|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
CubeBensies
Stranger
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!
|
ehtdaedlufetarg
Toadstool Taxonomy
Registered: 04/26/07
Posts: 2,076
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
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.
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
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.
|
LanLord
Stranger
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.
|
auweia
mountain biking
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)
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
|
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!
|
auweia
mountain biking
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)
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
|
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.
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
|
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.
|
auweia
mountain biking
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)
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
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.
|
auweia
mountain biking
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
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)
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
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
I like to do both myself and the taxonomy side keeps the hunters confused which is amusing from a taxonomists point of view.
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.
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
|
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 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
Edited by inski (12/26/10 10:23 PM)
|
caphillkid
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.
|
CubeBensies
Stranger
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
|
caphillkid
Coquus Boleti
Registered: 10/09/08
Posts: 4,666
Loc: Jet City
|
|
Honestly, I don't know. Credit though to where it is due of course.
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,770
|
|
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.
|
caphillkid
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) |
|
|
|
psylosymonreturns
aka Gym Sporrison
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.
--------------------
|
|