|
 sum0
TheGanjaLord
 
Registered: 06/04/10
Posts: 565
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 39 minutes, 42 seconds
|
 Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa 
#15589064 - 12/29/11 09:51 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey Shroomerites,
I decided to post this thread in order to get some insight into the differences between the Northern wood-loving Cyanescens and the Australasian Subaeruginosa.
According to the Shroomery dosage calculator, Subs have more psilocybin than Cyans, but Cyans have double the psilocin of Subs.
This adds to the confusion, and I wonder if this is accurate, as it has been proposed that Subs and Cyans are very, very near identical.
So, if anyone would like to fill in any gaps as to the difference between these two Species, It would add to everyones knowledge im sure 
|
 xthrx
Stranger
Registered: 04/29/09
Posts: 795
Last seen: 5 minutes, 48 seconds
|
 Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: sum0]
#15589311 - 12/29/11 10:38 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Basically they are only microscopically different and have different characters. Cyans = Generally thicker and have wavy caps etc.
But in my opinion they're either the same species OR cyans grow in NZ. Because at multiple locations every single shroom found has the characteristics of cyans [every single mushroom has a wavy cap from a young age and grow different.
|
wintersbefore
Trust me I'm a mycologist
Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 2,603
Loc: Vonore, TN
Last seen: 4 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: xthrx]
#15591313 - 12/30/11 12:05 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Looking in BLAST, Psilocybe subaeruginosa strain RV95/448 a partial sequence from large subunit ribosomal RNA gene matched at 99 percent to "Psilocybe cyanescens strain CBS 295.94 18S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence; internal transcribed spacer 1, 5.8S ribosomal
RNA gene, and internal transcribed spacer 2, complete
sequence;"
That would mean they are the pretty much genetically identical? Anyone know how to interpret BLAST results better than me? Can the two be compared that way (large subunit ribosomal RNA gene only compared to ribosomal RNA gene AND ITS)?
|
ehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: xthrx]
#15591998 - 12/30/11 03:08 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Ignore what the dosage calculator says about differences in psilocin/psilocybin levels. Variation like that happens in every active species, collection to collection, specimen to specimen.
Quote:
xthrx said:
Basically they are only microscopically different and have different characters. Cyans = Generally thicker and have wavy caps etc.
But in my opinion they're either the same species OR cyans grow in NZ. Because at multiple locations every single shroom found has the characteristics of cyans [every single mushroom has a wavy cap from a young age and grow different.
They are not Microscopically different, or at least the differences are minute and infrequent (this can happen within an accepted species as different people examine it over the years anyways). The phylogenetic testing appears to suggest they are the same as well, but i think there was some debate about the results at one point.
Given these species are able to mate and are pretty much the same under the scope, it would seem appropriate to make Ps. subaeruginosa a variety or subspecies of Ps. cyanescens if the Phylogenetic results are a definitive match.
When I was at the Berkeley fungus fair Alan had a Ps. subaeruginosa specimen he had just recieved and was going to thoroughly scope, so maybe there will be some resolution in the near future.
|
xthrx
Stranger
Registered: 04/29/09
Posts: 795
Last seen: 5 minutes, 48 seconds
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: ehtdaedlufetarg]
#15592570 - 12/30/11 04:50 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
They could be microscopically different, its pretty unclear. I also did say that they're the same species. You're right about mushrooms growing differently based on condition and environment, thats obvious.
|
LanLord
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 1,703
Loc: San Mateo, Ca. USA
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: wintersbefore]
#15592649 - 12/30/11 05:11 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wintersbefore said:
Looking in BLAST, Psilocybe subaeruginosa strain RV95/448 a partial sequence from large subunit ribosomal RNA gene matched at 99 percent to "Psilocybe cyanescens strain CBS 295.94 18S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence; internal transcribed spacer 1, 5.8S ribosomal
RNA gene, and internal transcribed spacer 2, complete
sequence;"
That would mean they are the pretty much genetically identical? Anyone know how to interpret BLAST results better than me? Can the two be compared that way (large subunit ribosomal RNA gene only compared to ribosomal RNA gene AND ITS)?
Isn't chimpanzee DNA about 99% the same as human? That 1% makes a big difference. Since amanitin is built upon an indole the same as psilocybin, I could see 1% being the difference between psychedelic and lethal or at least toxic.
--------------------
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment.
|
 maynardjameskeenan
The white stipes
Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 6,817
Loc: 'Merica
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: LanLord]
#15592690 - 12/30/11 05:21 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What is the definition of a "species" when talking about mushroom? What makes one species different enough from another to give it a different species name? IMO they are one in the same. Black Africans have longer tendons in there legs and they have a better since of taste than us northern European descendents but we are the same species, maybe from the outside we look a lot different but again we are all the same species! So macroscopically and microscopically we are different but we are the same and that is how evolution works.
Edited by maynardjameskeenan (12/30/11 05:26 PM)
|
wintersbefore
Trust me I'm a mycologist
Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 2,603
Loc: Vonore, TN
Last seen: 4 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
Quote:
maynardjameskeenan said:
What is the definition of a "species" when talking about mushroom? What makes one species different enough from another to give it a different species name? IMO they are one in the same. Black Africans have longer tendons in there legs and they have a better since of taste than us northern European descendents but we are the same species, maybe from the outside we look a lot different but again we are all the same species! So macroscopically and microscopically we are different but we are the same and that is how evolution works.
They way I was tought this, and I am just learning this, I should know alot more by the end of next semester, but species are dilimited on the bases of 97% similarity of ITS region sequence comparisons. So basically anything that is 97 percent similar when comparing those regions is the same species, however, in GenBank, there were no ITS region sequences available for P. subaeruginosa so I dont know if the two can be compared yet? BUT @Landlord, when you make ITS region comparisons with human and chimp sequences, it is only about 88 percent, so when they say that we are 97 percent similar to chimps they are not comparing ITS region information...
Edited by wintersbefore (12/30/11 05:39 PM)
|
SomeGuy
I feel better now :)
Registered: 04/18/10
Posts: 7,496
Loc: 
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: wintersbefore]
#15593140 - 12/30/11 07:05 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I thought that species are differentiated by mating incompatability, IE they can't form dicaryons in culture. If they could they would be varieties
|
wintersbefore
Trust me I'm a mycologist
Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 2,603
Loc: Vonore, TN
Last seen: 4 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: SomeGuy]
#15593209 - 12/30/11 07:23 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SomeGuy said:
I thought that species are differentiated by mating incompatability, IE they can't form dicaryons in culture. If they could they would be varieties
I believe that phylogenetic analyses has emerged as the primary tool for inferring species boundaries in fungi (versus species demarcation based on morphology/the morphological species concept). Maybe because it would be nearly impossible to make observations on every species with respect to whether they can mate with some other species, whereas it is fairly easy to enter a genetic sequence into a database and have a reasonable threashold of 97%. Not sure how it compares to mating studies (which would be the biologica species concept for what constitutes a "species")... Like, can it be said with any certainty that all species that are greater than 97% similar can mate?
|
SomeGuy
I feel better now :)
Registered: 04/18/10
Posts: 7,496
Loc:
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: wintersbefore]
#15593219 - 12/30/11 07:26 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I would say definately not. Homosapiens can't mate with chimps (as far as I know)
|
wintersbefore
Trust me I'm a mycologist
Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 2,603
Loc: Vonore, TN
Last seen: 4 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: SomeGuy]
#15593254 - 12/30/11 07:34 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SomeGuy said:
I would say definately not. Homosapiens can't mate with chimps(as far as I know)
Again, human and chimps are only about 88% similar with respect to ITS region sequences, so really, thats how "species" are determined in fungi... It would be really interesting to know how ITS region sequences compare among Humans of different races, I haven't done this yet but this is going to be the first question I ask when I get back to the lab 
|
SomeGuy
I feel better now :)
Registered: 04/18/10
Posts: 7,496
Loc:
Last seen: 1 month, 30 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: wintersbefore]
#15593265 - 12/30/11 07:38 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
be sure to let us know what you find out. Like how similar is a horse and a donkey? Obviously they can mate
|
ehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: xthrx]
#15594440 - 12/31/11 12:24 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xthrx said:
They could be microscopically different, its pretty unclear. I also did say that they're the same species. You're right about mushrooms growing differently based on condition and environment, thats obvious.
What are the possible differences and what's unclear? This isn't me trying to defend they are the same, ive never looked at them for myself, I'm just uninformed. I'd love any links you got to recent comparisons or micrographs etc. especially for Ps. subaeruginosa.
What did I say about conditions and environment?
Edited by ehtdaedlufetarg (12/31/11 12:27 AM)
|
Sporulator
Experimenter
Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 760
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: ehtdaedlufetarg]
#15594579 - 12/31/11 12:53 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by Sporulator (12/31/11 02:18 AM)
|
Dubwobble
Psilocybe Stoopin'
Registered: 12/17/10
Posts: 548
Loc: CA, USA
Last seen: 11 months, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: Sporulator]
#15595113 - 12/31/11 03:43 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I love you fungophiles. Some cool info being discussed.
|
ehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: ehtdaedlufetarg]
#15597217 - 12/31/11 04:08 PM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sporulator said:
Molecular phylogeny of Psilocybe cyanescens complex in Europe,
including the position of Psilocybe subaeruginosa within the phylogenetic tree:
Full paper:
http://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=psilocybe%20cyanescens%20complex&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelaboratory.org%2Ftalk%2Freferences%2Fmolecular-phylogeny-of-psilocybe-cyanescens-complex-in-europe-with-reference-to%2F%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Battach%3D986&ei=baD-TohFgvnhBP_IyY0I&usg=AFQjCNH5WLajzjfnKZZIpQBixtJMKzxK6g&sig2=h3_5qMPtg7q2uvw7T7bTXw
Thanks! Do you know why that includes Psilocybe australiana? I though it was determined to be Ps. subaeruginosa along with Ps. eucalypta and one other species that escapes me.
I remember when the european cyanescens complex was made varieties of Ps. serbica, but I totally missed that they put Weraroa in the american cyanescens complex. I never would have guessed that, especially by looks.
Quote:
ehtdaedlufetarg said:
Given these species are able to mate and are pretty much the same under the scope, it would seem appropriate to make Ps. subaeruginosa a variety or subspecies of Ps. cyanescens if the Phylogenetic results are a definitive match.
I need to correct myself here, I was speaking as if Ps. cyanofriscosa were the subject here. I brain farted on the whole cyanofriscosa may be subaeruginosa thing, and swapped them in my head for this part. Ps. subaeruginosa still mates 25% of the time I believe, but rest is misinformation for now.
|
sum0
TheGanjaLord
Registered: 06/04/10
Posts: 565
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 39 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: ehtdaedlufetarg]
#15599367 - 01/01/12 02:05 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Given these species are able to mate and are pretty much the same under the scope, it would seem appropriate to make Ps. subaeruginosa a variety or subspecies of Ps. cyanescens if the Phylogenetic results are a definitive match.
Wow, looks like I may have asked more than I can digest with this thread lol.
This has yiedled some amazing info, thanks for the input from all of you.
So just to clarify, due to the way the facts are pointing, would it be reasonable to assume, that if mycelium from Cyans meet with mycelium from Subs, they will form into one organism that is genetically capable of sporulation, passing on its genes? If this is so, does this mean that this is one species, or like a horse and a donkey, can reproduce and produce a 'Mule' species that is not capable of reproduction?
|
ehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: sum0]
#15599531 - 01/01/12 03:27 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sum0 said:
Quote:
Given these species are able to mate and are pretty much the same under the scope, it would seem appropriate to make Ps. subaeruginosa a variety or subspecies of Ps. cyanescens if the Phylogenetic results are a definitive match.
Wow, looks like I may have asked more than I can digest with this thread lol.
This has yiedled some amazing info, thanks for the input from all of you.
So just to clarify, due to the way the facts are pointing, would it be reasonable to assume, that if mycelium from Cyans meet with mycelium from Subs, they will form into one organism that is genetically capable of sporulation, passing on its genes? If this is so, does this mean that this is one species, or like a horse and a donkey, can reproduce and produce a 'Mule' species that is not capable of reproduction?
They mated 25% of the time in studies I believe, as is the same for Ps. serbica and Ps. azurescens. Even if they can mate, Im not sure thats enough to make them the same species, at least with fungi. Further complicating things they only mated 25% of the time as mentioned. Im not entirely sure if the result of a hybrid would be able to reproduce, but im inclined to think it would.
Given where they placed the former Weraroa, it would be interesting to see what would happen in a mating study between it and a non-sectoid species from the Ps. cyanescens/serbica complex.
Edited by ehtdaedlufetarg (01/01/12 03:36 AM)
|
Sporulator
Experimenter
Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 760
|
Re: Psilocybe cyanescens VS Psilocybe subaeruginosa [Re: ehtdaedlufetarg]
#15599641 - 01/01/12 04:37 AM (1 year, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ehtdaedlufetarg said:
Thanks! Do you know why that includes Psilocybe australiana? I though it was determined to be Ps. subaeruginosa along with Ps. eucalypta and one other species that escapes me.
A controversial article by Chang and Mills (1992) sought to show synonymy between Psilocybe subaeruginosa,
Psilocybe australiana and Psilocybe eucalypta:
Chang, Y.S. and A.K. Mills (1992)
Re-examination of Psilocybe subaeruginosa and related species with comparative
morphology, isozymes and mating compatibility studies.
Mycological Research 96: 429-441
But according to RNA sequencing, Psilocybe subaeruginosa and Psilocybe australiana
are maybe different species. Unfortunately, there is no Psilocybe eucalypta sequencing yet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=txid181776%5BOrganism:noexp%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=txid201084%5BOrganism:noexp%5D
I think Psilocybe australiana and Psilocybe eucalypta are varieties of Psilocybe subaeruginosa
like Psilocybe bohemica, arcana etc. are varieties of Psilocybe serbica
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
