The first published objection to Safford’s identification 
appeared in 1936 (17): “Dem [the SafFord identification] 
muss widersprochen werden. Die Nanacates sind Gifl- 
pilze, die mit Peyote nichts zu tun haben. Seit alten 
Zeiten ist es bekannt, dass ihr Genuss Rauschzustande, 
Extasen, und Geistesstorungen hervorruft, aber trotz 
ihrer Gefahrlichkeit hat man sie iiberall, wo sie vorkom- 
men, wegen ihrer berauschenden Eigenschaften bis auf 
den heutigen Tag geschatzt”. V. A.Reko (17) suggests, 
but without corroboration or evidence, that nanacatl 
might be a species of Amanita. This refutation of Saf¬ 
ford’s identification, however, is important inasmuch as 
it once more centered attention on the problem. In 1937 
and in 1938, I (23,24) summarized the evidence against 
the identity of peyote and teonanacatl, and in 1938, La 
Barre (13) also indicated his doubts of Safford’s identifi¬ 
cation. 
Fray Bernardino de Sahagun (c. 1499-1590) was the 
first European to record the use of teonanacatl as a nar¬ 
cotic. There are several distinct references to this plant 
in his Historia de las cosas de Nueva Espana (20). One 
of these references, in a general consideration of useful 
plants, states that: 
. . . they [the Chichimecas] possessed a great knowledge of plants 
and roots, and they were acquainted with properties and virtues of 
them; these same people were the first to discover and use the root 
which they called peiotl , and those who are accustomed to eat and 
drink them used them in place of wine; and they did the same with 
those which they call nanacatl , which are harmful mushrooms which 
intoxicate in the same way as wine . . . 
A more detailed report of nanacatl is to be found in 
a chapter devoted to the consideration of narcotic and 
intoxicating plants: 
There are some small mushrooms in that region which are called 
teonanacatl ; these grow under the grass (hay) of the fields and P* s " 
[48] 
