|
 deadmeadow
Stranger
Registered: 01/31/12
Posts: 81
Last seen: 7 days, 23 hours
|
 Re: requirements for new species [Re: pseudotsuga]
#15759176 - 02/04/12 05:35 AM (3 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Psilocybe deadmeadow.
Dukes up bitches. 
|
sleep00
Stranger
Registered: 05/30/10
Posts: 41
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: deadmeadow]
#15772507 - 02/07/12 05:46 AM (3 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
relevant article:
Phylogenetic Species Recognition and Species Concepts in Fungi
John W. Taylor,* David J. Jacobson,* Scott Kroken,* Takao Kasuga,†
David M. Geiser,‡ David S. Hibbett,§ and Matthew C. Fisher*
http://www.efn.uncor.edu/departamentos/divbioeco/divveg1/clases%20micologia/taylor%20et%20al.%202000.pdf
|
ghostdad
pudding
Registered: 10/28/11
Posts: 123
Loc: ATLANTIS
Last seen: 8 days, 17 hours
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: sleep00]
#15775057 - 02/07/12 04:27 PM (3 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sleep00 said:
relevant article:
Phylogenetic Species Recognition and Species Concepts in Fungi
John W. Taylor,* David J. Jacobson,* Scott Kroken,* Takao Kasuga,†
David M. Geiser,‡ David S. Hibbett,§ and Matthew C. Fisher*
http://www.efn.uncor.edu/departamentos/divbioeco/divveg1/clases%20micologia/taylor%20et%20al.%202000.pdf
This is Brilliant, Thanks for the Article !!!
|
 teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 4,734
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: ghostdad]
#15790405 - 02/10/12 08:55 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Id start with the DNA and go from there, you would prob want to learn the BLAST for that:
http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
|
sleep00
Stranger
Registered: 05/30/10
Posts: 41
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: teknix]
#15801803 - 02/13/12 05:16 AM (3 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Blast is pairwise alignment (2 sequences are compared). It would be useful to determine the "distance" between the species you've started from and your "new" one.
However you'd have to sequence your DNA. It would be much less work for the amateur biochemist to work some DNA-DNA/RNA-RNA hybridisation assays if he were to compare 2 different 16S RNA.
If we want to compare multiple sequences (unknown species against a large group of known species) you'd choose for Clustal, T-Coffee or MUSCLE analysis. Which have a nice phylogenetic tree as output.
Note that you can not use translated BLAST with 16S RNA as the amino acid substitution log-odds are not aplicable to ribosomal RNA (its not a protein). It is however if you use a conserved protein to base your tree on.
|
Wing
The Eye Tyrant
Registered: 04/25/11
Posts: 2,027
Loc: Middle of the East Coast 
Last seen: 4 hours, 49 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: ghostdad]
#15807647 - 02/14/12 09:37 AM (3 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
First off you would have to make sure this new species isn't really just a variety of an already exsisting species. I wouldn't even dream of thinking any further ahead until that is established.
Quote:
ghostdad said:
as for discovery, I pull 15-25 unique species per outing.
--------------------
My Grow Logs
|
Terry M
Stranger in a Strange Land
Registered: 06/18/10
Posts: 800
Loc: Rhode Island
Last seen: 4 hours, 23 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: Wing]
#15808521 - 02/14/12 01:48 PM (3 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Just because you can't identify it doesn't mean it's a new species.
--------------------
Obsessed with edibles all my waking hours.
|
ghostdad
pudding
Registered: 10/28/11
Posts: 123
Loc: ATLANTIS
Last seen: 8 days, 17 hours
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: Terry M]
#15814520 - 02/15/12 04:17 PM (3 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Terry M said:
Just because you can't identify it doesn't mean it's a new species.
In fairness I said unique, not new
I'm sure that shelf fungi/puff balls/LBMs/large amanitas/jellies can vary plenty enough, even on the macro level to tell how many different things i find.
|
San
Novice
Registered: 10/30/11
Posts: 532
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: ghostdad]
#15816991 - 02/16/12 01:02 AM (3 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I knew a guy that discovered categorized and named a local species, but he was doing a lot of schooling at the time in biology, botany and especially mycology. If you don't know how the system works then you're probably not fit for the job.
I could refer you to him if you wanted, but leave the shroomery out of it. He'd probably be ashamed that an admirer of him posts on these boards. Message me if you're interested 
--------------------
Actually not everyone was a noob. Being a noob is a very new phenomenon. Many people, the great majority in fact, were simply "beginners", "novices" or "new to mushroom growing". Being a "noob" is reserved, and in fact created specifically for and by, the newer, much more lame generations coming about.
-Shpongle1
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure
Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 37,007
Loc: USA Mountain Northwest
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: San]
#15817879 - 02/16/12 08:45 AM (3 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
San said:
I could refer you to him if you wanted, but leave the shroomery out of it. He'd probably be ashamed that an admirer of him posts on these boards. Message me if you're interested
In which case he's a dumbass to be disregarded.
Many of the innovations and discoveries in mycology have come from psilocybe growers over the last 50 years. Furthermore, every professional mycologist I've ever met traveling the conference circuit got his start growing psilocybe mushrooms, as did I, over 40 years ago. If you haven't sat around a circle with 50 to 90 year-old-men talking about tripping and the benefits and knowledge they've received, don't assume anyone who has climbed the ladder in this science is against boards like this one. It just ain't so.
RR
--------------------
www.mushroomvideos.com
semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat
|
Wing
The Eye Tyrant
Registered: 04/25/11
Posts: 2,027
Loc: Middle of the East Coast
Last seen: 4 hours, 49 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: RogerRabbit]
#15818053 - 02/16/12 09:30 AM (3 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you haven't sat around a circle with 50 to 90 year-old-men talking about tripping and the benefits and knowledge they've received, don't assume anyone who has climbed the ladder in this science is against boards like this one. It just ain't so.
RR
--------------------
My Grow Logs
|
San
Novice
Registered: 10/30/11
Posts: 532
Last seen: 19 hours, 50 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: RogerRabbit]
#15830367 - 02/18/12 11:49 PM (3 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
That post wasn't in reference to the hallucinogenic nature of species commonly discussed here, but rather the nature of the discussions themselves.
--------------------
Actually not everyone was a noob. Being a noob is a very new phenomenon. Many people, the great majority in fact, were simply "beginners", "novices" or "new to mushroom growing". Being a "noob" is reserved, and in fact created specifically for and by, the newer, much more lame generations coming about.
-Shpongle1
|
smitty5606
country boy
Registered: 01/07/12
Posts: 240
Loc: southern states
Last seen: 5 hours, 15 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: San]
#15835151 - 02/19/12 09:36 PM (3 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
San what's your friends name and what species did he discover...
|
Amphibolos
Duc de l'absurde
Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 141
Loc: Québec!! 
Last seen: 1 hour, 57 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: RogerRabbit]
#15838280 - 02/20/12 02:37 PM (3 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I'd like to point out that some laboratories (especially the ones related to mycorhizaes) discover new soil fungus nearly every week. They just dont bother to identify them and often discard them because the new species arent what they are looking for
At least, its what happen in our forestry faculty
--------------------
Aaah fresh meat
Totus tuus Jack
Its funny how traditional biologists seek mechanisms avidly, but still assert that biology cannot be treated like a machine.
Edited by Amphibolos (02/20/12 02:38 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 24,722
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: ghostdad]
#15840861 - 02/20/12 11:54 PM (3 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ghostdad said:
so if I were looking into getting a newly discovered Mycological species named after myself, what steps would be needed?
It is actually pretty easy. Since you can not name a species after yourself, you would bring the new species to the attention of a mycologist and convince them to name it after you. It would be around 100 hours of work for the mycologist.
Quote:
would i need to be able to cultivate the new specimen?
No, cultivation is irrelevant with regards to naming a new species.
Quote:
would i need to do preliminary microscopy work?
That would help in convincing a mycologist that it is new, and would go a long ways towards convincing the mycologist that you deserve to have it named after you.
Quote:
who would I need to appeal to to have this made official?
A scientific paper needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal.
Quote:
would i need to make the name Latin-like "E.G. Agaricus-ghostfatherus" ? or would "Agaricus-ghostdad" suffice?
It needs to be grammatically correct in latin. Something like Psilocybe ghostdadii.
If you do it wrong you will be hit with "Nom. inval., Art. 36.1".
Quote:
hellokitty said:
are you being serious? i think you need to discovery said species first, id worry about naming after you find it...
Discovery is not a necessary part of the process. There are tons of common mushrooms in California that have no scientific name - Anyone can come along and name it. One example is Amanita franchetii - It is a common Amanita in California, but clearly different than the European A. franchetii. My friend is naming it A. augusta, the paper will be out soon.
There are hundreds of US mushrooms that are going under incorrect European names. All that needs to be done is to study the European material, write up the differences and publish a paper with a new name.
Quote:
pseudotsuga said:
You need to know the microscopic and macro features of the fungi and describe them in latin as well as english.
That is no longer the case - Now an English description alone is enough. New rules.
Quote:
metacohl said:
I would think that at least culturing on agar is standard procedure so the mycellium can be described on various agar media.
That information is almost never included in papers describing new species.
Quote:
Quote:
would i need to do preliminary microscopy work?
I really don't think your report on the new species would be taken seriously without this. Fungal species and phenotypes can be difficult to distinguish from macroscopic features. Really, the same can be said about their microscope features. I personally think DNA sequencing is the only way to go for concrete identification of new species.
Not preliminary microscopy work - Solid microscopy work. For example, measure 170 spores, drop the lowest and highest 5%. Measure 30 cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia.
DNA analysis is not required, but it should be in my opinion. 50% of new species described these days have genetic data to back them up.
Quote:
There may be some sort of group that keeps a collection of established species names
Mycobank and Index Fungorum.
Quote:
SomeGuy said:
I'm thinking that you have to find it more than one time
You can name a new species off of 1 collection with just a couple fruit bodies. Guzman does it all the time. He can crank out a new species paper in an afternoon. But I would not name anything new without at least 5 voucher collections studied.
A lot of his new species are being synonymized now that they are sequencing all the type collections.
Quote:
ghostdad said:
If the Shroomery had to name a species after a collective honorary, who would we chose?
John Allen.
|
SomeGuy
I feel better now :)
Registered: 04/18/10
Posts: 7,381
Loc:
Last seen: 39 minutes, 6 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said:
Quote:
ghostdad said:
Quote:
ghostdad said:
If the Shroomery had to name a species after a collective honorary, who would we chose?
John Allen.
nu-uhh!
If somebody had said, "what do you think Alan Rockefellar would name a new mushroom?" I'd have said John Allen 
I have never spoken to the guy, and have absolutely nothing agaist the guy, but honestly, Alan, do you owe him money or something?
If I pm you that John Allen is teaching me how to ID mushrooms, and we've been at it for a month, can I get a TI badge? 
Alan I have a lot of respect for your knowledge in the feild of mycology, but I can't understand your motives sometimes 
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure
Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 37,007
Loc: USA Mountain Northwest
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: SomeGuy]
#15841748 - 02/21/12 07:57 AM (3 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
John Allen is OK and has done a lot for the community. Roadkill and I know him pretty well from Seattle. He got pissy over being falsely accused of being a pedo by trolls in OTD and wigged out. If I had been moderating OTD I'd have banned the trolls and preserved the relationship with John, but the philosophy around here is OTD is FOR the trolls. I advised John during that time to just ignore them, because being trolled comes with success.
RR
--------------------
www.mushroomvideos.com
semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat
|
Javadog
Continuing along
Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 6,055
Loc: USA
|
Re: requirements for new species [Re: RogerRabbit]
#15842048 - 02/21/12 09:37 AM (3 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
"being trolled comes with success."
QFT!
That episode is a stain on our past. I joined not too long afterwards,
and was no part of the situation, but if I had been I would have done
what I could to get past the trolls.
I am taking "John Allen" prints right now. It is an interesting strain.
Take care,
JD
--------------------
Boyd Rice told my brother that life is a corny pack of freesakes
Myco-tek.org
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
