An independent scientific referenceTaxonomy · Evidence · Context
PSILOCYBIAA monograph for the digital age.
Research edition Accounts distinguish agent source checks from human review. Research coverage is incomplete. Read our standards

Psilocybia / The Index / Species record

The Psilocybe Index / Species account

Psilocybe fuscofulva

Peck

Taxonomy: acceptedChemistry: Limited quantitative evidenceMolecular data: Agent source-checked

Scoped account checked by Codex; no human scientific review. Original protologues, comprehensive morphology and synonymy, conservation, scientific imagery and occurrence datasets remain incomplete. Assays describe studied material only.

01Overview

Agent source-checked

A type-based study adopted fuscofulva for the fungus often called atrobrunnea. The extracted 2022 assay reports non-detection, not zero concentrations. [borovicka-2015-atrobrunnea] [gotvaldova-2022]

This is a scientific reference record, not field-identification guidance.

02Nomenclature

Accepted name
Psilocybe fuscofulva
Authority
Peck
Family
Agrocybaceae
Publication year
1887
Basionym
Not yet researched — verification required
Taxonomic status
accepted
MycoBank identifier
Not yet researched — verification required
Index Fungorum identifier
222041
Synonyms (0 recorded names)

No verified synonyms entered. This does not indicate that synonyms do not exist.

Nomenclatural sources: [index-fungorum-222041-2026] [niskanen-2026] [borovicka-2015-atrobrunnea]

Research completeness

taxonomy
Agent source-checked — Codex (agent), 2026-09-12

Current name and primary treatment checked. Original protologues and exhaustive synonymy remain pending. Any historical name conflict is explicitly resolved within the account’s scope.

overview
preliminary

Selected source passages checked; comprehensive synthesis remains pending.

description
not researched

Research remains incomplete; no absence or conservation category inferred.

ecology
preliminary

Selected source passages checked; comprehensive synthesis remains pending.

distribution
preliminary

Selected source passages checked; comprehensive synthesis remains pending.

chemistry
preliminary

Table 1, methods and supplement checked. Source disagreements are preserved in evidence conflicts; no species mean, extrapolation or inferred zero is supplied.

molecular
preliminary

Selected source passages checked; comprehensive synthesis remains pending.

history
preliminary

Selected source passages checked; comprehensive synthesis remains pending.

conservation
not researched

Research remains incomplete; no absence or conservation category inferred.

03Taxonomic description

Taxonomic description. These characters are presented for scientific reference and are not intended as field-identification guidance.

Macroscopic characters

Not yet researched

This section has not yet been researched for this account.

Microscopic characters

Not yet researched

This section has not yet been researched for this account.

04Distribution and ecology

Agent source-checked

The 2022 assay supplement lists three Czech collections. This is analytical provenance rather than a full distribution assessment. [gotvaldova-2022]

Known range
Not yet researched
Habitats
Not yet researched
Substrates
Not yet researched
Ecological associations
Not yet researched
Seasonality
Not yet researched

Ecological context

Agent source-checked

The name record associates the original New York material with soil and Sphagnum. A complete ecological account remains pending. [index-fungorum-222041-2026]

Occurrence records

Occurrence map — awaiting verified records

No occurrence points loaded.

Recorded observations are not equivalent to true biological range. Absence of records does not demonstrate absence of a species.

Occurrence provenance & future map methods
Source
Not yet supplied
Licence / retrieval date
Awaiting licence / Not retrieved
Coordinate uncertainty
Not reviewed
Sensitive records
unreviewed

Future ingestion will review licensing, coordinate uncertainty and sensitive locations. Sampling, clustering and date filters will operate on separately loaded datasets; no coordinates are embedded in this page.

05Chemistry

Measurements belong to studies, specimens and methods. A single concentration cannot stand in for a species.

Published assays · Measurements retain their original methodological context.
Study / yearMaterialMethodRecord
Extensive Collection of Psychotropic Mushrooms with Determination of Their Tryptamine Alkaloids / 2022Dried fruiting bodiesUHPLC–MS/MS (triple quadrupole; positive electrospray; dynamic multiple reaction monitoring)Details ↓
gotvaldova-2022-fuscofulva-table-1 — specimen, methods & measurements
Source location
Table 1, Psilocybe fuscofulva row; sections 2.2 and 3.2–3.4; Supplementary Table S1
Verification
Source checked; see evidence trail
Measurement basis
dry mass
Specimen
Whole fruiting bodies (cap and stipe) identified as Psilocybe fuscofulva in the source.
Material
Dried fruiting bodies
Sample size
6
Sample counting basis
6 fruiting bodies (fb), from 3 collections (n), as printed in Table 1.
Provenance
Collection-level origins retained below.
Analytical method
UHPLC–MS/MS (triple quadrupole; positive electrospray; dynamic multiple reaction monitoring)
Preparation
Dried, homogenized fruiting bodies; acidified methanol extraction and re-extraction (section 3.3).
Storage
Dried material kept in darkness at 20 °C (section 3.2). Collection and analysis dates are retained below; exact storage durations are not inferred.
psilocybin
not detected — Below detection limit in tested material; not zero or species-wide absence.
psilocin
not detected — Below detection limit in tested material; not zero or species-wide absence.
baeocystin
not detected — Below detection limit in tested material; not zero or species-wide absence.
norbaeocystin
not detected — Below detection limit in tested material; not zero or species-wide absence.
aeruginascin
not detected — Below detection limit in tested material; not zero or species-wide absence.

Collections in the source

Dates retain the precision reported by the study. These collections underlie the aggregate ranges; individual concentrations have not been inferred.

PS-46 · Czech Republic
Collected
19.9.2017
Analysed
April 2018
Voucher
PRM 945880
GenBank accession
Not provided in the source table

GenBank column is n.a.; absent voucher remains null.

PS-47 · Czech Republic
Collected
20.9.2017
Analysed
April 2018
Voucher
PRM 945859
GenBank accession
Not provided in the source table

GenBank column is n.a.; absent voucher remains null.

PS-60 · Czech Republic
Collected
26.09.2018
Analysed
April 2019
Voucher
PRM 951350
GenBank accession
Not provided in the source table

GenBank column is n.a.; absent voucher remains null.

Aggregate dry-mass results from one study, not expected species concentrations. No individual measurements are inferred from ranges.

Read source record

Modern quantitative assays

Agent source-checked

The extracted study used UHPLC–MS/MS on dried material. Preparation, storage and measurement basis accompany the row. [gotvaldova-2022]

Evidence assessment

Agent source-checked

The 2022 table reports all five monitored compounds below detection limits in six fruiting bodies from three collections. These are non-detections in tested material, not zero values or proof about every specimen. [gotvaldova-2022]

Assessments depend on material, preparation, storage, sampling and analytical methods. Measurements are literature records, not predictions of effects.

How chemistry records are structured ↗

06Molecular evidence

Agent source-checked

The 2015 study places the sampled fungus in Psilocybe despite negative chemical tests. Genus placement does not establish compound presence. [borovicka-2015-atrobrunnea]

07History

Agent source-checked

Peck published fuscofulva in 1887. The later revision adopted it after examining its holotype; atrobrunnea in earlier authors’ sense is not treated here as an unqualified synonym. [index-fungorum-222041-2026] [borovicka-2015-atrobrunnea]

A place for the historical record

This account records the nomenclatural history checked so far. Broader historical research remains pending; interpretations must stay connected to their documentary sources.

Reading the scientific record ↗

08Conservation

Not yet researched

This section has not yet been researched for this account.

Assessment status
Not yet researched
Assessment authority / year
Not verified / Not verified

Not researched by Psilocybia, not assessed by a conservation authority, and Least Concern are different states. None should be inferred from another.

09Images & specimens

No verified, licensed scientific images supplied

Space is reserved for field photographs, herbarium specimens, microscopy and historical plates, with source and licence metadata.

Photographs are not presented as sufficient for mushroom identification.

10References

  1. Klára Gotvaldová; Jan Borovička; Kateřina Hájková; Petra Cihlářová; Alan Rockefeller; Martin Kuchař (2022). Extensive Collection of Psychotropic Mushrooms with Determination of Their Tryptamine Alkaloids. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23(22), 14068. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214068 Source record ↗

    Source class: primary.

    Source verification history
    • metadata: verified · 2026-09-08 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Authors, title, year, volume, issue and article number match the article XML.

    • doi: verified · 2026-09-08 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      DOI in PubMed matches article-id in the primary article XML; this is an identity cross-check, not just syntax validation.

    • content: verified · 2026-09-08 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Read Table 1 and its footnote, and sections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 in the full-text XML. Supplementary Table S1 has not yet been extracted.

    • content: verified · 2026-09-10 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Rechecked Table 1, sections 3.2–3.4, and Supplementary Table S1 (13 collections in this batch). Corrected pilot locator: collection/storage is section 3.2, not 3.1. Original aggregate ranges verified against XML.

  2. T. Niskanen; B. Dentinger; A.M. Ainsworth; I. Kytövuori; J.T. Kim; G.W. Griffith; K. Liimatainen (2026). Re-shaping the family-level classification of Agaricineae (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) using a phylogenomic approach. Studies in Mycology 113(1), 115–134. DOI: 10.3114/sim.2026.113.03 Source record ↗

    Source class: primary.

    Source verification history
    • metadata: verified · 2026-09-10 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Bibliographic identity inspected; publication year is distinct from retrieval date.

    • content: verified · 2026-09-10 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Family treatment Agrocybaceae, Table 1 and classification discussion inspected in the PDF. Effective online date in paper: 1 April 2026; Crossref issue date differs, so the record retains year only.

    • doi: verified · 2026-09-10 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      DOI and title matched against the cited bibliographic record; not just resolver availability.

  3. J. Borovička; M. Oborník; J. Stříbrný; M. E. Noordeloos; L. A. Parra Sánchez; M. Gryndler (2015). Phylogenetic and chemical studies in the potential psychotropic species complex of Psilocybe atrobrunnea with taxonomic and nomenclatural notes. Persoonia 34, 1–9. DOI: 10.3767/003158515X685283 Source record ↗

    Source class: primary.

    Source verification history
    • metadata: verified · 2026-09-12 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Authors, title, volume and pages match full-text XML. Issue dated June 2015; electronic publication 21 October 2014.

    • doi: verified · 2026-09-12 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      DOI agrees with the full article XML.

    • content: verified · 2026-09-12 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Read nomenclatural discussion, medullosa/silvatica comparison, Tables 1–3 and chemical results. The 2015 study did not quantify PS/PSB. No cultivation protocol extracted.

  4. Index Fungorum (2026). Index Fungorum: Psilocybe fuscofulva, record 222041 — accessed 12 September 2026. . Source record ↗

    Source class: taxonomic database.

    Source verification history
    • metadata: verified · 2026-09-12 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Database record identity and nomenclatural citation checked; retrieval year is not the scientific publication year.

    • content: verified · 2026-09-12 · Codex (agent) (agent). Verification source

      Current name, authority and name citation inspected, including basionym where present. This is a name-record check, not inspection of the original protologue.

Claim provenance

Source checks record what was inspected. Publication approval and section review are separate editorial decisions.

Core name metadata follows the inspected nomenclatural record.

Fields: taxonomy.canonical_name, taxonomy.accepted_name, taxonomy.genus, taxonomy.specific_epithet, taxonomy.authority, taxonomy.publication_year, taxonomy.index_fungorum_id

Follow the 2026 family treatment, which includes Psilocybe in Agrocybaceae.

Fields: taxonomy.family

Retain this species under the checked current name and the cited primary treatment.

Fields: taxonomy.status

A type-based study adopted fuscofulva for the fungus often called atrobrunnea. The extracted 2022 assay reports non-detection, not zero concentrations.

Fields: overview.text

The name record associates the original New York material with soil and Sphagnum. A complete ecological account remains pending.

Fields: ecology.narrative.text

The 2022 assay supplement lists three Czech collections. This is analytical provenance rather than a full distribution assessment.

Fields: distribution.narrative.text

The 2015 study places the sampled fungus in Psilocybe despite negative chemical tests. Genus placement does not establish compound presence.

Fields: molecular.text

Peck published fuscofulva in 1887. The later revision adopted it after examining its holotype; atrobrunnea in earlier authors’ sense is not treated here as an unqualified synonym.

Fields: history.text

The revision distinguishes the earlier authors’ atrobrunnea usage from Singer’s interpretation.

Fields: taxonomy.status

The inspected fuscofulva holotype supported adoption of that name.

Fields: taxonomy.status

Scoped extraction of the published analytical table, with stated omissions and source disagreements.

Fields: chemistry.assays.0, chemistry.evidence_status

The extracted study used UHPLC–MS/MS on dried material. Preparation, storage and measurement basis accompany the row.

Fields: chemistry.modern_assay.text

The 2022 table reports all five monitored compounds below detection limits in six fruiting bodies from three collections. These are non-detections in tested material, not zero values or proof about every specimen.

Fields: chemistry.summary.text

Conflicting evidence

Resolved: taxonomy.status

A historical name usage is not an uncomplicated synonym.

Follow the type-based fuscofulva treatment and current name record. Preserve atrobrunnea sensu auctorum only as historical usage; do not route every atrobrunnea assertion automatically. — Codex (agent), 2026-09-12