Panaeolus, Gymnopilus, and Other Psilocybin-Containing Genera

Psilocybin Species & Mycology

4–5 gene transfers

Psilocybin appears in a scattered set of unrelated mushroom genera not because each one invented it, but because the biosynthetic gene cluster arose once in Psilocybe and then moved sideways between fungal lineages. Bradshaw and colleagues dated 4 to 5 possible horizontal transfers between 40 and 9 million years ago.

Bradshaw et al., PNAS, 2024

Panaeolus

the best-studied non-Psilocybe genus — yet systematic HPLC-MS/MS testing by He et al. 2026 confirmed psilocybin in only 2 of the 14 species screened

Gymnopilins

the best-characterised Gymnopilus compounds are not psychedelics at all: they inhibit nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and are implicated in G. junonius poisoning (Kayano et al., 2014)

Aeruginascin

a quaternary ammonium tryptamine known from Inocybe aeruginascens; unlike psilocin's precursors it did not cross a blood–brain barrier mimetic in Rakoczy et al. 2024

Bradshaw et al., PNAS, 2024

View as image ↗

The usual framing of psilocybin mushrooms treats Psilocybe as the genus and everything else as a footnote. But psilocybin has been reported from species in roughly a dozen genera scattered across several unrelated fungal families. Panaeolus, Gymnopilus, Inocybe, Pluteus, and Pholiotina all contain species with psychoactive tryptamines, and none of them are close relatives of Psilocybe.

The reason they all have psilocybin is not ancestry, and — contrary to how this is usually told — it is not independent invention either. It is horizontal gene transfer, running outward from a single origin.

This article covers which genera actually contain psilocybin, how thin the analytical evidence behind most of those claims turns out to be, and why the evolutionary biology is more interesting, and more specific, than the "many mushrooms independently evolved psilocybin" story that circulates almost everywhere else.

For the broader context of how many total psilocybin-containing species exist across all genera, see How Many Psilocybin Mushroom Species Exist? A Taxonomic Overview. The pillar article on Psilocybe cubensis covers the most studied species in depth.

Why Psilocybin Appears in Unrelated Genera

Psilocybe, Panaeolus, Gymnopilus, and Inocybe are not close relatives. They sit in different families within the order Agaricales — so they do share a common ancestor, but a distant one, far older than psilocybin itself. Yet they all produce psilocybin through the same four-enzyme biosynthetic pathway, encoded by the same cluster of genes.

That combination — same pathway, scattered across a family tree — is the signature of horizontal gene transfer.

Reynolds and colleagues published the key paper in Evolution Letters in 2018. They recovered a psilocybin gene cluster from three hallucinogenic mushroom genomes and found evidence for its horizontal transfer between fungal lineages. They also proposed a reason it spread: psilocybin synthesis may have provided a fitness advantage in dung and late wood-decay niches, where fungal indole metabolites can alter the behaviour of mycophagous and wood-eating invertebrates.^[1]

Bradshaw and colleagues then supplied the direction and the dates.

Key Study

Bradshaw et al. (2024) · PNAS

Population

71 metagenomes from fungarium specimens, including 23 type specimens, across a genus of roughly 165 species

Intervention

Shotgun sequencing of herbarium material with phylogenomic analysis of 2,983 single-copy gene families, plus molecular clock dating

Finding

Psilocybin biosynthesis arose first in Psilocybe, with 4 to 5 possible horizontal transfers to other mushrooms between 40 and 9 million years ago. The Psilocybe stem lineage dates to roughly 67 million years ago and diversified around 56 million years ago. Two distinct gene orders within the cluster correspond to a deep split in the genus, possibly reflecting two independent acquisitions within Psilocybe itself.

positive A fully supported phylogeny from type material, though built from 71 specimens rather than the full ~165 species — placement of unsampled species remains open.

Bradshaw et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024 [8]

This is the detail that reframes everything else in the article. The non-Psilocybe genera did not converge on psilocybin. They received it.^[8]

One Origin → Dated Transfers → Recipients

Psilocybin Did Not Evolve Separately in Each Genus

The common framing — that many unrelated mushrooms “independently evolved” psilocybin — is the opposite of what the phylogenomics shows. Bradshaw and colleagues place the origin of the biosynthetic cluster inside Psilocybe, with a handful of horizontal transfers carrying it outward over roughly 30 million years. Every genus below is a recipient, not an inventor.

Origin — genus Psilocybe

Where the cluster arose

Stem lineage dated to about 67 million years ago, diversifying about 56 million years ago. Psilocybin biosynthesis arose here first. Two distinct gene orders within the cluster track a deep split in the genus, possibly reflecting two independent acquisitions within Psilocybe itself.[8]

4 to 5 possible horizontal transfers

between 40 and 9 million years ago

409

Reported as a range of possible events rather than a settled count. Transfer in fungi is thought to follow shared substrate and hyphal contact, which is why the recipients cluster in dung and late‑wood‑decay niches. [1]

Recipient genus

Family & niche

How well it is actually documented

Gymnopilus

Hymenogastraceae

wood decay

same family as Psilocybe under current treatments

Cluster recovered in genome sequencing; psilocybin content varies sharply by species

Gene cluster sequenced

Panaeolus

Galeropsidaceae

dung and pasture

separated from Bolbitiaceae, He et al. 2026

Cluster recovered in genome sequencing; alkaloids quantified in multiple species

Gene cluster sequenced

Inocybe

Inocybaceae

woodland soil, ectomycorrhizal

Psilocybin and aeruginascin measured chemically; no published cluster genome for I. aeruginascens

Chemistry only

Pluteus

Pluteaceae

decaying hardwood

Psilocybin and psilocin measured in P. salicinus; genomic work essentially absent

Chemistry only

Pholiotina

Bolbitiaceae

mossy lawns and soil

Conocybe cyanopus is the same taxon under an older name

Small amounts reported; very few analytical measurements

Sparse data

Why the distinction matters

Independent evolution would predict different enzymes converging on the same product, and therefore different by-products in each genus. Horizontal transfer of one cluster predicts the same four-enzyme pathway everywhere, with differences coming from regulation and genomic context rather than from chemistry reinvented from scratch. The second prediction is the one that matches the data — which is why the minor-tryptamine ratios differ between genera while the core pathway does not.

“Gene cluster sequenced” means the biosynthetic cluster itself has been recovered from a genome in that genus; “chemistry only” means the alkaloids have been measured but the cluster has not been sequenced in that taxon. Family placements follow current phylogenetic treatments and differ from those printed in older field guides.

Origin, dates and transfer count from ref [8]; transfer mechanism and niche reasoning from ref [1]

Fact Check

Did these genera evolve psilocybin independently?

The claim

“Psilocybin evolved independently in many unrelated mushroom genera — a striking case of convergent evolution.”

A reasonable inference from the scattered distribution of psilocybin across the fungal tree, repeated widely before the phylogenomic work was done.

What research shows

Misleading

The cluster arose once, in Psilocybe, and moved outward through an estimated 4 to 5 horizontal transfers between 40 and 9 million years ago. The other genera inherited a working pathway rather than building their own.

Convergent evolution and horizontal transfer make different predictions. Independent origins would produce different enzymes reaching a similar product, and therefore different by-products in each genus. Transfer of one cluster predicts the same four-enzyme pathway everywhere, with variation coming from regulation and genomic context. The data match the second prediction — which is precisely why minor tryptamine ratios differ between genera while the core pathway does not.

Bradshaw et al., PNAS, 2024 [8]; Reynolds et al., Evolution Letters, 2018 [1]

The practical implication is unchanged, though: the presence of psilocybin in Panaeolus or Gymnopilus is not an indicator of close relationship to Psilocybe, and their overall alkaloid profiles differ in ways that matter.

For a dedicated treatment of the gene cluster biology, see Horizontal Gene Transfer: How Psilocybin Genes Jump Between Species.

Which Genera Actually Contain Psilocybin

Two corrections are worth flagging in that table, because nearly every popular version of it gets them wrong.

First, Gymnopilus is placed in Hymenogastraceae under current treatments — the same family as Psilocybe. Older sources put it in Cortinariaceae and describe it as taxonomically remote from Psilocybe, which makes the gene transfer sound more dramatic than it is. Second, Panaeolus is no longer treated as a member of Bolbitiaceae: He and colleagues demonstrated in IMA Fungus in 2026, using phylogenomic, multigene, molecular clock and morphological analyses, that the Panaeolus clade is a distinct family, Galeropsidaceae.

A third correction concerns counting. Pholiotina cyanopus and Conocybe cyanopus are the same taxon under two names, not two genera. Lists that include both inflate the apparent number of psilocybin-containing genera by one.

Van Court and colleagues' 2022 review in Fungal Biology remains the most comprehensive cross-genus overview in the primary literature, and it is candid about the state of the field: comprehensive understanding of psilocybin-containing fungi is described as fundamental to consumer safety, and the review closes with recommendations for the mycological research still needed.^[3] Most non-Psilocybe species have never been systematically analysed for alkaloid content.

Named ≠ Measured

How Much Evidence Actually Sits Behind Each Genus

Lists of psilocybin-containing genera present every entry as equally settled. Reading each row across shows that is not true: one genus has been surveyed systematically, two have partial data, and two rest on a handful of reports. The middle column is the strongest published number for that genus — and for two of them, there is no number at all.

2

of 14 Panaeolus species tested by HPLC-MS/MS were confirmed to produce psilocybin

He and colleagues screened 14 species during a phylogenomic revision of the genus and confirmed psilocybin-producing traits in exactly two: P. cinctulus and the newly described P. subfoenisecii. Popular sources routinely credit the genus with twenty or more active species. Both statements can coexist only because most of those species have never been put through an instrument.

Genus

What has been measured

Strongest number

What is missing

Panaeolus

Systematically surveyed

The only non-Psilocybe genus with both broad alkaloid profiling and a dedicated systematic revision[2]

2 of 14

species confirmed psilocybin-producing by HPLC-MS/MS (He et al. 2026)

Most named "active" species have never been tested analytically. Reputation runs far ahead of measurement.

Gymnopilus

Partial data

Psilocybin reported in some species; gymnopilin chemistry studied separately from tryptamines

~50%

reduction in ACh-evoked calcium response caused by gymnopilins (Kayano et al. 2014)

No systematic multi-species tryptamine survey. The one well-characterised Gymnopilus compound class is not a psychedelic.

Inocybe

Partial data

Aeruginascin structurally characterised; psilocybin measured in a small number of species[6]

1 species

I. aeruginascens, the only mushroom aeruginascin had been found in as of Jensen et al. 2006

Genus-wide alkaloid data essentially absent. Most Inocybe research concerns muscarine, not tryptamines.

Pluteus

One or two reports

Psilocybin and psilocin detected in P. salicinus by GC/MS

Semi-quantitative

no modern quantitative range published for the genus

A single well-known species carries the entire genus-level claim.

Pholiotina

One or two reports

Small amounts reported in P. cyanopus; the same taxon appears in older sources as Conocybe cyanopus

Not quantified

no published concentration range in this library’s corpus

Frequently double-counted as two genera because of the name change, which inflates genus tallies.

226

fruiting bodies from 82 collections across 7 genera, with 5 tryptamines quantified

Gotvaldová et al. 2022 [2]

42

fungal strains across 9 species profiled for 8 tryptophan-derived indolamines

Cohen et al. 2025 [7]

14

Panaeolus species screened by HPLC-MS/MS; 2 confirmed psilocybin-producing

He et al. 2026

These are the largest analytical datasets in this library, and together they still cover a small fraction of confirmed psilocybin-containing species. Van Court and colleagues name this directly as one of the field’s open problems. No potency ranking across genera is shown here because no dataset in this library supports one.

Refs [2], [3], [6], [7]; plus He et al., IMA Fungus, 2026 and Kayano et al., Toxicon, 2014

Panaeolus: The Most Studied Non-Psilocybe Genus

Panaeolus is the largest non-Psilocybe genus with confirmed psilocybin-producing species, and Panaeolus cyanescens — called Copelandia cyanescens in older literature — is the species most often named as a potent non-Psilocybe source. In the 2026 revision, the traditional Copelandia grouping corresponds roughly to Panaeolus subgenus Bresadolomyces.

The genus is also where the gap between reputation and measurement is widest. He and colleagues tested the psilocybin-producing traits of 14 Panaeolus species by HPLC-MS/MS during their systematic revision and confirmed psilocybin production in exactly two: P. cinctulus and a newly described species, P. subfoenisecii. That is not evidence that the other twelve lack psilocybin under all conditions, and it is not a potency measurement — but it is a sharp corrective to the common claim that the genus contains twenty or more reliably active species.

Where quantitative data does exist, it can be substantial. Yao and colleagues reported in Toxicon in 2024 on two Panaeolus subbalteatus poisoning incidents in Ningxia, northwest China, in which patients developed gastrointestinal or neurological symptoms roughly half an hour after eating a large quantity of wild mushrooms. Average psilocybin content in the mushroom samples was 1,532.2 to 1,760.7 mg/kg and psilocin 114.5 to 136.0 mg/kg; only psilocin was detected in blood and urine, consistent with rapid conversion of psilocybin to psilocin after ingestion.

The broadest alkaloid survey covering the genus is Gotvaldová and colleagues' 2022 work.

Key Study

Gotvaldová et al. (2022) · Int J Mol Sci

Population

226 fruiting bodies from 82 individual collections spanning seven mushroom genera, most documented by fungarium specimens and/or ITS rDNA, LSU or EF1-α sequencing

Intervention

Quantification of psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin, norbaeocystin and aeruginascin by UHPLC coupled to tandem mass spectrometry

Finding

Tryptamine concentrations were extremely variable. The highest psilocybin and psilocin concentrations were found in Psilocybe species, and no tryptamines at all were detected in the P. fuscofulva and P. fimetaria collections. Baeocystin, norbaeocystin and aeruginascin concentrations were reported for the first time in many species.

positive The authors frame the variability itself as the finding — a risk of overdose for consumers, and a problem for interpreting data from wild material rather than pure compound.

Gotvaldová et al., International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022 [2]

Note what that study does not say: it does not rank Panaeolus cyanescens above Psilocybe. The highest psilocybin and psilocin concentrations in the collection were in Psilocybe species.^[2] The popular claim that P. cyanescens is "more potent than cubensis" is not supported by the largest published multi-genus survey, and should be treated as unverified.

What distinguishes Panaeolus from Psilocybe is less about total psilocybin than about the ratios between psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin and the other minor tryptamines. Cohen and colleagues analysed 42 psilocybin-producing fungal strains across nine species in 2025, quantifying eight tryptophan-derived indolamines and identifying a putative hydroxypsilocybin, and found metabolite diversity both within and between species with species-specific clustering.^[7] Each strain, in their framing, has its own metabolome.

Gymnopilus: Where the Mechanism Story Goes Wrong

Gymnopilus is a large genus of wood-decay fungi. It is very often described as hallucinogenic "through gymnopilins" — bitter sesquiterpenoids said to have their own psychedelic properties. That description does not survive contact with the primary literature.

Kayano and colleagues published this work in Toxicon in 2014, framing gymnopilins as a likely cause of G. junonius poisoning. So the accurate statement is narrower than the popular one: some Gymnopilus species contain psilocybin and are psychoactive for that reason; G. junonius also contains gymnopilins, which are pharmacologically active in a different system and are implicated in poisoning. Whether gymnopilins contribute to reported "hallucinogenic" effects in specimens lacking psilocybin remains an open question rather than an established mechanism.

Gymnopilus purpuratus is the species most consistently confirmed to contain psilocybin in the published literature. Gymnopilus junonius, the large and conspicuous rustgill, is widely reported as hallucinogenic but has inconsistent analytical data, and the genus has never been subjected to the kind of systematic multi-species tryptamine survey that Panaeolus has now received.

Inocybe aeruginascens and Aeruginascin

Inocybe aeruginascens is notable primarily for aeruginascin rather than for its psilocybin content. Jensen and colleagues elucidated the structure in Planta Medica in 2006, identifying it as N,N,N-trimethyl-4-phosphoryloxytryptamine — a quaternary ammonium compound — and noted that it is closely related to the frog-skin toxin bufotenidine, a potent 5-HT3 receptor agonist. At the time it had been found exclusively in I. aeruginascens.^[6]

That "quaternary ammonium" detail is the whole story.

Two studies have tested the pharmacology directly, and both point away from the idea that aeruginascin is a psilocybin-like psychedelic.

Glatfelter and colleagues compared psilocybin, baeocystin and aeruginascin with their 4-acetoxy and 4-hydroxy analogues in mice in 2022. Secondary and tertiary tryptamines with 4-acetoxy or 4-hydroxy substitutions bound most human 5-HT receptor subtypes tested at nanomolar affinity. But in mice, only the tertiary amines — psilocin, psilocybin and psilacetin — induced head twitch responses, the standard rodent marker for 5-HT2A-mediated psychedelic-like activity, with ED50 values of 0.11 to 0.29 mg/kg. Those responses were blocked by a 5-HT2A antagonist. Aeruginascin, a quaternary amine, was not among the compounds producing them.^[5]

Rakoczy and colleagues extended this in the British Journal of Pharmacology in 2024, and their results are more specific than the "each tryptamine has a distinct profile" summary that often gets attached to them. All the compounds tested were dephosphorylated by alkaline phosphatase and metabolised by monoamine oxidase at nearly identical rates — so the divergence is not in metabolism. It appears at the blood–brain barrier: only the dephosphorylated products of baeocystin and norbaeocystin crossed a barrier mimetic to a degree similar to psilocin. Dephosphorylated norbaeocystin activated the 5-HT2A receptor with efficacy similar to psilocin in vitro, yet only psilocybin induced head twitch responses in rats, while norbaeocystin nonetheless improved outcomes in the forced swim test.^[4]

The authors' own reading is that some naturally occurring tryptamines — norbaeocystin especially — may share therapeutic potential with psilocybin without causing hallucination. For aeruginascin specifically, the picture is of a compound that is metabolised like its relatives but does not appear to reach the brain the way they do. Any account of Inocybe aeruginascens that treats aeruginascin as a straightforward psilocybin variant is running ahead of the pharmacology.

For a dedicated treatment of aeruginascin, see Aeruginascin: The Compound That May Make Some Mushrooms 'Friendlier'. The minor tryptamines baeocystin and norbaeocystin are covered in Baeocystin and Norbaeocystin: Do These Minor Tryptamines Affect the Experience?.

Pluteus, Pholiotina, and Conocybe

Pluteus salicinus and a few relatives in the family Pluteaceae have been shown to contain psilocybin and psilocin. Stríbrný and colleagues measured psilocin and psilocybin content semiquantitatively by GC/MS in Soudní lékařství in 2003, in a set of Czech mushrooms that included Pluteus salicinus, Inocybe haemacta and Panaeolus acuminatus alongside several Psilocybe species — one of the few studies to put non-Psilocybe genera on the same analytical footing. No modern quantitative concentration range has been published for Pluteus as a genus.

Pholiotina cyanopus — the same taxon that older sources call Conocybe cyanopus — is a small, delicate species of temperate regions, reported to contain psilocybin in small amounts and rarely examined in the primary literature.

The significance of these minor genera is evolutionary rather than practical. Their possession of the psilocybin gene cluster in families as diverse as Pluteaceae, Galeropsidaceae and Hymenogastraceae is exactly the sporadic, patchy distribution that horizontal transfer predicts. An ancestral trait would appear consistently within lineages; this appears in scattered pockets across them.

Does Genus Predict Potency?

The short answer from the research is no.

Evidence Review

1. Chemical detectioncompleted

   Psilocybin and psilocin confirmed by GC/MS, HPLC and LC-MS/MS in Panaeolus, Inocybe, Pluteus and Gymnopilus species

2. Pharmacology of minor tryptaminescompleted

   Receptor binding, BBB penetration and rodent behaviour characterised for baeocystin, norbaeocystin and aeruginascin [4][5]

3. Multi-genus alkaloid surveyscurrent

   226 fruiting bodies across 7 genera [2]; 42 strains across 9 species [7]; 14 Panaeolus species screened in the 2026 revision

4. Genus-wide systematic profilingmissing

   No genus has had all or most of its species analysed. Gymnopilus, Pluteus and Pholiotina have had almost none

5. Reference potency ranges per speciesmissing

   No published reference range that would let anyone predict content from a species name

6. Pooled cross-genus synthesismissing

   Not possible while most species remain unmeasured

Chemistry and pharmacology are solid where they have been done. What is missing is coverage: the surveys that exist sample a small fraction of confirmed psilocybin-containing species, so a species or genus name does not predict alkaloid content.

Refs [2], [3], [4], [5], [7]; plus He et al., IMA Fungus, 2026

Gotvaldová and colleagues describe tryptamine concentrations in wild mushrooms as extremely variable, and frame that variability as a genuine hazard — an apparent risk of overdose for anyone consuming wild material, and a problem for interpreting research done on mushrooms rather than pure compound.^[2] Cohen and colleagues found that even with species-specific metabolite clustering, within-species diversity was substantial.^[7]

What genus does appear to track, weakly, is the character of the minor tryptamine profile rather than total psilocybin content. Inocybe aeruginascens is specifically the aeruginascin species. Gymnopilus brings a compound class that has nothing to do with tryptamines at all. Van Court and colleagues place systematic alkaloid characterisation across the full diversity of psilocybin-containing fungi among the field's outstanding needs, and nothing published since has closed that gap.^[3]

For context on how species identification is confirmed and how often it is wrong, see DNA Testing for Mushroom Supplements: Verifying Species Identity.

The Safety Problem This Taxonomy Creates

There is a hazard buried in the evolutionary story. The niches where the psilocybin cluster took hold — dung, pasture, and late wood decay — are also the niches of some of the most dangerous mushrooms in temperate regions. And unlike Psilocybe, the genera in this article have no large body of popular identification literature behind them.

Safety

These genera share habitat with lethal mushrooms

Gymnopilus and Pluteus grow on decaying wood alongside the Galerina marginata complex, which Landry and colleagues found to contain amatoxins at concentrations equalling those in the death cap, Amanita phalloides — within a genus of roughly 300 species they describe as notoriously difficult to identify by morphology. Pholiotina is worse still: the genus contains both the psilocybin-associated P. cyanopus and P. filaris, an amatoxin producer. Inocybe aeruginascens sits inside a genus characterised in clinical toxicology by muscarine, confirmed by LC-MS/MS in the urine of patients presenting with a cholinergic toxidrome.

Genus-level familiarity provides no protection here, because the hazardous species are in the same genus or the same substrate, and often look similar. Amatoxin poisoning is frequently delayed for many hours after ingestion, so the absence of early symptoms means nothing. Even correctly identified Panaeolus has sent people to hospital: Yao and colleagues documented two P. subbalteatus poisoning incidents with symptoms about half an hour after ingestion.

Particularly relevant for: Anyone encountering small brown mushrooms on wood, dung, or lawns

Treat any suspected mushroom poisoning as a medical emergency and contact a poison control centre immediately, even if symptoms seem mild or have not started. Psilocybin is a controlled substance in most jurisdictions; check the law where you are.

Shared Substrate → Shared Confusion

The Hazard the Taxonomy Discussion Hides

The gene-transfer story concentrates psilocybin in dung and late-wood-decay niches. Those are also the niches of some of the deadliest mushrooms in temperate forests, and the non-Psilocybe genera are mostly small brown mushrooms whose dangerous neighbours are also small brown mushrooms. Each row pairs a psilocybin-containing genus with the hazardous taxon sharing its exact substrate.

Niche

Psilocybin-containing

Sharing that niche

Documented consequence

Decaying wood and wood chips

Gymnopilus, Pluteus

small to medium brown mushrooms on stumps, logs and mulch

Galerina marginata complex

Amatoxins

Amatoxins at concentrations equalling those in the death cap. Galerina has roughly 300 species that are notoriously difficult to tell apart by morphology alone.

Potentially fatal

Mossy lawns, soil, grassy ground

Pholiotina cyanopus

also written Conocybe cyanopus in older sources — one taxon, two names

Pholiotina filaris and relatives

Amatoxins

An amatoxin producer in the same genus as the psilocybin-containing species, sharing habitat and general appearance.

Potentially fatal

Woodland soil under trees

Inocybe aeruginascens

the only mushroom aeruginascin had been reported from as of 2006 [6]

Inocybe species generally

Muscarine

Muscarine confirmed in patient urine by LC-MS/MS after a cholinergic toxidrome — sweating, miosis, palpitations, vomiting. Inocybe is defined in clinical toxicology by this toxin, not by tryptamines.

Hospitalisation reported

Dung and pasture

Panaeolus

the genus itself, not a lookalike

Panaeolus subbalteatus

Psilocybin / psilocin

Two documented poisoning incidents with gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms about half an hour after ingestion; psilocybin measured at 1532.2–1760.7 mg/kg in the mushrooms eaten.

Hospitalisation reported

Why this is worse for the non-Psilocybe genera specifically

Psilocybe at least has a large body of identification literature and a well-known bruising reaction. The genera in this article do not. Pholiotina is the sharpest case of all: the genus contains both a species discussed as a psilocybin source and a species that produces amatoxins. Genus-level knowledge is not protective here, and no amount of reading substitutes for expert identification of an actual specimen.

This is a hazard map, not an identification guide, and nothing in it should be used to decide whether a wild mushroom is safe. Amatoxin poisoning is often not apparent until many hours after ingestion, by which point liver injury may already be under way. Suspected mushroom poisoning is a medical emergency.

Landry et al., PLoS ONE, 2021; Chan et al., J Med Cases, 2023; Yao et al., Toxicon, 2024; niche reasoning from ref [1]

This article is educational and is not medical, legal, or foraging advice. Nothing here is sufficient to identify a wild mushroom, and no descriptive account should be used to decide whether one is safe to eat. See also Deadly Mushroom Lookalikes: Identification Guides That Could Save Your Life.

The Bottom Line

Psilocybin appears across a scattered set of unrelated fungal genera because the biosynthetic gene cluster arose once in Psilocybe and then transferred horizontally — an estimated 4 to 5 times between 40 and 9 million years ago — rather than evolving independently in each lineage. Panaeolus is the best-documented non-Psilocybe genus, though systematic HPLC-MS/MS screening confirmed psilocybin in only 2 of 14 species tested in 2026. Gymnopilus is widely misdescribed: its best-characterised compounds, the gymnopilins, inhibit nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and are studied as a poisoning mechanism, not a psychedelic one. Inocybe aeruginascens is notable for aeruginascin, whose permanent positive charge appears to limit its passage into the brain. Across all these genera the analytical coverage is thin, potency cannot be predicted from a name, and several of them share habitat with amatoxin- and muscarine-producing species.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Panaeolus cyanescens contain psilocybin?

Yes. Panaeolus cyanescens, called Copelandia cyanescens in older literature, is a confirmed psilocybin-containing species and the non-Psilocybe species most often described as potent. Its alkaloids were among those profiled by Gotvaldová and colleagues in their 2022 multi-genus tryptamine survey. It is worth noting that the highest psilocybin and psilocin concentrations in that survey were found in Psilocybe species rather than in Panaeolus, so the common claim that P. cyanescens is more potent than P. cubensis is not supported by the largest published dataset.

What non-Psilocybe mushrooms contain psilocybin?

Confirmed or reported psilocybin-containing genera beyond Psilocybe include Panaeolus (P. cyanescens, P. cinctulus, P. subbalteatus), Gymnopilus (G. purpuratus and some others), Inocybe (I. aeruginascens), Pluteus (P. salicinus), and Pholiotina (P. cyanopus, the same taxon as Conocybe cyanopus). Van Court and colleagues' 2022 review in Fungal Biology is the most comprehensive cross-genus overview. The important caveat is that most of these species have never been analysed systematically, so "reported" and "measured" are not the same thing.

What is the difference between Panaeolus and Psilocybe?

They belong to different families — Panaeolus in Galeropsidaceae, demonstrated as distinct from Bolbitiaceae in 2026, and Psilocybe in Hymenogastraceae — and are not close relatives. Psilocybe is where the psilocybin gene cluster originated; Panaeolus acquired it through horizontal transfer. Their alkaloid profiles differ mainly in the ratios of minor tryptamines rather than in the core pathway. Morphologically, Panaeolus species tend to have darker, mottled gills (the name refers to that variegated appearance) and a strong association with dung and pasture.

What genera of mushrooms have psilocybin?

Psilocybe, Panaeolus, Gymnopilus, Inocybe, Pluteus and Pholiotina are the genera with the best-documented psilocybin-producing species, and psilocybin has been reported from species in roughly a dozen genera overall. Reynolds and colleagues showed in 2018 that horizontal gene transfer explains this scattered distribution, and Bradshaw and colleagues' 2024 PNAS analysis dated the transfers and placed the origin of the cluster in Psilocybe. Note that lists counting both Pholiotina cyanopus and Conocybe cyanopus are double-counting a single taxon.

Is Gymnopilus a magic mushroom?

Some Gymnopilus species contain psilocybin, so some are genuinely psychoactive. But the mechanism story usually told about the genus is wrong. Gymnopilins, the bitter sesquiterpenoids often credited with hallucinogenic effects, were characterised by Kayano and colleagues in 2014 as inhibitors of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and studied as a mechanism of Gymnopilus junonius poisoning — a cholinergic action, not a serotonergic psychedelic one. Whether gymnopilins contribute to reported effects in specimens lacking psilocybin is an open question, not an established fact.

Is aeruginascin psychedelic like psilocybin?

The evidence suggests not, or at least not in the same way. Aeruginascin carries a permanent positive charge from its trimethylated nitrogen, and charged molecules cross the blood–brain barrier poorly. In Glatfelter and colleagues' 2022 mouse work, only tertiary amines such as psilocin and psilocybin produced head twitch responses, the standard rodent marker of 5-HT2A psychedelic-like activity. In Rakoczy and colleagues' 2024 study, only the dephosphorylated forms of baeocystin and norbaeocystin crossed a blood–brain barrier mimetic to a degree comparable with psilocin. Claims that aeruginascin makes an experience "friendlier" are not supported by this pharmacology.

Sources & References

1. 1RTHM-01000·Reynolds, Hannah T et al. (2018). “Horizontal gene cluster transfer increased hallucinogenic mushroom diversity..” Evolution letters.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
2. 2RTHM-00762·Gotvaldová, Klára et al. (2022). “Extensive Collection of Psychotropic Mushrooms with Determination of Their Tryptamine Alkaloids..” International journal of molecular sciences.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
3. 3RTHM-01629·Van Court, R C et al. (2022). “Diversity, biology, and history of psilocybin-containing fungi: Suggestions for research and technological development..” Fungal biology.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
4. 4RTHM-00901·Rakoczy, Ryan J et al. (2024). “Pharmacological and behavioural effects of tryptamines present in psilocybin-containing mushrooms..” British journal of pharmacology.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
5. 5RTHM-00759·Glatfelter, Grant C et al. (2022). “Structure-Activity Relationships for Psilocybin, Baeocystin, Aeruginascin, and Related Analogues to Produce Pharmacological Effects in Mice..” ACS pharmacology & translational science.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
6. 6RTHM-00101·Jensen, Niels et al. (2006). “Aeruginascin, a trimethylammonium analogue of psilocybin from the hallucinogenic mushroom Inocybe aeruginascens..” Planta medica.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
7. 7RTHM-02069·Cohen, Jonathan et al. (2025). “Comprehensive analysis of 42 psilocybin-producing fungal strains reveals metabolite diversity and species-specific clusters..” Scientific reports.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
8. 8RTHM-00865·Bradshaw, Alexander J et al. (2024). “Phylogenomics of the psychoactive mushroom genus Psilocybe and evolution of the psilocybin biosynthetic gene cluster..” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩