Do Magic Mushrooms have different strains that produce different types of effects?
- Thread starter LSD-Magic
- Start date
Yes, there are for instance different strains of cubensis, and in the Netherlands, many different strains of truffles are being sold, of basically three species: pajateros, mexicana and tampanensis. The best mushrooms (in my personal opinion) though, and i don't know of different strains here, are p.semilanceata, p.azurescens and p cyanescens. Generally, type/species is a more important element than strain.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
Yes and no.
Different strains of Cubensis, whatever the marketing ploys and multitude of strains may want to tell you, don't actually hold consistent qualities of one another, except for a few mutants that don't count as mere strains: Penis Envy mostly which appears more potent but less reliable to produce fruiting bodies.
From what I know about the truffles I highly doubt that any difference in effects is consistent i.e. that it has as much to do with strains vs. just genetic variance. Some of the names being different don't really reflect that there is much difference in genetics between them, but compared to Cubensis there are multiple that can produce sclerotia (truffles) so there may be more truth to it there than with just the Cubensis strains - which are mainly just different local expressions of the same species.
The starters like Mex A and Tampanensis aren't really so different (Tampanensis mostly reflect the finding place Tampa, FL), but I can't rule out that there are significant differences with other truffle species. Then, some of the newer types like Hollandia I believe to mostly be selected traits over a number of generations, and to be mostly comparable again to the bullshit Cubensis strain differences vendors like to capitalize on. Yeah I am from the Netherlands and I am not convinced.
Semilanceata, azurescens and cyanescens though they ARE quite different (well the latter two in ways somewhat comparable, though it also depends whether considering Psilocybe vs. Panaeolus species!), so yes these are markedly different than Cubensis. They are more potent, but there are also species less potent than Cubensis that are not really commercially available and just an interest of the mycological community.
All of these comprised here would be psilocin/psilocybin containing mushrooms so what are all to be called Magic Mushrooms (let's leave other psychoactive mushrooms like Amanita M out for clarity, these aren't really called magic mushrooms anyway).
So talking strains, it's mostly not an actual difference, but there certainly are different psilocybian mushrooms.
I think I loved Psilocybe Azurescens best.
Different strains of Cubensis, whatever the marketing ploys and multitude of strains may want to tell you, don't actually hold consistent qualities of one another, except for a few mutants that don't count as mere strains: Penis Envy mostly which appears more potent but less reliable to produce fruiting bodies.
From what I know about the truffles I highly doubt that any difference in effects is consistent i.e. that it has as much to do with strains vs. just genetic variance. Some of the names being different don't really reflect that there is much difference in genetics between them, but compared to Cubensis there are multiple that can produce sclerotia (truffles) so there may be more truth to it there than with just the Cubensis strains - which are mainly just different local expressions of the same species.
The starters like Mex A and Tampanensis aren't really so different (Tampanensis mostly reflect the finding place Tampa, FL), but I can't rule out that there are significant differences with other truffle species. Then, some of the newer types like Hollandia I believe to mostly be selected traits over a number of generations, and to be mostly comparable again to the bullshit Cubensis strain differences vendors like to capitalize on. Yeah I am from the Netherlands and I am not convinced.
Semilanceata, azurescens and cyanescens though they ARE quite different (well the latter two in ways somewhat comparable, though it also depends whether considering Psilocybe vs. Panaeolus species!), so yes these are markedly different than Cubensis. They are more potent, but there are also species less potent than Cubensis that are not really commercially available and just an interest of the mycological community.
All of these comprised here would be psilocin/psilocybin containing mushrooms so what are all to be called Magic Mushrooms (let's leave other psychoactive mushrooms like Amanita M out for clarity, these aren't really called magic mushrooms anyway).
So talking strains, it's mostly not an actual difference, but there certainly are different psilocybian mushrooms.
I think I loved Psilocybe Azurescens best.
Last edited:
BlueMerlin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 134
Most people will tell you a cube is a cube, but personally I feel that some cubensis strains have other characteristics than others, but that might be all in my head.
Cyans are definitely much more potent than any cube you'll ever eat, much more visual and less dark in nature.
Cyans are definitely much more potent than any cube you'll ever eat, much more visual and less dark in nature.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
I'll trust the consensus from places like the Shroomery, that the different characteristics may certainly be present but mostly a result of different genetics that are - for lack of a better analogy - not like human races ('strains') but human families, even if clearly some families have a racially rather pure heritage.
It's a question how well genetic traits are reproducible if you are not using monocultures, and with mushrooms generations follow each other much more rapidly - so it would be a relatively very hard thing to try and consistently achieve what the 'strain descriptions' vendors write will have you believe.
Very mild differences in alkaloid presence might not even be as interesting to compare between strains as the variance between trips from just set and setting... for very different species like azures or cyans I contest that the difference can be big enough to make the effects seem more like say pure psilocin rather than other alkaloids playing modulating roles... Actually what did stand out for me with azures was that they felt more lucid and pure like LSD and much more comparable to the much later tried synthetic psilocin... while all Cubensis trips for me while different all fell in a 'range'.
It's a question how well genetic traits are reproducible if you are not using monocultures, and with mushrooms generations follow each other much more rapidly - so it would be a relatively very hard thing to try and consistently achieve what the 'strain descriptions' vendors write will have you believe.
Very mild differences in alkaloid presence might not even be as interesting to compare between strains as the variance between trips from just set and setting... for very different species like azures or cyans I contest that the difference can be big enough to make the effects seem more like say pure psilocin rather than other alkaloids playing modulating roles... Actually what did stand out for me with azures was that they felt more lucid and pure like LSD and much more comparable to the much later tried synthetic psilocin... while all Cubensis trips for me while different all fell in a 'range'.
Last edited:
BlueMerlin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 134
On Shroomery most people tell me that there is no difference, yet I feel some strains affect me differently, very subtle, but noticeable to me.As with cannabis different alkaloids should produce different effects, so it makes a lot of sense, like you said, that genetics must influence the effect in some ways.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
Yes but from what I can say about different trips on synthetic psychedelics I would say that it can be attributed to other set & setting type factors, which can account for quite significant differences. This tells me that we don't need the strain explanation as much as we might wish it.
Cannabis I think has more variance if only for the differences between Indica and Sativa, and CBD and THC have significant interaction: CBD in ways attentuates THC action, and there are 2 cannabinioid receptors. With psilocin and psilocybin, even if other alkaloids can modulate and act as MAO substrates etc, there aren't nearly as much different factors that we know of, nor a similar cross-interaction. So the rest is better explained as psychological, which is not a way of denial even if people often find psychological factors inferior since they are less tangible.
Cannabis I think has more variance if only for the differences between Indica and Sativa, and CBD and THC have significant interaction: CBD in ways attentuates THC action, and there are 2 cannabinioid receptors. With psilocin and psilocybin, even if other alkaloids can modulate and act as MAO substrates etc, there aren't nearly as much different factors that we know of, nor a similar cross-interaction. So the rest is better explained as psychological, which is not a way of denial even if people often find psychological factors inferior since they are less tangible.
Well, there are many different alkaloids present in the various types of psilocybe shrooms. Baeaocystine and norbaeocystine for instance, the NMT analogues of psilocybin and psilocin. As NMT itself has some reported physical effects, these substances may very well contribute to the effects of psilocin, either positively of negatively. Not all psilocybe's have the exact same alkaloid profile, so it may be true that each type has it's own character. Most of the alkaloids present are tryptamines, but semilanceata also contains phenethylamine. I don't know if PEA is orally active because of MAO, but i just mean to say, there is a variety of well known and less well known substances, and it's not unreasonable to assume that at least some of them do have some kind of effect.
People on the shroomery mostly just speculate about this idea, I havent seen any kind of proof, just people pushing their opinion one way or another.
I would think that substrate is a huge factor. Jury is still out for me on the strain thing, but different species like Cyanescens or Azurescenes certainly have different effects than Cubensis. The thing is, they are -all- so fucking unpredictable. Part of what frustrates me about mushrooms actually. Even within the same batch/harvest of the same strain, effects and potency vary wildly from fruitbody to fruitbody. Maybe it would be different if they were grown as a monoculture but I have no experience consuming an isolated monoculture strain.
I would think that substrate is a huge factor. Jury is still out for me on the strain thing, but different species like Cyanescens or Azurescenes certainly have different effects than Cubensis. The thing is, they are -all- so fucking unpredictable. Part of what frustrates me about mushrooms actually. Even within the same batch/harvest of the same strain, effects and potency vary wildly from fruitbody to fruitbody. Maybe it would be different if they were grown as a monoculture but I have no experience consuming an isolated monoculture strain.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
There are more variants on this theme, like the dirty acid debate and beliefs about being able to tell the differences between similar psychedelics. All of them basically arguments about whether people overestimate or underestimate the significance of differences between effects of psychedelics (and traces of other compounds present and whether they can modulate effects).
It's hard to prove, and the way to do it would involve a study with a big sample size of people ingesting drugs and asking them questions about qualifying or differentiating effects.
As for small amounts of secondary alkaloids (or impurities in acid), the burden of proof lies with the believers, I'd say. The only thing about it that I myself find presumable is that secondary alkaloids can competitively occupy MAO and as such function as mild MAOIs.
Everyone is welcome to believe what they want, but barring proof, I don't think all opinions or stances have the same merit. What psychological experiments that were done usually tell me is that there is in general a lot of evidence saying that we are excellent at overestimating differences without properly accounting for them realizing for example that all experiences are different.
Yes also batches of drugs differ, but the argument that they all differ just from genetic variance... even growing different batches of what is meant to be the same strain, seems so much more believeworthy as explanation for different effects (plus placebo type effects like knowing the name of the strain and expectations about that). I've tripped plenty and had very different trips but I would just have to admit that what are supposed to be consistencies in mushroom effects are overshadowed by the differences. That tells me that the better explanation is psychological and that ideas to the contrary can easily be imagined. That argument doesn't work the other way around.
Substrate is a condition, but I don't think the biggest factor... just like a lot of people can eat what they want but it won't make them built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Genetic potential is an ultimate limitation, but growing parameters mostly facilitate that potential being reached... it's much harder to compensate for what isn't really there.
Also, I think that another consensus is that regarding almost all Cubensis strains, it on average doesn't really matter hugely if you pick a strain that prefers making big numbers of small mushrooms or only a few very big ones... ultimately it pretty much amounts to the same potency, the alkaloids being associated with the metabolism as byproducts.
But separate from that some mushrooms just end up being x times more or less potent than others [there's a range] - I guess depending on genetic mutations that have to do with the metabolism. But normally cloning (monoculture) is the best bet to retain those mutations cause multispore > genetic recombination shuffles the deck again and you tend to lose the mutations. Penis Envy is a pretty mutated strain, and apparently mutations don't occur only in appearance but also relatively consistently in the metabolism / potency. So apparently dominant in sorta rare ways? But also notoriously unreliable to grow: clearly the mutations are pushing the limits of viability?
Whatever you believe, I implore you to take descriptions from shroom vendors that for example have ratings for being especially visual or not, with a grain of salt. It just seems incredibly unlikely that instead of a marketing ploy, they'd have enough untainted data (the type you get from double blind studies) to make claims like that. If a number of people tripped on them and agreed on that, it's hardly the same thing but customers like such 'ratings' or background stories anyway.
I liked getting different spores to grow myself, just because it's fun not because I believe it would matter significantly. As significant as the noise and uncertainty from hidden random factors.
It's hard to prove, and the way to do it would involve a study with a big sample size of people ingesting drugs and asking them questions about qualifying or differentiating effects.
As for small amounts of secondary alkaloids (or impurities in acid), the burden of proof lies with the believers, I'd say. The only thing about it that I myself find presumable is that secondary alkaloids can competitively occupy MAO and as such function as mild MAOIs.
Everyone is welcome to believe what they want, but barring proof, I don't think all opinions or stances have the same merit. What psychological experiments that were done usually tell me is that there is in general a lot of evidence saying that we are excellent at overestimating differences without properly accounting for them realizing for example that all experiences are different.
Yes also batches of drugs differ, but the argument that they all differ just from genetic variance... even growing different batches of what is meant to be the same strain, seems so much more believeworthy as explanation for different effects (plus placebo type effects like knowing the name of the strain and expectations about that). I've tripped plenty and had very different trips but I would just have to admit that what are supposed to be consistencies in mushroom effects are overshadowed by the differences. That tells me that the better explanation is psychological and that ideas to the contrary can easily be imagined. That argument doesn't work the other way around.
Substrate is a condition, but I don't think the biggest factor... just like a lot of people can eat what they want but it won't make them built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Genetic potential is an ultimate limitation, but growing parameters mostly facilitate that potential being reached... it's much harder to compensate for what isn't really there.
Also, I think that another consensus is that regarding almost all Cubensis strains, it on average doesn't really matter hugely if you pick a strain that prefers making big numbers of small mushrooms or only a few very big ones... ultimately it pretty much amounts to the same potency, the alkaloids being associated with the metabolism as byproducts.
But separate from that some mushrooms just end up being x times more or less potent than others [there's a range] - I guess depending on genetic mutations that have to do with the metabolism. But normally cloning (monoculture) is the best bet to retain those mutations cause multispore > genetic recombination shuffles the deck again and you tend to lose the mutations. Penis Envy is a pretty mutated strain, and apparently mutations don't occur only in appearance but also relatively consistently in the metabolism / potency. So apparently dominant in sorta rare ways? But also notoriously unreliable to grow: clearly the mutations are pushing the limits of viability?
Whatever you believe, I implore you to take descriptions from shroom vendors that for example have ratings for being especially visual or not, with a grain of salt. It just seems incredibly unlikely that instead of a marketing ploy, they'd have enough untainted data (the type you get from double blind studies) to make claims like that. If a number of people tripped on them and agreed on that, it's hardly the same thing but customers like such 'ratings' or background stories anyway.
I liked getting different spores to grow myself, just because it's fun not because I believe it would matter significantly. As significant as the noise and uncertainty from hidden random factors.
Last edited:
Good points Sol. I thought it was interesting in K. Trout's "Notes on Tryptamines", he shows a lot of different species and different tryptamines that occur in them. Interesting shit but irrelevant to the debate about cubes and strains of course because the other interesting tryps show up in other species, not cubes.
I don't think any description from any vendor could tell you what's actually going to happen in your mind when those spores are grown and fruits consumed. There's soo many variables, and like Sol said, the biggest variable is the fact that its a psychedelic experience, which is so subjective and riddled with all kinds of bias. Just eat them and enjoy, it'll probably be different every time regardless of anything.
I don't think any description from any vendor could tell you what's actually going to happen in your mind when those spores are grown and fruits consumed. There's soo many variables, and like Sol said, the biggest variable is the fact that its a psychedelic experience, which is so subjective and riddled with all kinds of bias. Just eat them and enjoy, it'll probably be different every time regardless of anything.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
Yeah I am aware of other alkaloids found, but I also never heard or read much more than that they aren't really active by themselves or only very mildly so - and the quantities would be too low to really compare it to say natural cannabinoids and how differently they can act on 2 different receptors. But like I said, maybe there is some mild MAOI effect from them that wouldn't be so strange... and the only significant difference I wondered about is whether mindfuck could possibly be a result of a mix of modified psilocin analogues or modulation of the effects... I could imagine that muddies the waters mentally.
Another difference, but again one that I find hard to get a grip on even if trying a lot of synthetic tryptamines seemed to show me tendencies, is that free 4-HO tryptamines especially when taken in a drink of water, would come up very fast and visually overwhelming but light on the body... The esters would feel more smooth, dilated and drawn out to me and more body oriented. Again, seeing a double blind study would be wonderful.
By the way for pure mescaline vs. cactus I do think people say that the difference is quite noticeable, moreso it sounds like, than synthetic psilocin vs mushrooms. But that's not a good comparison, the better comparison would be between all those cultivars of peyote compared to each other - which I predict would not be a significant difference..
I agree: don't focus on the expectations too much, or if you do, just make it excited positive feelings... that couldn't hurt as a mindset... I never want to push opinions even if I have a strong one myself, but doubt is very important.. believing too much in something just because it is compelling and convincing and appeals to you seems weak and tricky, because compelling ideas have nothing to do with how much they can fool you. It's like that "I want to believe" thing.. I just think people should be careful with that, it is how superstitions start and people start confusing beliefs and facts.
Tbh, I've always find it a conundrum whether it is good to believe in something because it simply makes you happy, or in something more evidence-based that doesn't make you happy. But it becomes a big difference when you bring that belief into say a scientific argument.
But more on-topic: it is IMO wise to invest in influence known factors yourself, with set & setting, preparing say a beautiful walk in nature, some meditation, drawing, a deep personal talk with a friend, or other things that over time you learn make for a priceless psychedelic experience.
Compared to that, the question whether statistically a strain could be slightly different than others in a consistent way, but subtle enough to remain as elusive as it clearly is... seems so futile doesn't it? Invest in making the best of it yourself!
Another difference, but again one that I find hard to get a grip on even if trying a lot of synthetic tryptamines seemed to show me tendencies, is that free 4-HO tryptamines especially when taken in a drink of water, would come up very fast and visually overwhelming but light on the body... The esters would feel more smooth, dilated and drawn out to me and more body oriented. Again, seeing a double blind study would be wonderful.
By the way for pure mescaline vs. cactus I do think people say that the difference is quite noticeable, moreso it sounds like, than synthetic psilocin vs mushrooms. But that's not a good comparison, the better comparison would be between all those cultivars of peyote compared to each other - which I predict would not be a significant difference..
I agree: don't focus on the expectations too much, or if you do, just make it excited positive feelings... that couldn't hurt as a mindset... I never want to push opinions even if I have a strong one myself, but doubt is very important.. believing too much in something just because it is compelling and convincing and appeals to you seems weak and tricky, because compelling ideas have nothing to do with how much they can fool you. It's like that "I want to believe" thing..
I just think people should be careful with that, it is how superstitions start and people start confusing beliefs and facts.Tbh, I've always find it a conundrum whether it is good to believe in something because it simply makes you happy, or in something more evidence-based that doesn't make you happy. But it becomes a big difference when you bring that belief into say a scientific argument.
But more on-topic: it is IMO wise to invest in influence known factors yourself, with set & setting, preparing say a beautiful walk in nature, some meditation, drawing, a deep personal talk with a friend, or other things that over time you learn make for a priceless psychedelic experience.
Compared to that, the question whether statistically a strain could be slightly different than others in a consistent way, but subtle enough to remain as elusive as it clearly is... seems so futile doesn't it? Invest in making the best of it yourself!
Last edited: