sasata (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"which even included works such as those by Carlos Castaneda" The use of "even" here implies that this should be surprising or outstanding, but I have no idea who Carlos Castaneda is or why his works might be significant. I suggest dropping "even" or giving a brief explanation of why Castaneda is a baller.
- Took out "even" and mentioned that he was an
anthropologist author. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the 1998 review on the worldwide distribution..." You got anything more recent than this? I would imagine that our taxonomy of shrooms may have changed since then, and it also seems reasonable that psilocybin may have been discovered in other species since 1998.
- You are correct, several new psilocybin-containing species have been described since then,
but I am unaware of a more recent review paper like Guzman 1998 that puts it all together on a global scale. To be sure, I checked the literature again, and found that a general review from 2011 also cites Guzman's '98 review, so I don't think I'm missing anything here. I don't think the exact, up-to-date numbers are essential for this article (it would be more important to be exact for the psilocybin mushroom article), I just want to give a general overview of what genera contain shrooms and in what general proportions. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
"The total potency varies greatly between species and even between specimens of one species in the same batch" Does the word "batch" have a technical meaning here? If not, it doesn't seem as though it is actually needed in this sentence: "The total potency varies greatly between species and even between specimens of a single species."
- I think batch is the correct term to use ("A quantity or consignment of goods produced at one time"). The idea is that one can collect a clump of shrooms that are made by the same fungus at the same time, and find that psilocybin content will vary between specimens in the same batch. I'm open to suggestions for rewording. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. See, when I read "batch", I simply envisioned a pile of shrooms that happened to have been gathered on the same shrooming expedition. Or perhaps shrooms that had been cultivated in the same laboratory. The notion that the potency varies even among outgrowths of the same fungal blob was not clear to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been rewritten to say: "... varies greatly between species and even between specimens of one species collected from the same fungus." Is that better? Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Younger, smaller mushrooms have a higher concentration of psilocybin than larger, mature mushrooms." Any idea why?
- Yes; most of the psilocybin is synthesized early in the mushroom's development, so younger, smaller mushrooms will tend to have more of the drug (expressed as a concentration) than older, larger shrooms. I'll dig around and see if I can find a source for this. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Psilocybin is more stable in dried than fresh mushrooms." What does this mean? Is it a chemistry thing?
- If you pick some shrooms and dry them, the magic will still be in them months or even years later. If you try to keep them fresh in the fridge, most of the drug will have degraded and only traces will be left in a few weeks. I could add this tidbit (sourced to a recent review) if you think it's good for the article. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, I think it's interesting and counterintuitive; it could be appended to the highlighted quote after a semicolon. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Where's the bit about dried mushrooms? I think appending your addition with ", whereas dried mushrooms can retain their potency for months or even years" (or something similar) would be groovy. It's the contrast between the dry and the fresh that makes this interesting. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mature mycelia contains some psilocybin, while young mycelia ... does not contain appreciable amounts of psilocybin." Erm, isn't "mycelia" plural?
"alternatively spelled psilocybine" It seems very odd to me that this alternative spelling is introduced in the Chemistry section. What's the meaning o' dis?
- It needed to go somewhere, and I couldn't think of a better place for it ... any ideas? Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just stick it in the lead? While it is usually true that facts in the lead must be backed up by the article, exceptions are (and should) be made for alternative spellings and pronunciations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Psilocybin is a tryptamine compound having a chemical structure derived from the amino acid tryptophan and containing a ring configuration called an indole linked to an ethylamine substituent" I think it would be nice to either cut this snake in half or expurgate some unnecessary words. One possibility: "Psilocybin is a tryptamine compound having a chemical structure derived from the amino acid tryptophan and containing an indole linked to an ethylamine substituent." Only chemistry nerds are going to be interested anyway, so it's not any clarity will be lost here.
- I like that solution, done. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A method for the large-scale synthesis of psilocybin without chromatographic purification was reported by Shirota and colleagues in 2003." It is my humble preference that any sentence which explicitly mentions a research publication should be immediately followed by an inline citation. The reader should not have to venture further to find the reference.
- Rearranged text, and done. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...can be used to detect the presence of psilocybin." This may be a bit over-specific, but curiosity beckons: on what sorts of materials do these tests operate? Do they, for example, detect psilocybin in solutions? Or in the mushrooms themselves? Or, perhaps, smeared all over my peanut butter and "jelly" sandwiches?
- I'll get back to you on this one after I do some digging. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Many modern analytical techniques have been adapted to identify and evaluate the quantity of psilocybin in mushroom material." How are "identify" and "evaluate" different in this context? They seem redundant to me.
- Changed "identify and evaluate" to "determine" Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) has been used with ultraviolet, fluorescence, electrochemical, or electrospray mass spectrometric detection methods." The phrase "has been used" suggests that the elements of the list are definitive, but the use of "or" suggests that they are speculative. Which is correct?
- Changed "has been used" to "is used", and "or" to "and". Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"can be performed without sample clean-up" What does this mean? Surely if the patient pees all over the toilet seat, someone has to clean it up.
- I have glossed "sample cleanup". Sasata (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the subjective and behavioral effects of the drug" What is a "subjective effect"? Is that the same thing as hallucinations?
- Good question! I couldn't find anything relevant to link to, so I added a definition from a textbook in a footnote. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "only two cases attributed to overdosing on hallucinogenic mushrooms have been reported in the literature" Any idea how far back this goes? I think it would be helpful to append with "since 1827" or some such.
- They don't say so explicitly (so I can't either); they mention the review is based on two earlier reviews in Dutch that were then updated with whatever was in Pubmed. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merh. Well, at the very least, I think it would be helpful to include an "as of" statement based on when the report was published. It just feels a bit loosy-goosy to not give any time frame whatsoever. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added "As of 2011" to set an upper date range. Sasata (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A 2011 study by Roland R. Griffiths and colleagues suggests that using a single high dosage of psilocybin can change the personality of its users." Is this a permanent change or a temporary change?
- I've specified "long-term" now, and mention a bit later that for this study that means the effect was present over a year later. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the following two sentences: "After ingesting psilocybin, a typical subject initially feels ... euphoric (but sometimes depressed instead)." and "a 1980 clinical report summarized the distribution of clinical symptoms of psilocybin overdose as follows: ... dysphoria (unpleasant mood) (13) ... and euphoria (elation) (5)." These seem to be somewhat contradictory to me. The first suggests that euphoria is a more common effect than dysphoria, but the second suggests the opposite.
- I have reworded this sentence for now, but am considering some organizational changes to this section, like separating subjective and somatic effects into subsections so they can be discussed individually. Will probably dump the 1980 clinical report findings and source this info to a review instead. Still have to think about this and read some more, so will get back to you. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This section is now reorganized per my comment above. Whaddya think now? Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "subjects’ ability to reproduce time intervals longer than 2.5 seconds" Err, what does it mean to "reproduce" a time interval? Is this the same thing as gauging how long it is...?
- "impaired their ability to synchronize to inter-beat intervals longer than 2 seconds" I don't know what this one is either.
- I have added a couple of sentences leading up to these statements that gives it more context, and hopefully makes it easier to understand the meaning. Did it work? Sasata (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consumption of psilocybin by schizophrenia patients can induce acute psychotic states requiring hospitalization." Two things: First, I recommend moving this to the end of the paragraph to avoid leading readers to believe that the sentences which follow this one are about schizophrenics. Second, I suggest swapping out "schizophrenia patients" to "schizophrenics" or "those with schizophrenia". One need not be a patient to have the disorder.
- "A 2005 survey found that almost a quarter of users in the past year had experienced a panic attack." Minor ambiguity: Does this mean a quarter of all users had experienced a panic attack in the past year? Or a quarter of those who had used at least once in the past year had at some point experienced a panic attack?
- "changes in stretch reflex (80%), including increases (80%) and decreases (6%)" Err, this doesn't seem to add up. Should the second 80% be 74% instead?
- My bad, should have been 86%. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some researchers have proposed that many of the qualities of a drug-induced mystical experience are indistinguishable from genuine mystical experiences." How exactly does an experience being drug-induced make it non-genuine? And for that matter, how can a mystical experience be genuine at all? That's analogous to "genuine cold fusion."
- I've clarified and removed the new age mysticism. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "an experiment to assess the degree of mystical experience [...] of the psilocybin experience" Err... what? Are you sure they wanted to assess the degree of mystical experience of the experience? Seems a bit silly to me.
- These parts have been rephrased, hopefully for the better. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The tests were double-blind." Is it necessary to present this fact in its own sentence? It is mentioned just a few lines earlier: "a modified version of the mystical experience questionnaire and a more rigorous double-blind procedure."
- Agreed, redundant--removed. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "On the other hand, one-third of the subjects reported extreme anxiety." I assume this is means that they reported anxiety and no mystical experience? Otherwise, I don't see why this is relevant.
- Me neither, I think it's a remnant from long ago... I couldn't even find this in the cited paper. Gone. Sasata (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
