Talk:Panaeolus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] Plagarism
Check citation #2. Completely plagarized. 69.143.228.242 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rewrote it. Peter G Werner 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)