Hallucingenic Mushrooms of Mexico - Guzman 2008

Hallucinogenic Mushrooms in Mexico: An Overview1

GASTÓN GUZMÁN

Instituto de Ecología, 91000, Xalapa, Veracruz, P.O. Box 63, Mexico; e-mail: [email protected]

Hallucinogenic Mushrooms in Mexico: An Overview. Psilocybe, with 53 known hallucino-genic species in Mexico, is the most important and diverse group of sacred mushrooms used byMexican indigenous cultures. Psilocybe caerulescens, known by the present-day Nahuatl Indiansas teotlaquilnanácatl, is hypothesized to be the ceremonially-used teonanácatl mushroom citedby Sahagún in the 16th century, the true identity of which has remained obscure for centuries.Correcting a widely disseminated error derived from early published information on Mexicanhallucinogenic mushrooms, emphasis is placed on the fact that Panaeolus species have neverbeen used traditionally in Mexico. Reports of the use of species of Amanita, Clavaria, Conocybe,Cordyceps, Dictyophora, Elaphomyces, Gomphus, Lycoperdon, Psathyrella, and Stropharia assacred or narcotic mushrooms are discussed. A brief history of the discovery of hallucinogenicmushrooms in Mexico is presented, as well as notes on their taxonomy, distribution, andtraditional use in Mexico.

Hongos Alucinógenos en México: Historia, Taxonomia, Distribución Geográfica y UsoTradicional. Psilocybe, con 53 especies alucinógenas conocidas en México, es el grupo másimportante y más diverso de hongos sagrados usados por las culturas indígenas mexicanas. Sepropone aquí que Psilocybe caerulescens, nombrado por los nahuatls de hoy día teotlaquilna-nácatl, es el hongo ceremonial teonanácatl citado por Sahagún en el siglo XVI, cuya identidadverdadera permanece oscura desde hace siglos. A fin de corregir un error muy diseminadoderivado de los primeros datos publicados sobre los hongos alucinógenos mexicanos, se haráhincapié en el hecho de que las especies Paneolus nunca han sido usadas tradicionalmente enMéxico. Se discutirán aquí informes sobre el uso de especies de Amanita, Clavaria, Conocybe,Cordyceps, Dictyophora, Elaphomyces, Gomphus, Lycoperdon, Psathyrella y Stropharia comohongos sagrados o narcóticos, y se presentará también una breve historia del descubrimiento dehongos alucinógenos en México, como también algunos datos sobre su taxonomía, sudistribución, y su uso tradicional en México.

Key Words: Ethnomycology, sacred mushrooms, Psilocybe, distribution, shamanism,hallucinogens.

IntroductionHallucinogenic mushrooms, known variably as

entheogenic, magic, medicinal, neurotropic, psyche-delic, psychoactive, sacred, saint, or visionary mush-rooms, were used by different indigenous groups inMexico prior to the Spanish Conquest (see Fig. 1),but were unknown to science until the 20thcentury. Since the 1950s, when their ceremonialuse by indigenous peoples was rediscovered

(Wasson 1957; Heim and Wasson 1958), halluci-nogenic mushrooms have received a great deal ofscientific and medical as well as popular attention.The explosion in recreational use of these mush-rooms during the 1960s, and the resulting crack-down by law enforcement agencies, has producednegative consequences and legal difficulties forresearchers as well as for traditional users of themushrooms (Guzmán 2003), yet ceremonial usepersists among certain peoples in Mexico. Thepresent paper traces some of the historical confusionsurrounding the identities of these mushrooms andcomments on their taxonomy, distribution, andtraditional use in Mexico.

Economic Botany, 62(3), 2008, pp. 404–412© 2008, by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

1Published online 23 October 2008.

The Rediscovery of HallucinogenicMushrooms in Mexico

References to sacred mushroom use in Mexico arefound in the very earliest written documents orcodices produced in the Spanish New World. TheFranciscan Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1569–1582) mentions mushrooms used in special cere-monies by the Nahuatl Indians; he called thesemushrooms teonanácatl, meaning “flesh of thegods.” In the Magliabechiano Codex, Sahagúnpresents a color drawing of a Nahuatl Indian eatinga blue-staining mushroom, probably Psilocybe caer-ulescens (discussed later). The Spaniards, however,suppressed ceremonial mushroom usage, and allmention of sacred mushrooms disappeared from theliterature, leading an American botanist (Saffor1915) to posit that teonanácatl was not a mushroomat all but Lophophora williamsii (Lemaire) Coulter,

the hallucinogenic peyote cactus of Mexico and fromthe southwestern United States.

The identity of teonanácatl as a mushroom wasultimately confirmed by renowned ethnobotanistRichard Schultes (1939). Schultes acted oninformation provided to him by the Austrianphysician Blas Pablo Reko, who reported thatMazatec Indians in the mountain town ofHuautla de Jiménez in northern Oaxaca usedmushrooms in religious rites. Reko gatheredspecimens of the mushrooms, which he sent toanthropologist Roberto Weitlaner. The NorthAmerican anthropologist Jean Bassett Johnson,following Weitlaner’s lead, went to Huautla deJiménez in 1939 and became, as far as we know,the first Western scientist to observe a nocturnalsacred mushroom ceremony, although he did notingest the mushrooms himself (Schultes 1940;

Fig. 1. Distribution of sacred species of Psilocybe in Mexico and the indigenous peoples who use them. Eachdot represents one locality, or several adjacent localities. The thick solid line delineates mountainous areas with atemperate climate (1,500 m altitude or higher). Dotted lines indicate state borders within Mexico. Thin solid linesencircle current territories of mushroom-using indigenous groups: I: Matlazincs; II: Nahuatls (a: Nevado deToluca; b: Popocatépetl volcano; c: Necaxa); III: Mazatecs; IV: Mixes; V: Zapotecs; VI: Chatins; VII: Purepechas(Michoacan); VIII: Nahuatls (Colima); IX: Totonacs (Veracruz). All groups indicated have been confirmed to useceremonial mushrooms through the present except for the Colima Nahuatls (VIII).

405GUZMÁN: HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS OF MEXICO2008]

Reko 1945; Wasson and Wasson 1957; Heimand Wasson 1958; Singer 1958).Both Schultes and Reko went to Huautla in

1938 and brought two species of “sacred mush-rooms,” but Schultes gathered in the field athird collection, all of them deposited in theFarlow Herbarium at Harvard University. Onlythe third of the three packages was identifiedat that time, as Panaeolus campanulatus var.sphinctrinus (Fr.) Bres., better known as P.sphinctrinus (Fr.) Quél. Apparently underestimat-ing the complexity and diversity of sacredmushroom usage in Mexico, Schultes (1939)assumed P. sphinctrinus collected in the Mazatecarea of Oaxaca to be the teonanácatl of theNahuatls (Davis 1996; Guzmán 1959).In the 1940s, mycologist Rolf Singer studied

Schultes’s collections at Harvard University. Heconfirmed the identification of the first package asPanaeolus sphinctrinus, while identifying the othertwo packages as Psilocybe cubensis and Deconicasp. Singer (1949) published two little notes, oneunder Panaeolus and the other under Psilocybe, inwhich he referred to them as narcotic mushroomsused by Mexican Indians. Though Singer (1975)later removed Panaeolus from the list of sacredmushrooms used in Mexico based on informationsupplied by Guzmán (1959), the continuedcitation of Singer’s (1949) note has led to thepersistent misconception that species of Panaeolusare among the sacred mushrooms of Mexico.Though hallucinogenic species of Panaeolus do

occur in Mexico, e.g., P. subbalteatus Berk. andBroome and P. cyanescens Berk. and Broome(=Copelandia cyanescens [Berk. and Bromme]Sacc.), no species of Panaeolus appears to havebeen used in any way by indigenous peoples inMexico; indeed, they are typically consideredpoisonous (Guzmán 1959). How, then, wasSchultes’s and Reko’s collection of Panaeolus firstmistaken for one of the sacred Mazatec mush-rooms? Apparently one package—the one identi-fied as Panaeolus—was personally collected bySchultes, while the other two packages were soldto Schultes by a Mazatec Indian (Davis 1996). Itis possible, then, that Schultes mistook the dung-inhabiting Panaeolus sphinctrinus in the field forone of the sacred mushrooms, for instance,Psilocybe mexicana, which it closely resembles inappearance.The true identity of Mazatec sacred mush-

rooms and the nature of their use was finally

revealed by R. Gordon Wasson and his wife,Valentina Pavlovna. They first came to Mexico in1952 looking for clues to understanding themushroom stones of the ancient Maya. Followingin Schultes’s footsteps, they reached Huautla deJiménez in 1953, accompanied by Weitlaner, andthere met the Mazatec shaman, María Sabina.Two years later, Wasson returned, accompaniedby the photographer Allan Richardson. At thattime he participated in the sacred mushroom riteunder María Sabina’s guidance, thus becoming thefirst scientist to consume sacred mushrooms in aritual context (Wasson 1957; Wasson et al. 1974).Wasson subsequently persuaded the French

mycologist Roger Heim to accompany him toHuautla de Jiménez in 1956, where they con-sumed sacred mushrooms with María Sabina(Heim and Wasson 1958). Heim (1956) wasthe first to identify several species of Psilocybe asthe principal sacred mushrooms of Mexico. Heimsupplied the Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann withPsilocybe mexicana cultured from specimens gath-ered in Huautla de Jiménez, and Hofman’s team(whose isolated the LSD-like indole alkaloid)subsequently isolated the indol they called psilocy-bin (Hofmann et al. 1958).After working with Schultes’s initial herbarium

collections a decade prior (Singer 1949), Singerarrived in Mexico in 1957 to study the halluci-nogenic mushrooms, with Gastón Guzmán as hisassistant (Singer 1958). Singer also collaboratedwith mycologist Alexander Smith to produce thefirst monograph on the hallucinogenic Psilocybespecies (Singer and Smith 1958). Guzmán, whohad also established collaborations with Schultes,Wasson, and Heim, began working on Psilocybeat this time (see Guzmán 1959, 1960). Duringhis studies in the Farlow Herbarium at HarvardUniversity, Guzmán found that the secondpackage of mushrooms bought by Schultes andidentified by Singer as Deconica sp. was actuallyPsilocybe caerulescens, an important sacred mush-room among the Mazatecs (see Table 1).Heim and Wasson (1958) also reported the

ceremonial usage of Cordyceps capitata (Holms.:Fr.)Link and C. ophioglossoides (Fr.) Link as well asElaphomyces spp. by the Nahuatl. These reportshave been confirmed, as described below. Hofmannwas unable to detect any hallucinogenic compoundsin C. capitata (see Heim and Wasson 1958), butsince the specimens he assayed were dry and stale,further investigation is warranted.

406 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 62

TABLE1.

THE

PRIN

CIPAL

HALL

UCIN

OGENIC

SPECIESOFPS

ILOCYB

EIN

MEXIC

OAND

THE

INDIG

ENOUSGROUPS

THAT

USE

THEM.

Species

Indigenous

Group

Chatin

sMatlazincs

Mazatecs

Mixes

Nahuatls

Purepechs

Totonacs

Zapotecs

P.aztecorum

R.Heim

emend.

Guzmán

XP.

barrerae

Cifu

entesandGuzmán

emend.

Guzmán

XP.

caerulescens

Murrillvar.caerulescens

P.caerulescens

var.mazatecorum

R.Heim

=P.

caerulescens

var.nigripesR.Heim

=P.

caerulescens

var.albida

R.Heim

XX

X?

XX

P.caerulescens

var.om

brophila

(R.Heim)Guzmán

P.caerulescens

var.mazatecorum

f.om

brophila

R.Heim

=P.

mixaeensis

R.Heim

XX

P.candidipesSinger

andA.H

.Sm

ithX

P.cordisporaR.Heim

XX

XP.

cubensis(Earle)Singer

=Stropharia

cubensisEarle

XX

XX

XP.

fagicola

R.Heim

emend.

Guzmán

=P.

wassoniorum

Guzmán

andPo

llock

??

P.hoogshageniiR.Heim

var.hoogshagenii

XX

P.mexicanaR.Heim

XX

XX

XP.

mulierculaSinger

andA.H

.Sm

ith=P.

wassoniiR.Heim

XX

P.sanctorum

Guzmán

XP.

subcubensis

Guzmán

XX

XX

XP.

yungensis

Singer

andA.H

.Sm

ith=P.

acutissimaR.Heim

XP.

zapotecorum

R.Heim

emend.

Guzmán

=P.

zapotecorum

f.elongata

R.Heim

XX

XX


Aside from Cordyceps and Elaphomyces, and thehypothesized ancient usage of Amanita muscaria(L.:Fr.) Pers. ex Hook. (see Lowy 1974; Schultesand Hofmann 1979; Mapes et al 1981), Psilocybeis the only genus of sacred mushroom definitelyused in Mexico. However, a number of other“narcotic” mushrooms have been dubiously orerroneously reported from Mexico (Schultes1939, 1940, 1976; Reko 1945; Heim andWasson 1958; Schultes and Hofmann 1979).These include species of Conocybe, Clavariadel-phus (as Clavaria), Dictyophora, Gomphus (asNevrophyllum), Lycoperdon, Panaeolus (as alreadydescribed), and Psathyrella. The causes of confu-sion differ in each case. With Lycoperdon, forinstance, the error can be traced to a singleinebriated informant (Ott et al. 1975), whileClavariadelphus and Gomphus were falselyimplicated because they shared with Cordycepsthe vernacular name hongo amarillo (“yellowmushroom”).

The Hallucinogenic Psilocybesof Mexico

Guzmán (1983) showed that hallucinogenicspecies of Psilocybe occur on all continents.However, only in Mexico and perhaps in NewGuinea (see Heim et al. 1967) are they confirmedto be traditionally consumed as visionary or“sacred” mushrooms. There is also some evidenceto suggest ceremonial use of Psilocybe in Colombiaand Africa (Samorini 2001; Guzmán et al. 2004).A recent review of all the known taxa of Psilocybe(Guzmán 2005) included around 250 species, 150of which are hallucinogenic. Of these, 53 halluci-nogenic species have been identified in Mexico(Guzmán 2005), though less than a third of theseare known to be used ceremonially (see Table 1).As a rule, hallucinogenic Psilocybe species can

be distinguished from non-hallucinogenic psilo-cybes by their tendency (in almost all cases) tooxidize blue, and by their farinaceous odor andtaste. The hallucinogenic Mexican species can bedivided into three broad groups corresponding todifferent geographical-ecological zones (Fig. 1).The first group is found in mountainous areaswith a temperate climate, typically in meadows oropen, grassy pine forests. Psilocybe aztecorum, P.muliercula, and P. sanctorum are prominentmembers of this group. The second group is foundin tropical lowlands, and includes little-knownforest species such as P. uxpanapensis Guzmán,

P. weldenii Guzmán, P. singeri Guzmán,and P. veraecrucis Guzmán and Pérez-Ortiz, aswell as the cosmopolitan dung-inhabiting pasturespecies, P. cubensis and P. subcubensis. The thirdgroup, encompassing the great majority of hallu-cinogenic species in Mexico, is found in theintermediate zones where a moist, subtropicalclimate and hilly terrain give rise to mesophyticcloud forest at elevations of 1,000–1,600 m.Psilocybe yungensis, the P. fagicola-group, and P.candidipes are common forest species in thiszone, while P. mexicana and P. cubensis are foundin meadows, and P. zapotecorum, P. subzapoteco-rum Guzmán, P. caerulescens, and P. hoogshageniiare found in ravines with muddy eroded soil,often without vegetation (Guzmán 1978, 1983,1990).

Sacred Mushroom Usage in ModernMexico

Several indigenous groups have been confirmedto practice the ceremonial use of sacred mush-rooms in Mexico: the Nahuatls in the states ofMexico, Morelos, and Puebla; the Matlazincs inthe state of Mexico; the Totonacs in the state ofVeracruz; and the Mazatecs, Mixes, Zapotecs, andChatins in the state of Oaxaca.To the western of the volcano Popocatépetl (state

of Mexico), Nahuatls ritually consume Psilocybeaztecorum, which grows in alpine meadows mixedwith pines. Their name for it, apipitzin (or niño delas aguas in Spanish), means “rain water child”(Heim and Wasson 1958; Guzmán 1978). On thesouthern slope of the same volcano (but in thestate of Morelos), in the subtropical cloud forestaround Tetela del Volcán, the Nahuatl considerP. barrerae to be sacred (Elizur Montiel-Arcos andVíctor Mora, personal communication).The Nahuatl from the townships of Tenango

del Valle and San Pedro Tlanixco (both in theNevado de Toluca region, state of Mexico) usePsilocybe muliercula, which they call siwatsitsintlior mujercitas (“little women”), often in tandemwith Cordyceps capitata or C. ophioglossoides,known as hombrecitos (“little men”). In theirsacred mushroom ceremonies, some people eatonly mujercitas, and others eat only hombrecitos(apparently, no one eats both, and the sex of themushroom eater does not determine the “sex” ofthe mushrooms they eat). One or more specimensof Elaphomyces (the truffle-like, hypogeous mush-room from which the Cordyceps grows) typically


occupy center stage during the ritual, usually onthe altar or on a sleeping mat on the ground. Atthe end of the ceremony everyone partakes of elgran mundo (“the great world”), as Elaphomyces iscalled.

Also in the Nevado de Toluca region, but tothe west of the Nahuatls, are the Matlazincs.Their sacred mushrooms are Psilocybe mulierculaand P. sanctorum (Guzmán and López-González1970), which they call santitos (“little saints”).

Further to the east, the Nahuatls of Necaxa(state of Puebla) use Psilocybe caerulescens and P.mexicana as sacred mushrooms (Guzmán 1960).They call these mushrooms teotlaquilnanácatl,meaning “sacred mushroom that paints ordescribes.” As the blue-staining mushroomdepicted in Sahagún’s Magliabechiano Codexbears a strong resemblance to P. caerulescens, andthe contemporary Nahuatl word bears a strikingresemblance to the enigmatic name teonanácatloriginally reported by Sahagún in the 16thcentury, this author hypothesizes that they areone and the same.

Still further to the east, the Totonacs (state ofVeracruz) used P. caerulescens as well as P.cordispora extensively in the past, though thetradition is now mostly extinct (Stresser-Péan andHeim 1960). Guzmán et al. (2005) also foundhallucinogenic mushrooms of the P. fagicola-group growing commonly in the Totonac region.

Finally, in the state of Oaxaca, sacred mush-room usage is well documented for the Mazatecsof Huautla de Jimenez, the Mixes of Mazatlan,the Zapotecs of San Agustin Loxicha, and theChatins of Yaitepec. The well-known species P.caerulescens, P. mexicana, P. cubensis, and P.zapotecorum, as well as several others (see Table 1),are used in this region.

In addition to the confirmed reports listedabove, there is vestigial evidence of sacredmushroom usage elsewhere in Mexico. Pieces ofpottery found in the eastern foothills of Nevadode Colima (state of Colima) suggest that theCapacha and maybe the Nahuatls used sacredmushrooms. One piece (see Schultes and Hofmann1979) shows four Indians with amazed eyessurrounding a very tall mushroom that closelyresembles P. zapoteco. Another piece (Doniz et al.2001) shows a woman with large eyes holding atall mushroom in her right hand. In both cases, thelarge eyes may depict dilated pupils, while the tallmushrooms may illustrate the perceptual alteration

known as gigantism; both are commonly-notedeffects of hallucinogenic Psilocybe consumption (e.g.,Guzmán 1990).

Still another indigenous group that may haveused hallucinogenic mushrooms are the Pure-pechas in the state of Michoacan, where Guzmán(1983) reported Psilocybe caerulescens. The TzotzilMaya of Chiapas may also have been users in thedistant past, but there are no indications of usetoday or in recent times (Laughlin 1975).

The Sacred Mushroom CeremonyWhen Reko (1945), Schultes (1939, 1940),

Wasson and Wasson (1957), and Guzmán (1959,1960) conducted their research, they noted howthe sacred mushroom ceremonies had beenstrongly influenced by five centuries of contactwith Catholicism. Now, after five decades ofcontact with recreational drug users and tourists,the mushroom ceremonies have been furtherchanged. Sacred mushrooms are now widelycommercialized, and even the ceremonies them-selves have become a kind of tourist attraction.

Despite regional cultural and language differ-ences, as well as different species of mushroomsused, the sacred mushroom ceremonies showsome common elements throughout Mexico.The ceremony is always held at night, apparentlyin order to reduce distractions and intensify themental concentration of the mushroom takers.The ceremony is always held under the guidanceof a shaman or an older experienced person,either woman or man, and is usually held in theguide’s home in front of a Catholic altar.

Typically the mushrooms are placed in agourd, or jicara (Crescentia cujete L.), andincensed with copal resin (mostly from Protiumspp.). The ceremonies show a mixture of nativeand Catholic elements; prayers may be in Spanishand/or indigenous tongues. The mushrooms aretypically counted out in “male-female” pairs,though only one species of mushroom is usedfor a given ceremony (except in the Nevado deToluca region, where, as noted above, Cordycepsand Elaphomyces are used in conjunction withPsilocybe). Participants are traditionally offered upto six pairs of mushrooms, though with theadvent of psychedelic tourism, outsiders may beinitially offered only one or two, and are requiredto pay more if they want a higher dose. It iswidely believed that excessive doses (more than12 mushrooms) can produce mental disorders,


and that different species of Psilocybe should notbe mixed. The mushrooms are eaten on an emptystomach, and alcohol and medicines are avoidedbefore and during the ceremony, and otherrestrictions (for example, avoiding travel in thedays following the ceremony) may be observed(Guzmán 2003).

ConclusionDespite a great deal of confusion in the

literature, it is now clear that the sacred mush-rooms of Mexico belong almost exclusively to thegenus Psilocybe. Although several hallucinogenicspecies of Psilocybe occur in the lowlands ofMexico, traditional ceremonial usage survivestoday only at higher elevations (1,500 m andabove; see Fig. 1). This is likely due to thepersecution of mushroom worship by the Cath-olic Church during the Spanish Colonial period,so that the ceremony persisted only amonggroups that remained in or retreated to remotemountainous areas.A modern anecdote about the “Mushroom

Church” of the Nahuatls near Chignahuapan inthe state of Puebla (Guzmán et al. 1975) is onlytangentially related to sacred mushroom use, butnevertheless illustrates the tenacity of indigenousmushroom worship and the continuing efforts ofthe Church to suppress it.The “Mushroom Church” was built to honor a

specimen of the shelf mushroom Ganodermalobatum (Schwein.) G.F. Atk. that shows animage of Christ traced on its pale, pore-bearingundersurface. The mushroom was found in theforest by a Nahuatl native more than 200 yearsago, an event considered to be a miracle by localpeople. Guzmán et al. (1975) speculate that thissupposed “miracle” may have been fabricated bysome creative 18th-century priest as a way ofenticing the Nahuatl away from their secretiveworship and consumption of hallucinogenicmushrooms, and redirecting their mushroomreverence toward Christ. For two centuries, theholy mushroom was guarded and revered private-ly in local households. Finally, in the 1940s, aspecial church was built to honor the miraculousmushroom. The mushroom was displayed in acrystal box at the main altar and the church wasnamed Nuestro Señor del Honguito (“Our Lord ofthe Little Mushroom”). Recently, however, theCatholic authorities, ever vigilant for paganrevivals, changed the name of the church to

Nuestra Señora del Sagrado Corazon de Jesús (“OurLady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus”), and removedthe mushroom from the central place of worshipto a corner alcove where they placed it in a metalbox with a cross. Nevertheless, the Nahuatlscontinue to worship the mushroom, praying infront of the metal box before proceeding to themain altar.

AcknowledgmentsThis author expresses his thanks to his col-

leagues Etelvina Gándara, Virginia Ramírez-Cruz,and Florencia Ramírez-Guillén (all of them inInstituto de Ecología at Xalapa), Laura Guzmán-Dávalos (Universidad de Guadalajara), ElizurMontiel-Arcos and Victor Mora (Universidad deMorelos), and James Q. Jacobs (Arizona) for theirhelp in the laboratory and with other information.In the past, professors Richard E. Schultes, RolfSinger, Roger Heim, and R. Gordon Wassonprovided much important information and bib-liographic material. Teofilo Herrera (University ofMexico) assisted in making initial contacts withSinger and Heim. Manuel Hernández (Institutode Ecología at Xalapa) helped with computertasks. David Arora and Glenn H. Shepard, Jr.assisted in the final revision of the manuscript.

Literature CitedDavis W. 1996. One River. Touchstone, New

York.Doniz, R., Ma. de los A. Olay, and J. C. Reyes.

2001. Museo Universitario Alejandro RangelHidalgo. Pages 16–31 in Los Tesoros deColima. Arqueología Mexicana, ed. especial 9.

Guzmán G. 1959. Sinopsis de los ConocimientosSobre los Hongos Alucinógenos Mexicanos.Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México24:14–34.

———. 1960. Nueva Localidad de ImportanciaEtnomicológica de los Hongos NeurotrópicosMexicanos. Ciencia, México, 20:85–88.

———. 1978. Variation, Distribution, Ethno-mycological Data and Relationships of Psilo-cybe aztecorum, a Mexican HallucinogenicMushroom. Mycologia 70:385–396.

———. 1983. The Genus Psilocybe. BeihefteNova Hedwigia 74, Cramer, Vaduz.

———. 1990. Wasson and the Development ofMycology in Mexico. In TH. J. Riedlinger, ed.,The Sacred Mushroom Seeker: Essays for


R. Gordon Wasson. Historical, Ethno-andEconomic Botany Series 4. Discorides, Portland.

———. 2003. Traditional Uses and Abuses ofHallucinogenic Fungi: Problems and Solu-tions. International Journal of MedicinalMushrooms 5:57–59.

———. 2005. Species Diversity of the GenusPsilocybe in the World Mycobiota, with SpecialAttention to Hallucinogenic Properties. Inter-national Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms7:305–331.

——— and A. López-González, 1970. NuevoHábitat y Datos Etnomicológicos de Psilocybemuliercula. Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana deMicología 4:44–48.

———, J. Q. Jacobs, F. Ramírez-Guillén, D.Murrieta, and E. Gándara. 2005. The Taxon-omy of Psilocybe fagicola–Complex. Journal ofMicrobiology (Korea) 43:158–165.

———, F. Ramírez-Guillén, and M. Torres.2004. The Hallucinogenic Species of Psilocybein Colombia, Their Indian Use, New Records,and New Species. International Journal ofMedicinal Mushrooms 6:83–93.

———, R. G. Wasson, and T. Herrera, 1975.Una Iglesia Dedicada al Culto de un Hongo,“Nuestro Señor del Honguito,” en Chigna-huapán, Puebla. Boletín de la Sociedad Mex-icana de Micología 9:137–147.

Heim, R. 1956. Les Champignons DivinatoiresUtilizes dans les Rites des Indies Mazatèques,Recuellis du Cours de Leur Premier Vovage anMexique in 1953, par Mme ValentinaPavlovna Wasser et M.R. Gordon Wasson.Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Academiedes Sciences 242:965–968.

———, R. Cailleux, R. G. Wasson, and P.Thévenard. 1967. Nouvelles Investigations surles Champignons Hallucinogènes. Archives duMuséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 7e Série, IX,Paris.

——— and R. G. Wasson. 1958. Les Cham-pignons Hallucinogèns du Mexique. Ed.Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Hofmann, A., R. Heim, A. Brack, and H. Kobel.1958. Psilocybin, ein Psychotroper Wirkcstoffaus dem Mexikanishchen Rauchpilz Psilocybemexicana Heim. Experientia 14:107–109.

Laughlin, R. M. 1975. The Great TzotzilDictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacatán. Smith-sonian Contributions to Anthropology Series,#19. Washington, D.C.

Lowy, B. 1974. Amanita muscaria and theThunderboldt Leyend in Guatemala andMexico. Mycologia 66:188–190.

Mapes, C., G. Guzmán, and J. Caballero. 1981.Etnomicología Purépecha. El Conocimiento yuso de los Hongos en la Cuenca de Pátzcuaro,Michoacán. Dirección de Culturas Populares andSociedad Mexicana de Micología, Mexico City.

Ott, J., G. Guzmán, J. Roman, and J. L. Díaz.1975. Nuevos Datos Sobre los SupuestosLicoperdáceos Psicotrópicos y dos Casos deIntoxicación Provocados por Hongos delGénero Scleroderma en Mexico. Bol. Soc.Mex. Mic. 9:67–76.

Reko, B. P. 1945. Mitobotánica Zapoteca.Private ed., Tacubaya, D.F.

Saffor, W. E. 1915. An Aztec Narcotic. Journal ofHeredity 6:291–311.

Sahagún, Fray B. de. 1569–1582. Historia de lasCosas de la Nueva España. Mexico City (withseveral reprints both in Spanish and English,besides two Indian bilingually codexes, inNahuatl and Spanish, directed by Sahagún,also reprinted).

Samorini, G. 2001. Fungi Allucinogeni. StudiEtnomicologici. Telesterion, Duzza, Italy.

Schultes, R. E. 1939. Plantae Mexicanae II. TheIdentification of Teonanácatl, a NarcoticBasidiomycete of the Aztecs. Botanical Muse-um Leaflets, Harvard University 7:37–56.

———. 1940. Teonanácatl: The Narcotic Mush-room of the Aztecs. American Anthropologist42:429–443.

———. 1976. Hallucinogenic Plants. GoldenPress, New York.

——— and A. Hofmann. 1979. Plants of theGods: Origins of Hallucinogenic Use.McGraw-Hill Books, New York.

Singer, R. 1949. The Agaricales (Mushrooms) inModern Taxonomy. Lilloa 22:5–832.

———. 1958. Mycological Investigations onTeonanácatl, the Mexican Mushroom I.Mycologia 50:239–261.

———. 1975. The Agaricales inModern Taxonmy.Third ed. Cramer, Vaduz.

——— and A. H. Smith. 1958. MycologicalInvestigations on Teonanácatl, the MexicanMushrooms II. A Taxonomic Monograph ofPsilocybe, Section Caerulescentes. Mycologia50:262–303.

Stresser-Péan, G. and R. Heim. 1960. Sur lesAgarics Divinatoires des Totonaques. Comptes


Rendus des Séances de l’ Academie desSciences 250:1115–1160.

Wasson, R. G. 1957. Seeking the Magic Mush-room. Life, May 13, New York.

———, G. Cowan, F. Cowan, and W. Rhodes.1974. María Sabina and Her Mazatec Mush-

room Velada. Ethnomicological Studies 3.Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York (fourcassettes).

Wasson, V. P. and R. G. Wasson. 1957. Mush-rooms, Russia and History. Pantheon Books,New York.


Documents

Hallucingenic Mushrooms of Mexico - Guzman 2008