Subject: Re: ATCC & Psilocybe

From: [email-masked] (Bob Harris)
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 01:28:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (jm102) writes:

>  
>      Just to set the record straight regarding Psilocybe and ATCC, the fact is
> that no one ordered, demanded or otherwise pressured ATCC into de-accessioning
> Psilocybe from its inventory.  Psilocybe is on the list of controlled
> substances. 

Just to set the record straight: Psilocybe is NOT a controlled
substance. Psilocybin and psilocin ARE. The musrhoom has never been
controlled under federal law, and only a few states, California being
one of them, has ever specified a species of mushroom being illegal.

ATCC has always had the requirements that you fill out special forms
for these species, but you were still able to order them. As to the
business aspect, there are thousands of cultures that ATCC maintains
for the genetic diversity reasons alone. Many of those have never sold
well.

---

From: [email-masked] (jm102)
Date: 7 Oct 1994 15:39:16 -0700

Just to set the record straight regarding Psilocybe and ATCC, the fact is
that no one ordered, demanded or otherwise pressured ATCC into de-accessioning
Psilocybe from its inventory.  Psilocybe is on the list of controlled
substances.  DEA requires a special "License To Distribute" every controlled
substance and imposes a significant financial burden of documentation and
justification, including licensing, on both the vendor and the vendee.  Even
though ATCC is a non-profit organization, it is a business and it has to pay
the rent.  Simply maintaining living cultures is an expensive proposition in
and of itself.  There isn't much demand from the scientific community for
Psilocybe.  When ATCC looked at the distribution figures (sales) of Psilocybe
cultures and factored in all the additional costs associated with federal
regulation, it decided it was just not cost effective to maintain the culture.
 De-accessioning of Psilocybe was simply a business decision and not the
result of coercion by anyone or any agency, government or otherwise.  If more
of you folks into schroons had bought cultures it would still be available.

---

From: [email-masked] (Stamets 1)
Date: 15 Oct 1994 15:33:01 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Bob Harris) writes:

 Bob is right.The compounds are illegal; not the genus or its members.  Of
interest to many of you, I have finally got around to submitting a new
species for publication - Psilocybe azurescens which I have co-authored
with
Jochen Gartz who did extensive analyses. A surprising finding is that when
the
mycelium of this species, otherwise extremely potent, was cultured on 10%
plus malt agar medium (100 grams/liter), there were NO detectable amounts
of psilocybin, psilocin, and/or baeocystin! In contrast, mycelia on 2%MEA 
had, collectively, more than 2.5% (d.w.) of the same. Bizarre, but
true.This is the third species I have named and it is by far, the most
interesting. It may well be the 
most potent species ever analyzed. This work was done under the auspices
of a DEA license through Dr. Michael Beug of The Evergreen State College
and has no connection to Fungi Perfecti. 

    I agree that the loss of these cultures is a loss to us all -
especially for future
works. 

paul stamets

    The article will be published in Integration. The ms. was 20 pages and
should clear up or - in the minds of some - further complicate the
taxonomy of the Caerulescent species. (No cultures are available. Please
do not ask. The type location is Astoria, Oregon.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Shaharin Yussof)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 07:02:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (jm102) says:

>Psilocybe from its inventory.                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Isn't that one of the most wonderful bit of "verbification" you have ever seen?

What's wrong with the word "removing"?

Shah