|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,601
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
|
Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata
#6910508 - 05/13/07 05:01 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There has been some heated debate regarding whether the recent collections from the NE USA are the well known Psilocybe caerulipes or the virtually unknown P. ovoideocystidiata. Honestly, I was siding with the P. caerulipes crowd until I looked at an outdoor cultivated specimen under the microscope. I mean, what else could it have been since there is only supposed to be one active Psilocybe in the NE? Ah well......
I've gathered together all of the relevent information I can find regarding the two species so everyone can see for themselves why Guzman discounted P. caerulipes as a possibility. Note the differences in spore and cheliocystidia shape and the lack of pleurocystidia and annulus in P. caerulipes.
Bethany sample Sporeworks.com material
Pileus 36 mm diameter (one specimen) Stipe 82 x 3.5 mm (one specimen) Spores 8-10 x 6-7 µm subrhomboid to rhomboid, subellipsoid in side view Cheliocystidia 20-21 x 6-8 µm Pleurocystidia abundant Annulus membraneous ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata (published description)
Pileus (10–) 15–25 (–45) mm diameter Stipe (15–) 25–60 (–90) × (1–) 2–5 (–7) mm Spores (7–) 8–9 (–12) × (5.5–) 6–7 (–8.5) rhomboid or subrhomboid in face view, subellipsoid in side view Cheilocystidia of two types, a: short, 18–22 × 5–9 (–11) µm, as pleurocystidia type a; b: 25–29 × 9–13 µm, globose, pedunculate or subpedunculate Pleurocystidia of two types, a: short, 16–24 (–35) × 6–8 (–10) µm, hyaline, ventricose-rostrate, with an acute or broad base; b: large, 20–30 (–40) × (10–) 12–16 (–20) Annulus membraneous ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Psilocybe caerulipes (published description)
Pileus 10-30 (-40) mm in diameter Stipe 30-60 (-70) x 2-3 (-4) mm Spores (7-) 8.2-9.9 (-11) x 3.8-5.5 (-6) µm ellipsoid to subellipsoid Cheliocystidia 18-35 x 4.5-7.5 µm lageniform or sublageniform with a short to long flexuous neck. Pleurocystidia absent Annulus absent
While I was working on the Bethany specimen, I was thinking how similar this species was to Psilocybe subaeruginascens. I later read this in Guzmans article: Quote:
This species is close to Psilocybe subaeruginascens Hohnel from Java, P. septentrionalis (Guzmán) Guzmán from Japan
The sporeworks.com website needs to be updated with this corrected information. It may not happen for a couple of days so be aware that the samples labeled Psilocybe caerulipes are incorrect.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification
Edited by Workman (05/15/07 11:01 PM)
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6910651 - 05/13/07 06:01 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you workman, I still finally have P. caerulipes on the way to Bangkok from the University Michigan so I will get DNA as well as SEM and Chemical analysis for my paper with Dan and others.
Good observations but I already read them and as you known, themajority of posters inthese threads have no mycologicval knowledge about the taxonomic feattures of most of the shrooms they love to eat.
have a shroomy day, Mj
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6910673 - 05/13/07 06:06 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's good to be wrong sometimes. It's humbling.
Beautiful specimens and photography. I'll have to send Guzman an apologetic note. Thank you Workman.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: mjshroomer]
#6910697 - 05/13/07 06:13 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Hey John,
I sent some P. ovoideocystidiata samples to Bangkok last Monday, so they should be there soon if not already. I also found that perfect cluster I was looking for this weekend.
I will email you the photos tomorrow. Science is fun.
|
xmush
Professor ofDoom
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6910908 - 05/13/07 07:22 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Great job workman. You are the first to tell those of us here 'with no real mycological knowledge' what the difference is between the two species. Guzman's paper presents a description of the new species, but fails to compare it directly to caerulipes. MJ, in typical fashion, simply states over and over again that they are not the same species, that guzman knows more than we do, and that we are stupid for even making an argument. But he never really told us *how* the two are different. With this post, treating us like the intelligent, curious, hobbyists that we are, you have given us the evidence we need to agree and understand why these are two different species. Thank you for showing the hunting forum the respect that others fail to.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: xmush]
#6911091 - 05/13/07 07:54 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Xmush,
I did show the difference when I posted all of the original taxonomic descriptions of P. caerulipes from 1887 on, along with Singer and Smiths and Smiths descriptions and a little of the Stamets, most of which I had to go and xerox from the UW of excised pages , having me go to other libraries to get the journal articles which were, xerox replacements because assholes cut shroom photos and data from hundreds ofr hj journals and books along the whole of the West Coast and at many of the best University libraries, as well as the journals in many libraries in the pnw, and I showed those differences in a post here.
And then posted the article by Guzman for comparison.
AS i noted along time ago, I should not have to prove anything to anyone if I post something and say so. The fact that apparently you did not see them is not my fault.
I spent a lot of my valuable time posting those here for everyone and still people liked to seem to find my research questionable.
Many scholars ask why I even spend my time with everyone here posting data and information and then having to put up with shit.
It really makes me not want to post anything here anymore.
I have too many papers to work on to spend the time I did defending What I knew was correct to began with.
I really think many of the smroomers here really need to go to school and pay for their education and quit asking stupid qwuestions about where shrooms grow, when do they grow, should I call the weather channel for rain reports.
I have spent a few thousand dollars over the past thirty years for my classes in mycology and graphic arts and I have spent a large amount of money for the many thousands of pages of articles I have xeroxed or bought over the years. Now, thanks to the internet, a lot of you will soon have to start paying for your own data on shrooms because 70 percent of all journals are now almost exclusively online.
My paper with Dan and my colleagues on Ohio midwest and near east shrooms will most likely be in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology (online only since 2002), at $25 to $35 dollars an article or copy thereof and as much as four hundred dollars per whole journal or in the Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, Between the two I have five articles already. Now they cost everyone and there are no printed ones in the libraries except the older issues and in the next few years, a majority of them will also be online and cost for whomever.
Workman just had to purchase an online article for $25.00 for Sporeworks. He just spaced off asking me about it cos I would have sent it to him.
I now have to resize 20 pages of the Copelandia microscopic sketches and taxonomy and then i have work to do away from here. And a possible June trip with Cactu photographing specimens in situ.
I am in the process of making an arrangement with about two hundred journals to sell, at my new mushroom site at mushroomjohn.org, Journals for ten dollars a copy, in pdf files and with security on them so they cannot be unlocked and used by others.
Since I do not sell drugs, I need to upgrade my income. My t-shirts and books and cd-roms only partially support me, My spores from the Nederlands developed by shrooms I pick out of the USA help pay my rent and food, and now I want more money and I will not be so cheap with my charges anymore.
It is now a new century and I have decided to start profiting from more than the things I normally live off of and articles are one of the ways to go about it.
mj
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,032
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6911434 - 05/13/07 08:50 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks Workman.
What was the weather like when they fruited?
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: xmush]
#6911624 - 05/13/07 09:39 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Xmush,
in your post above you made this statement in reference to my insistence that the mushrooms were not P. caerulipes, but were as Dr. Guzmán stated, P. ovoideocystidiata.
Xmush said:
Quote:
Guzman's paper presents a description of the new species, but fails to compare it directly to caerulipes. MJ, in typical fashion, simply states over and over again that they are not the same species
Xmush, Dr. Guzmán did not note P. caerulipes for comparison because it had nothing to do with P. ovoideocystidiata. As I stated all along.
then Workman in his note above, said:
Quote:
While I was working on the Bethany specimen, I was thinking how similar this species was to Psilocybe subaeruginascens. I later read this in Guzmans article
And what Dr. Guzmán wrote in the paper on P. ovoideocystidia was Quote:
This species is close to Psilocybe subaeruginascens Hohnel from Java, P. septentrionalis (Guzmán) Guzmán from Japan
Since it had nothing to do with P. caerulipes to begin with, [as I constantly noted], there was no reason for Dr. Guzmán to say anything about P. caerulipes in his paper on P. ovoideocystidiata.
Besides, the collections used for the paper on P. ovoideocystidiata were picked in 2005 and submitted for publication at the end of the year before I sent Dr. Guzmán specimens from Dan last year.
Dr. Guzmán had already written the paper on Ovoideocystidiata and sent it in to the J of medicinal mushrooms in late 2005. Then later he examined the specimens I sent him from Dan and realized they were the same as the ones in his paper.
Also I oposted Dr. Guzman's reasons for the difference of the species in the same thread and I guess you did not read that at all. That should have been the end of the discussion, but then Falcon kept going on and on.
There should have been no exchange because basically you did not believe me when i said they were two different species. Even after I posted one of the original description of P. caerulipes from 1887 by Peck and the Singer and Smith monograph (1958 and A. H. Smiths Michigan collections cited in his field guide to eastern USA shrooms with photo in 1977, and Gary Lincoff's 1978 Audubon Field Guide, as well as posting Stamets descriptions and the paper from Dr. Guzmán, all in the same thread. Enough for you and everyone else here to see the differences between the two species.
Even Falcon also did not believe what I said.
Well all is well.
mj
After I contribute the 20 pages tomorrow or the next day of the Copelandia keys and taxonomic microscopic details I doubt I will spend much time here at all.
I really have better things to do with my old age then argue with people who doubt what i say.
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,601
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: falcon]
#6911894 - 05/13/07 10:47 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Fruiting weather was 50-65F overcast with scatter showers.
I appreciate the fact that MJ posted The Description of Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata without which my comparison would be incomplete. I think the sheer volume of material shot-gunned at everyone on this issue was overwhelming. I haven't even read all of it. Only later when I had a good idea of what I needed for the comparison did I search the forums for specifics. That combined with the fact that no one (that I am aware of) on these forums actually looked at the microscopic features and no drawings of P. ovoideocystidiata are posted added to the confusion.
I can understand MJ's frustration as he did post nearly everything published to no avail. Even I wasn't convinced. I hate being wrong so I waited until I had a specimen in hand before I said anything Lucky for me.
Oh, and that article I downloaded was $40
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification
Edited by Workman (05/13/07 11:04 PM)
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,601
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6922421 - 05/15/07 11:06 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Updated top post with Psilocybe ovoideocystidiata taxonomic sketch. A good match with the micrograph composite.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification
|
zee_werp
a fractalcreature
Registered: 03/24/03
Posts: 1,026
Loc: Aotearoa
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6922582 - 05/15/07 11:41 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Great poster workman. Is there somewhere I can see all the different posters you've made for different species? I've seen the W. novae-zealandiae one but I'm wondering if there are others.
|
2859558484
Growery is Better
Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 8,752
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: zee_werp]
#6922599 - 05/15/07 11:46 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
MJ you need to stop being so dramatic. Seriously every time you complain about this or that on this site, and take all these people's doubts as personal attacks on you or your colleages it makes you look unprofessional.
--------------------
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,601
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: zee_werp]
#6925771 - 05/16/07 04:23 PM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think you mean my microscopy gallery when you request posters of different species. If so, here ya go.
http://www.sporeworksgallery.com/microscopy
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification
Edited by Workman (05/16/07 04:28 PM)
|
zee_werp
a fractalcreature
Registered: 03/24/03
Posts: 1,026
Loc: Aotearoa
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: Workman]
#6928037 - 05/17/07 01:00 AM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah thats what I was looking for. Great stuff!
|
HerbBaker
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,506
|
Re: Comparison of Psilocybe caerulipes with P. ovoideocystidiata [Re: zee_werp]
#7659311 - 11/20/07 02:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The ovoids ive seen look scaly below the annule. I havent noticed this feature on p.caerulipes. has anyone else noticed this? also the caerulipes stem seems thinner.
How rare is this bluefoot!
|
|