Psilocybe azurescens: the 1995 species record and the limits of the research

Most of what circulates about Psilocybe azurescens online is nickname, ranking and legend. This guide goes the other way. It sets out the formal record behind the name, shows what a type specimen and a genome resource do and do not establish, and says plainly where the published research stops. It covers the name and the paper trail, not the mushroom itself.

What is Psilocybe azurescens, taxonomically?

It is a species in the genus Psilocybe. The Species Fungorum name record, which mirrors the Index Fungorum database kept at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, lists the name as Psilocybe azurescens Stamets & Gartz, published in Integration: Journal for Mind Moving Plants and Culture 6: 21 (1995), and marks it as the current name (Species Fungorum). The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) shows the same authors, the same publication details and an accepted status (GBIF). NCBI's taxonomy record gives the name as Psilocybe azurescens Stamets & Gartz, 1995, rank species (NCBI Taxonomy). Wikidata agrees on the name and places it in the genus Psilocybe (Wikidata).

The 1995 paper is cited in a 2025 genome paper as Stamets P, Gartz J. 1995. “A new caerulescent psilocybe from the pacific coast of Northwestern America.” Integration 6: 21–28 (Bollinger et al., 2025). We have not been able to read the original paper, which is why this page says nothing about what it describes.

Higher classification differs between databases. Species Fungorum and NCBI place the genus in the family Agrocybaceae, while GBIF places it in Hymenogastraceae (Species Fungorum; NCBI Taxonomy; GBIF). The authors, year and species name are consistent across them, so those are the details this page relies on.

What does the holotype record show?

A holotype is the single specimen on which a species name is based. The Species Fungorum record lists the holotype as held at the herbarium abbreviated WTU, collected by Stamets, with a collection date of 21 November 1993 (Species Fungorum). The NCBI taxonomy record gives type material as “WTU: F:019095” (NCBI Taxonomy). The two records are consistent, but they are different databases and the accession appears only in the second. Check the herbarium's own catalogue for the exact form of the accession.

A type specimen helps anchor the application of a scientific name. It is not a promise that every specimen later labelled with that name has been correctly identified, and the identifiers are catalogue numbers, not a description of the species. The name records also give a host and a locality for the type collection. We have left both out on purpose: this page exists to describe the record, not to point anyone toward a mushroom.

What does the 1995 date mean?

The publication date is a milestone in formal scientific naming. It marks when the name was published with its description and type, not when the fungus first existed, when people first encountered it, or when it acquired every later nickname. An account can accurately credit a published description without claiming that nobody knew of the organism beforehand. That distinction keeps a history from turning into a discovery legend. Our guide to researching magic mushroom origin stories explains how to separate naming, collection and origin claims.

Does the 2025 genome paper tell us how strong it is?

No. A 2025 paper in Microbiology Resource Announcements presents five draft genomes, including one for Psilocybe azurescens, to support study of the psilocybin gene cluster and to improve taxonomic resolution in the genus (Bollinger et al., 2025). For this species, the paper reports a genome of about 79.8 million base pairs, assembled from a culture cloned from a wild-collected fruit body, with the culture's identity confirmed by morphology and the ITS DNA barcode (Bollinger et al., 2025). It reports that the species' psilocybin gene cluster largely matched the previously described arrangement in a related species (Bollinger et al., 2025).

That gives researchers material for studying biological relationships and genetic features. In the text we read, we found no chemical measurement, no concentration and no human or animal data. So a genome is not a strength certificate: it cannot, by itself, show a characteristic human effect or a universal chemical concentration. It is also one isolate from one source, so it is not a survey of the species. When a headline jumps from “genome sequenced” to “effects explained,” ask what the study actually measured.

Has the species itself been studied?

Very little that we could find uses it as test material. A Europe PMC search for the exact name on 4 October 2026 returned 24 records, and we found one whose title names the species as the test material: a 2026 study in the Journal of Neuroscience Research that gave a P. azurescens preparation to male rats and reported that, at high doses, the rats showed more anxiety-like and depressive-like behaviour and less social interaction, with changes in markers of inflammation and oxidative stress. The authors describe it as the first study of oral consumption of the species in rats (Moghadam et al., 2026).

We read only the abstract, so we cannot say how the mushroom material was identified or analysed. The study is a single animal experiment using a preparation of the mushroom. It does not show what any amount does in people, and it is not a basis for judging any mushroom or any amount. We mention it only to show how thin the direct literature is and why a species name alone should not carry claims about effects. Evidence: preliminary.

Why does this page not name a strongest species?

A ranking depends on the material sampled, the compounds measured and the comparison method. A single high result cannot establish a stable property of a whole species, and a source has to say whether it measured independent collections or repeated portions of the same material. Our guide to what potency lab studies do and do not establish sets out those requirements. This article therefore offers no potency tier, no use guidance and no claim that one species gives a more desirable experience.

Why is there no description of what it looks like?

The name and type metadata above are checked directly against the databases. A physical description would need to come from the original 1995 treatment, which we have not read. Rather than copy unsourced measurements or turn a few visible traits into an identification shortcut, we publish none. If a photograph is added later, it should be tied to reliably identified material and carry a caption explaining the scope of that identification. It should illustrate the reference, not invite readers to certify an unknown specimen by resemblance. For how names of this kind relate to one another, see our directory of magic mushroom species and names and the parallel naming reference on Psilocybe cyanescens.

What this page does not settle

• What the original 1995 description says in full. We have not read it, and it is not summarised here (not covered).
• The exact herbarium accession form for the holotype. Two databases give it differently or only once (unresolved).
• The current family-level placement. Databases disagree (unresolved).
• Chemical content of any particular material. Nothing cited here measures it (not covered).
• Any effect in people. The one direct study we found is an animal study read only at the abstract level (preliminary).
• Legal status. This page does not address it; check the official sources for your jurisdiction.

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.