Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
OfflineCubeBensies
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/16/09
Posts: 762
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa?
    #13687658 - 12/26/10 06:10 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I thought it should be brought to the attention of the shroomery that the supposedly undescribed species from the bay area may actually be P. subaeruginosa. I read these pages on MO and thought that this topic should be brought up here as well. 

http://mushroomobserver.org/61233?q=3AZ9
http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name/23017?q=36o9

I am not familiar with identifying mushrooms based on microscopic features but I figured some shroomerites may have something to add that is relevant to this discussion.

Has anyone compared the DNA sequences of collections from the bay area to those found in AU/NZ?

I think it would be great if these finds from the bay area could finally be given a proper name instead of calling them "cyanofriscosa" or "franciscans" or "franciscana" or "turpis." How many names can one mushroom have, especially a mushroom that is found and picked as frequently as this one.

Many thanks to Inski for bringing this to our attention, you have brought so much knowledge and information to this community. Keep up the great work!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: CubeBensies]
    #13687704 - 12/26/10 06:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Ive heard about this. All i can say is it sure seems possible.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekarode13Facebook
Tāne Mahuta
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: CubeBensies]
    #13687752 - 12/26/10 06:37 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

CubeBensies said:

Has anyone compared the DNA sequences of collections from the bay area to those found in AU/NZ?






Not yet but but they will be soon.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLanLord
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 1,763
Loc: San Mateo, Ca. USA
Last seen: 5 years, 17 days
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: karode13]
    #13687839 - 12/26/10 06:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

I've been wondering why "friscosas" hit me so much more powerfully than cyans.  But they are night and day different to me.


--------------------
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: LanLord]
    #13687958 - 12/26/10 07:28 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

well if it is subaeruginosa they sometimes mate and merge with cyans and grow out of the same patch as cyans

fricosas are very close to cyans and difficult to separate sometimes with a microscope...they have a close relationship

if they are subaeruginosa, then subaeruginosa itself should also be close to cyans

in fact, take a close look at this pic taken today and posted on the bay area thread

http://images55.fotki.com/v605/fileTYCo/9a567/7/1735287/9319296/IMG_5096.jpg

this is a p cyanescens patch, but not quite..there are hints of friscosa in there..notice the ones with the gills sticking out that look like teeth...that's closer to friscosa..in other words, this patch has properties of both, and I'm seeing that more and more

I'm sure Alan can straighten this out, but in some strains of friscosa, it's only distinguished from cyans because of some off cystidia shape on the gills, under a microscope

but with this patch, you might have some that have it others that don't

Edited by auweia (12/26/10 07:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinskiM
Cortinariologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13688033 - 12/26/10 07:47 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

It has long been known that Psilocybe subaeruginosa is very closely related to P. cyanescens, I have suspected that P. "cyanofriscosa" is conspecific with P. subaeruginosa for quite some time now and have only just recently decided to voice my opinion in the MO links above.

I am almost certain that it will be found to be that species, the macroscopic and microscopic characteristics are a good match!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: inski]
    #13688080 - 12/26/10 07:55 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I would agree with that, but testing obviously needs to be done

but in my opinion it probably will never be fully conclusive, because there is too much cross breeding going on with some strains

it doesn't bother me as a hunter tho..I know what's good and what's not.

edit  > at least as far as San Franisco ...you know some of the differences is probably just the fact that subaeruginosa is completely on the other side of the planet, about as far away as you can get from SF, different environment and weather, and opposite season (your winter is our summer)

I'm sure things like that can add plenty of difficulty to completely matching species....Like I said, I don't think it's really possible anymore to get a complete graph of some species like the cyanescens complex...and it is a complex because it involves numerous strains that behave and look different

I mean, if you really wanted to go full bore in identifying every strain into a species, the sheer number would go from 200 to maybe 20,000 species under the psilocybe genus

you sure you want that?...hehe

careful what you ask for, you just might get it...hehe

Quote:

inski said:
It has long been known that Psilocybe subaeruginosa is very closely related to P. cyanescens, I have suspected that P. "cyanofriscosa" is conspecific with P. subaeruginosa for quite some time now and have only just recently decided to voice my opinion in the MO links above.

I am almost certain that it will be found to be that species, the macroscopic and microscopic characteristics are a good match!



Edited by auweia (12/26/10 08:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinskiM
Cortinariologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
Trusted Identifier
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13688251 - 12/26/10 08:31 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

DNA comparisons will be made soon but I'm sure there will be very little if any significant differences in the sequences, I suspect in the future all of these species we are talking about will be found to be distinct morphological varieties of P. cyanescens not separate species just as the central European species P. bohemica, P. arcana, and P. moravica were found to be varieties of P. serbica.

I know there are a few groups of people out there hoping to describe P. "cyanofriscosa"/ "franciscana"/ "turpis" as a new species and it would be unfortunate if they went to the trouble of writing up their descriptions only to find out afterwards that it is synonymous with P. subaeruginosa, for some of these people I really hope it is found to be something unique and they get a chance to describe a new species but I think the chances are slim.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinskiM
Cortinariologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13688276 - 12/26/10 08:37 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

auweia said:


edit  > at least as far as San Franisco ...you know some of the differences is probably just the fact that subaeruginosa is completely on the other side of the planet, about as far away as you can get from SF, different environment and weather, and opposite season (your winter is our summer)




Although it is on the other side of the planet it is exactly the same distance from the equator and I disagree that the weather is very different, your summer may be our winter but I'm sure the climate is very similar, and due to the nature of the fungus in question it is very likely that it was introduced on purpose which would be very easy.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: inski]
    #13688367 - 12/26/10 08:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

yep, I agree with both comments, absolutely

Quote:

inski said:
DNA comparisons will be made soon but I'm sure there will be very little if any significant differences in the sequences, I suspect in the future all of these species we are talking about will be found to be distinct morphological varieties of P. cyanescens not separate species just as the central European species P. bohemica, P. arcana, and P. moravica were found to be varieties of P. serbica.

I know there are a few groups of people out there hoping to describe P. "cyanofriscosa"/ "franciscana"/ "turpis" as a new species and it would be unfortunate if they went to the trouble of writing up their descriptions only to find out afterwards that it is synonymous with P. subaeruginosa, for some of these people I really hope it is found to be something unique and they get a chance to describe a new species but I think the chances are slim.




and this  >
Quote:

Although it is on the other side of the planet it is exactly the same distance from the equator and I disagree that the weather is very different, your summer may be our winter but I'm sure the climate is very similar, and due to the nature of the fungus in question it is very likely that it was introduced on purpose which would be very easy.




again, I don't have a problem with this as a hunter..I know how to identify all of them no matter how weird the shape is, here in SF

the problem lies with the scientists..I am not one, and after 30 years of hunting, I have definitely learned how to say to the local scientists how they can go fuck themselves...LOL...why?..because they like to make maps and diagrams and they can't shut up about locations  _lots of knowledge, zero common sense

but seriously, you do have a point, and you guess is as good as anybody's..You, Inski, seem to want to solve the problem sooner, rather than later

well, I can say definitely that it's NOT going to get solved anytime soon....you know very well it takes years of multiple testing to really separate species

Personally, I couldn't care less what anyone calls the odd species occurring in SF...sure it's nice to call it friscosas after San francisco--ater all they do seem to occur around here more often than anywhere else

btw, you got any photos of your subaeruginosa from NZ that compares with our friscosas in shape and form on the macro level?..because we have plenty of photos in this here outpost
because I', here to tell ya as an experienced hunter after google search on the name, photos, that your subaeruginosa do look similar, but there is no way in hell I would mistake those for friscosa

If I found something like that out here in SF, I would make a post about it

Edited by auweia (12/26/10 09:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekarode13Facebook
Tāne Mahuta
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: inski]
    #13688419 - 12/26/10 09:09 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

inski said:
Quote:

auweia said:


edit  > at least as far as San Franisco ...you know some of the differences is probably just the fact that subaeruginosa is completely on the other side of the planet, about as far away as you can get from SF, different environment and weather, and opposite season (your winter is our summer)




Although it is on the other side of the planet it is exactly the same distance from the equator and I disagree that the weather is very different, your summer may be our winter but I'm sure the climate is very similar, and due to the nature of the fungus in question it is very likely that it was introduced on purpose which would be very easy.






Agreed.

It's not uncommon for exotics to be introduced to similar climates and flourish.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: karode13]
    #13688454 - 12/26/10 09:18 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

right, the only thing with that is the word 'introduced' which implies intentional planting

I don't think so...most of the time it's without the knowledge of the person introducing it....because people travel all over the world..You've heard of airports, right?..yeah buddy

and spores, they attach to anything

so yeah, it's global...if you want to spend time delineating every small macro and micro characteristic differences on a global scale, fine with me...I don't have a problem with it

I'm just warning you that you will be kept very very very busy, probably for the rest of your life

go for it..meanwhile, us hunters are busy hunting  :smile:

and btw, as much as you would like to think any one 'described species' has adapted to a specific global area, that's complete bullshit


different strains of the same and many species respond to micro climates in different ways just 10 feet apart, because of shade cover or lack of it...so why in the world would you think it's any different 6000 miles part?

the pychedelics probably are the same for a large part, globally, the wood chip ones, just different variations of it around the world, adapted to each specific environment...each environment has it's own macro characteristic, but all of them have a few things in common, which is easy to identify after some practice

I'm pretty sure, at this point, that I can get on a plane tonight and arrive in new zealand and find some actives tomorrow within 6 hours, take photos of it, and fly back to SF by Tuesday and continue hunting here, if I had the means  (watered summertime patches in NZ)


Quote:

karode13 said:
Quote:

inski said:
Quote:

auweia said:


edit  > at least as far as San Francisco ...you know some of the differences is probably just the fact that subaeruginosa is completely on the other side of the planet, about as far away as you can get from SF, different environment and weather, and opposite season (your winter is our summer)




Although it is on the other side of the planet it is exactly the same distance from the equator and I disagree that the weather is very different, your summer may be our winter but I'm sure the climate is very similar, and due to the nature of the fungus in question it is very likely that it was introduced on purpose which would be very easy.






Agreed.

It's not uncommon for exotics to be introduced to similar climates and flourish.



Edited by auweia (12/26/10 09:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekarode13Facebook
Tāne Mahuta
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
Trusted Identifier
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13688565 - 12/26/10 09:55 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

auweia said:
right, the only thing with that is the word 'introduced' which implies intentional planting







Not when it comes to flora and fauna it doesn't.

Quote:

An introduced, neozoon, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental.





From here




Quote:

auweia said:

go for it..meanwhile, us hunters are busy hunting  :smile:









I like to do both myself and the taxonomy side keeps the hunters confused which is amusing from a taxonomists point of view.:smirk:



At the end of the day if people are interested in taxonomy and are willing to go to the trouble of describing new species I think that DNA sequencing is necessary so these people don't waste their time trying to argue for something that it isn't. This is the future of taxonomy, like it or not.


I'm still sitting on the fence on this one until the DNA work has been done and compared to the populations around the world, which shouldn't be too far away.


:chew:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinskiM
Cortinariologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
Trusted Identifier
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13688630 - 12/26/10 10:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Everyone has their own interests, I'm more interested in taxonomy than I am finding and picking psychedelic mushrooms, they do interest me and I like to study the genus and I do see where you are coming from in regards to locations and taxonomy, it is a bit frustrating when someone says a collection can't be a certain species because of the location of the collection, especially if you understand spore dispersal methods and the different forms of reproduction, most of you probably don't know that many species in the genus Psilocybe can reproduce asexually by producing conidia (asexual spores) in the mycelium!

It is my belief that what you guys have there is P. subaeruginosa and I wouldn't want anyone to make a fool of themselves by publishing a new species without investigating this possibility further and it's getting a bit tiring seeing all these unpublished names being thrown around with no proof that it is a new species!

Living in NZ I see many fungi that are not native species that have been introduced here one way or another, in some cases it is a bad thing because they compete with the native species.

In NZ and Oz P. subaeruginosa is a very variable species with many different macroscopic forms and I suspect your collections have a limited gene pool because the original fruiting started from very few spores.

Here are some links to some collections from NZ which I think look similar to your sub strains over there.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/usergallery.php/gallery/226154/folder/2010+subs+first+flush
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12455774#12455774
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12451108#12451108
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12461755#12461755
Third image across at this link looks like one of your images auweia:cool:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12781752#12781752
A comparison of one of my spore micrographs of P. subaeruginosa with one of Alan's micrographs of P. "cyanofriscosa"
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12452282#12452282

I have compared macroscopic and microscopic characters from NZ collections and SF collections and see no defining features that would say to me that they are different species, next year I will compare the DNA sequencing for further proof, one of the microscopic characters that made Alan suspect this was a new species was the presence of capitate cystidia but I have confirmed that P. subaeruginosa often has capitate pleurocystidia and occasionally capitate cheilocystidia and an example can be seen in Dr Guzmán's published description of that species.

I'm glad you love your hunting and macroscopic identification of Psilocybe species auweia and I like your photos, thanks for always sharing and I hope for some peoples sake it is found to be a unique new species:cool:


--------------------

Edited by inski (12/26/10 10:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecaphillkid
Coquus Boleti

Registered: 10/09/08
Posts: 4,666
Loc: Jet City
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: inski]
    #13688770 - 12/26/10 10:47 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

When you consider that the same species of fungi are found all over the world, this is no surprise.  My guess is that Inski's suspicions will turn out correct.  In the meantime, this is really going to shake up things.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until Alan's DNA work that people accepted that Ovoids were on the west coast rather than a non-described species.  The more I learn about fungi, the more I learn that lots of further research needs to be done in this field.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCubeBensies
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/16/09
Posts: 762
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: caphillkid]
    #13688787 - 12/26/10 10:52 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was Inski that pointed out that the suspected P. subaeruginescens were actually P. ovoideocystidiata after some great microscopy was posted in this thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12500579#12500579

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecaphillkid
Coquus Boleti

Registered: 10/09/08
Posts: 4,666
Loc: Jet City
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: CubeBensies]
    #13688792 - 12/26/10 10:54 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Honestly, I don't know.  Credit though to where it is due of course.  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinskiM
Cortinariologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
Trusted Identifier
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: CubeBensies]
    #13688802 - 12/26/10 10:56 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, I recognized it was that species when I saw Peter's micrographs of the cystidia and before the sequencing proved it, it's a very easy species to identify due to the distinct form of the cystidia, the species name denotes the form of the type B cystidia nicely.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecaphillkid
Coquus Boleti

Registered: 10/09/08
Posts: 4,666
Loc: Jet City
Re: = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: inski]
    #13688809 - 12/26/10 10:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

:bow2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsylosymonreturns
aka Gym Sporrison
Male

Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 13,948
Loc: Mos Eisley,
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
Re: P. "cyanofriscosa" = P. subaeruginosa? [Re: auweia]
    #13690043 - 12/27/10 09:36 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

i agreed with you inksi when you brought this up a few weeks ago! i cant wait for this to be cleared up.


Quote:

auweia said:
well if it is subaeruginosa they sometimes mate and merge with cyans and grow out of the same patch as cyans

fricosas are very close to cyans and difficult to separate sometimes with a microscope...they have a close relationship

if they are subaeruginosa, then subaeruginosa itself should also be close to cyans

in fact, take a close look at this pic taken today and posted on the bay area thread

http://images55.fotki.com/v605/fileTYCo/9a567/7/1735287/9319296/IMG_5096.jpg

this is a p cyanescens patch, but not quite..there are hints of friscosa in there..notice the ones with the gills sticking out that look like teeth...that's closer to friscosa..in other words, this patch has properties of both, and I'm seeing that more and more

I'm sure Alan can straighten this out, but in some strains of friscosa, it's only distinguished from cyans because of some off cystidia shape on the gills, under a microscope

but with this patch, you might have some that have it others that don't




those look like cyans to me. :shrug:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Cyanofibrillosa or Friscosa? If there fibs they sure look potent!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
pscyanescens 9,265 86 11/20/08 12:56 AM
by pscyanescens
* Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa WorkmanV 4,040 17 01/17/08 01:01 AM
by Strophariaceae
* Is cyanofriscosa now called cyanofriscana??
( 1 2 3 4 all )
mushroomhunter10 8,041 67 03/31/09 12:43 PM
by nightflyer
* Psilocybe subaeruginosa Ran-D 2,552 10 06/29/11 09:57 AM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Sporeless P. cyanofriscosa Mr. Mushrooms 2,251 19 10/29/10 08:19 AM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa
( 1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 )
sui 61,049 352 01/24/07 03:13 AM
by pscyanescens
* Galerina Marginata vs. Psilocybe friscosa
( 1 2 all )
demon66 15,408 26 03/24/11 09:53 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Cyans and "cyanofriscosa" growing together?
( 1 2 3 all )
LanLord 4,117 41 10/28/10 08:21 PM
by auweia

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
3,257 topic views. 1 members, 25 guests and 36 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.