• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

What benefit does the mushroom get from containing psilocybin?

Damien said:
I think it makes it so animals don't want to eat it.

Unless, you know, you're a PARTY ANIMAL. :D
Click to expand...


I loled. :D

And honestly, i don't know. I suppose really the only things it could be are coincidence or the alien thing lol. Since its hardly a poison and not all animals dislike tripping, as stated above.



Honestly though, how could it be coincidence? If there is no use for something, then it is phased out evolutionarily. Having something which takes energy to produce that has literally no use is hardly.... useful, and just doesn't happen. Living creatures are very precise organisms that have no goal other than to survive, which means every part of the organism has a specific function. Mushrooms, being such old organisms, surely would have evolved not to have psilocin/psilocybin if it had no use. Perhaps there is a reason that its useful to them and we just don't know it.
 
Last edited:
I wanna agree with the pesticide thing, but why are a lot of the natural plant pesticides also 5HT2a agonists? Something smells fishy IMO.

Actually the only other psychedelic "pesticide" I know of would be mescaline, so I dunno lol. :D
 
I meant more of a "deters animals" kinda thing.

IIRC mescaline acts as a pesticide to protect the cactus from animal attack or something.

I think it might just be a matter of the alkaloids tasting gross therefor animals won't eat it.







Fuck man I suck at articulating thoughts into words, definitely something I need to work on.
 
idk... i think that certain mushrooms know the production of certain chemicals is helping them propagate - especially in 1/2pint jars and monotubs!

like how fruit is sweet and appealing to animals so that they eat the fruit and walk away with the seeds in their guts to poop out in some other area.
 
caseface99 said:
I loled. :D

And honestly, i don't know. I suppose really the only things it could be are coincidence or the alien thing lol. Since its hardly a poison and not all animals dislike tripping, as stated above.



Honestly though, how could it be coincidence? If there is no use for something, then it is phased out evolutionarily. Having something which takes energy to produce that has literally no use is hardly.... useful, and just doesn't happen. Living creatures are very precise organisms that have no goal other than to survive, which means every part of the organism has a specific function. Mushrooms, being such old organisms, surely would have evolved not to have psilocin/psilocybin if it had no use. Perhaps there is a reason that its useful to them and we just don't know it.
Click to expand...

Possibly, it could also be an intermediate in production of a neurotransmitter, or some other type of chemical messenger within the mushroom, that just happens to make mammals trip.

As for the second part of your statement, that's not entirely true. There are plenty of genetic quirks that serve little or no purpose currently, take your appendix for example, or things like widow's peak hairlines & hitchhikers thumb, not particularly adaptive. Evolution doesn't always result in the most efficient or useful attributes, i.e. star-faced mole, open ocean crabs, platypus, etc.

tBirdee said:
I wanna agree with the pesticide thing, but why are a lot of the natural plant pesticides also 5HT2a agonists? Something smells fishy IMO.

Actually the only other psychedelic "pesticide" I know of would be mescaline, so I dunno lol. :D
Click to expand...

I think applying this theory to mescaline is less likely as its much, much less potent than psiloc(yb)in

surf.shaman said:
idk... i think that certain mushrooms know the production of certain chemicals is helping them propagate - especially in 1/2pint jars and monotubs!
Click to expand...

lol but true
 
There's a type of grass called "sleepy grass." It contains some xx-DMT compound and when an unlucky horse comes across it and eats some, it falls asleep for a couple days I think. Some long length of time. And when it wakes up, it never wants to eat that grass again.

I'm pretty sure it's the same idea with the mushrooms... although I doubt tryptamines would have much effect on insects and stuff, I suppose that's why some mushrooms are just flat out poisonous...
 
My friend (ecologist and mushroom guru) is taking ps. bohemica caps and spreading the spores onto prepared heaps of wood across quite big areas in forest. Quite significant evolution advantage! :D
 
Well if the spores survive mammalian digestive systems I can't imagine why a mushroom wouldn't want to be eaten, just like any other fruit. But then again a lot of mushrooms actually are poisonous, maybe because they had to compete with animals eating them before they got the chance to produce spores? It would help to know which species are affected by the 'usual' mushroom toxins (if there is such a thing) and which, if any, have a toxic reaction to psilocybin & friends.

Btw I know mammals won't self administer psychedelics in the lab but how much does that really tell us? If I lived my life in a small cage being experimented on I might not self administer psychedelics as much either...
 
tBirdee said:
I meant more of a "deters animals" kinda thing.

IIRC mescaline acts as a pesticide to protect the cactus from animal attack or something.

I think it might just be a matter of the alkaloids tasting gross therefor animals won't eat it.
Click to expand...

Nah, if mescaline had anything to do with deterring animals then the youngest and most succulent cacti would contain the most mescaline. In fact the youngest cacti contain no mescaline and the oldest, most unlikely to be eaten cacti, contain the most mescaline.
 
Ismene said:
Nah, if mescaline had anything to do with deterring animals then the youngest and most succulent cacti would contain the most mescaline. In fact the youngest cacti contain no mescaline and the oldest, most unlikely to be eaten cacti, contain the most mescaline.
Click to expand...

While noteworthy, that doesn't absolutely prove anything. Perhaps young cacti need to devote more of their resources to other things even more important, like growth? And older ones just produce more mescaline because they basically ran out of other useful things to do, even if it helps them comparatively less than young ones? Just thinking out loud here...

Also, do you even know for sure that young cacti are that much more attractive to eat? (Could be a stupid question, I'm sure you can tell I'm no expert.)
 
electric spirit said:
While noteworthy, that doesn't absolutely prove anything. Perhaps young cacti need to devote more of their resources to other things even more important, like growth?
Click to expand...

It's a bit strange having a "defence mechanism" that gets stronger the older you are tho.

Also, do you even know for sure that young cacti are that much more attractive to eat?

Not sure, but you'd think a cacti a couple of years old would be a little more easier for an animal or insect to eat than 20 year old skin.
 
I thought Mescaline was in fact a strength defence-mechanism to ensure better survival under drought-like conditions/under-watering.

Perhaps not it's sole purpose, but I recall seeing studies showing the Mescaline content increases as it is starved of H20.
 
Trouts notes says the "stress your cacti by starving it of water" is an urban myth. Cacti produce the most mescaline when they are healthy and have plenty of food and water.
 
Too bad we all aren't certified scientists/chemists/whatever so we could do some "legit" studies lol :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top