Magic mushroom names: species, strain, variety, cultivar or just a label?

Take two names that often appear side by side: Psilocybe cubensis and Golden Teacher. The first is a scientific species name, and the registry that tracks fungal names traces it back to an older name, Stropharia cubensis, published by Earle in 1906 (Species Fungorum). The second appears in a 2025 study as the name of one sample, which the researchers assigned to that species (Cohen et al., 2025). The distinction is between the researchers’ species identification and what their material was called.

This guide explains how to read both kinds of name and how to judge the claims attached to them. It is about terminology and evidence, not about how to recognise or choose a mushroom. Individual names are taken up in our species and names directory.

Popular magic mushroom strains at a glance: what the records show

Most lists of magic mushroom strains rank them by strength or describe how each one feels. The records don’t support either. A 2026 study grew 14 named Psilocybe cubensis strains under the same laboratory conditions and found total tryptamine content varied more than 7.8-fold between strains, with psilocybin also varying between individual mushrooms of the same strain; the authors conclude that strain identification alone cannot predict chemical content (Sharchaton et al., 2026). So the table below does something different: for each popular name, it says what kind of name it is and what the records we checked actually show, with a link to our full article.

For the scientific species behind these names, on a map and a timeline, see the species atlas. The rest of this guide explains how to read any name you come across.

What is the difference between a species, strain, variety and cultivar?

“Variety” can mean an ordinary kind of mushroom in conversation or a formal taxonomic rank. “Strain” also needs context. Treating every familiar name as the same kind of biological category hides those differences, so the table below sets out how this guide uses each term and what to check before trusting it.

The formal rules draw some of these lines. The current botanical code, the Madrid Code of 2025, places variety below species (Madrid Code, Art. 4.1). It also notes that designations for special categories of organisms used in agriculture, forestry and horticulture are dealt with in a separate code, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which defines the cultivar as its basic category (Madrid Code, Art. 28 Note 2). So a cultivar is not simply another word for a taxonomic variety, and nothing we read gives every marketed mushroom name formal cultivar status.

The research literature shows the looseness. The 2025 study that lists Golden Teacher calls each entry a “strain”, in a table column headed that way, and we found no use of the word “cultivar” in the paper (Cohen et al., 2025). A 2026 study of Psilocybe cubensis likewise says “strains” and also reports that no comprehensive genetic reference database exists for them (Sharchaton et al., 2026). A study’s use of “strain” should be reported accurately without extending it beyond that study. A useful description identifies the material and explains how the authors identified it. A memorable name is not a substitute for that record.

How do you read a scientific name like Psilocybe cubensis?

In Psilocybe cubensis, Psilocybe is the genus and cubensis is the specific epithet. Together they form the species name, which the Madrid Code describes as a binary combination of genus name and a single epithet (Art. 23.1). By the Code’s rules the genus name is written with an initial capital (Art. 20.1), and its recommendation is that epithets begin with a lower-case letter (Madrid Code recommendation on epithets). The Code gives its own scientific names in italics but treats typography as editorial style rather than nomenclature, so italics are a convention, not part of the name.

After the full name has been introduced, P. cubensis is a useful abbreviation when the genus is clear. In a passage comparing Psilocybe and Panaeolus, two genera that both begin with P, spell out the genus so the abbreviation does not blur the distinction.

Scientific names also have histories. Species Fungorum records that Stropharia cubensis Earle (1906) is the original name and that the current name is Psilocybe cubensis (Earle) Singer, published in 1948 (Species Fungorum). An older genus name in an old document therefore does not necessarily mean a different species. Our cubensis taxonomy guide follows that history in more detail.

Where do names like Golden Teacher and Blue Meanies fit?

Golden Teacher: a name attached to studied material

Cohen and colleagues’ 2025 paper analysed 42 fungal samples and lists a Golden Teacher sample assigned to Psilocybe cubensis. Their Table 1 gives species by morphological identification and, for all 42, a species classification by ITS sequencing, a DNA region used for identification. For Golden Teacher both columns say Psilocybe cubensis, with a GenBank accession of PV069796 (Cohen et al., 2025, Table 1). The finding concerns that sample. It does not establish a species called Golden Teacher, and it does not authenticate any other sample bearing the label. Our Golden Teacher profile separates that documented association from unresolved history and effects claims.

The same table also shows why a species label itself needs evidence. For 12 of the 42 samples, the species assigned by morphology differs from the ITS classification, for example samples labelled Psilocybe natalensis that ITS classified as Psilocybe cubensis (Cohen et al., 2025, Table 1). The authors note that species determination by morphology may be unreliable, and that is one reason they cross-checked with DNA.

Blue Meanies: one phrase, more than one use

iNaturalist’s taxon record for Panaeolus cyanescens lists “Blue Meanies” as its common name (iNaturalist). The 2025 study separately lists a sample named Blue Meanies that it assigned to Psilocybe cubensis (Cohen et al., 2025, Table 1). These records document different uses of the phrase. They do not make the two species equivalent. A profile should say which usage it means, and a photograph cannot repair an undocumented label. See why the name Blue Meanies is ambiguous, or watch our film Blue Meanie: one nickname, two mushrooms.

A formal variety: a classification that needs a dated source

Psilocybe serbica var. bohemica is a published varietal combination, by Borovička, Oborník and Noordeloos, in Mycological Progress in 2011. The Species Fungorum record we opened on 4 October 2026 gives Psilocybe bohemica Šebek (1983) as its current name and describes the variety epithet as superseded (Species Fungorum). That is one authority’s treatment, not a claim that every reference classifies it the same way. The example shows why a formal variety should come with a scientific citation. Adding “variety” to a commercial description does not create the same kind of name.

What is the difference between an alias, a synonym and a common name?

These words describe different relationships, and a good directory states which one it records. An abbreviation shortens a name. A spelling variant changes its written form. A common name records everyday usage. A scientific synonym has a documented nomenclatural or taxonomic relationship, like Stropharia cubensis and Psilocybe cubensis above. A misapplied name was used for material it did not correctly identify.

Similar-looking commercial names should stay separate until evidence connects them. Resemblance may be a useful research lead, but it does not establish shared ancestry.

What can a magic mushroom name not tell you by itself?

A fixed chemical profile

A 2026 study grew 14 named Psilocybe cubensis strains under uniform laboratory conditions and found total tryptamine content varied more than 7.8-fold between strains. In six selected strains, the coefficient of variation for psilocybin among individual fruiting bodies ranged from 12.81% to 23.39% (Sharchaton et al., 2026). The authors conclude that species and strain identification alone cannot predict chemical content. The strain names there were designations declared with the cultures, which the authors checked against the appearance of the fruiting bodies. That supports caution about treating a label as a fixed chemical specification. A result needs its sample identity, method and scope, and one measurement should not become a permanent ranking for a name. Our potency evidence guide explains how to read those limits.

A distinctive experience or health benefit

The two chemistry studies above measured compounds in mushroom material. Neither tested how people experience a named mushroom, so neither can support a claim that a name is gentle, creative or spiritual. Such a claim needs evidence that actually examines the outcome. Personal accounts can describe someone’s experience, but they should remain attributed reports rather than become a profile’s defining scientific claim.

A documented origin

A geographic label is not a collection record, and a name that suggests a cross is not evidence of parentage. An origin account needs dated sources and a traceable connection to the material. “The earliest record located” is also narrower than “the first occurrence ever”. Our origin-research guide covers those distinctions, and the Amazonian film looks at one geographic label.

How can you check a magic mushroom profile or name list?

1. What kind of name is it? Look for a clear category rather than an unexplained “strain”.
2. Where is the evidence? Follow the citation to the record or study supporting the claim.
3. How far does the finding apply? A result about one sample should stay attached to that sample.
4. What remains uncertain? Conflicting identities and incomplete histories should be visible.
5. Who is responsible? Check authorship, review responsibility and meaningful update dates.

“Marketed under this name”, “listed in a taxonomic record” and “identified in this study” are different evidence statements. A reliable profile tells you which one it can support. For the wider background, start with what magic mushrooms are, and see the history of magic mushrooms for how the names arose. The film Tidal Wave shows what happens when one name meets one lab result.

Do names tell you whether a mushroom is safe or legal?

Legal position, checked 4 October 2026. Health Canada states that the production, sale and possession of magic mushrooms are illegal in Canada, and that activities with psilocybin and psilocin are illegal unless authorized by Health Canada (Health Canada). The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act lists psilocin and psilocybin in Schedule III (Justice Laws). In the United States, federal regulation 21 CFR 1308.11(d) lists psilocybin and psilocyn in Schedule I (eCFR); this article does not cover state or local law. Both lists name compounds, not mushroom names or labels, so a name or an advertised listing establishes neither an authorization nor legality. For Canadian history, see how magic mushrooms became illegal in Canada.

Shroomverse sells mushroom products. This article is general information about mushroom names and taxonomy. It is not medical, legal or identification advice, and it does not recommend any product.