|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms
#6453390 - 01/12/07 06:57 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
From a recent communication to me by Gastón Guzmán concerning the difference between The P. suaeruginosa form Australia and P. cyanescens form the PNW.
And regarding Shroomy Dan's Ohio mushrooms posted here as a possible P. caerulipes.
Quote:
Do not worry about they do not like my work on Australian species of Psilocybe. In fact, Chang and Mills and others published a paper where they said that Watling and me are wrong. Certainly, I am re-studying the complex P. cyanescens, but this is independent of P. subaeruginosa. They need to wait I finish my second edition in order they know my new and modern concept of the species. Let me all of you to work, I have a lot to do in Psilocybe from all the world (!).
By the way, your “P. subcaerulipes” from ohio is probably a new species, I am studying it, and after finish it I will give you my results to publish you, your friend, my colleague and me a paper. Let me time.
Gastón Guzmán
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#6453853 - 01/12/07 09:40 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
haha..thanks MJ, I needed that
that was my next question, something that's been bothering me a little. Bluemeanie, why are you applying an Australian species to California?
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6447467#Post6447467
I mean, c'mon...Australia couldn't be further away from California than...is there anything further away?...Siberia maybe?..Timbuktu?
there are significant differences already just between Washington and California, with pictorial microscopy currently being posted about it, that bringing Australia subbs into the picture isn't helping
and by the way, Bluemeanie, in that cyanofriscosa thread, I made a point that if this new variety is really p. cyanescens, and most likely it is...In fact, all the microscopy is pointing to it being cyanescens now, and not cyanofibrillosa..This being the case, they still look closer to cyanofibrillosa than they do to cyanescens
why is that?...who knows?...but my point in that thread, was that if you do call it cyanescens, then call it psilocybe cyanescens, sensu lato, at least
it's now clear you didn't know what that means, because you answered it with 'wank wank'
sensu lato means 'in the broadest sense of the word'..... look it up. It's used in taxonomy papers when the descriptions can't fit into a tight area..And this 'friscosa' species is a prime example of that
Quote:
mjshroomer said: From a recent communication to me by Gastón Guzmán concerning the difference between The P. suaeruginosa form Australia and P. cyanescens form the PNW.
And regarding Shroomy Dan's Ohio mushrooms posted here as a possible P. caerulipes.
Quote:
Do not worry about they do not like my work on Australian species of Psilocybe. In fact, Chang and Mills and others published a paper where they said that Watling and me are wrong. Certainly, I am re-studying the complex P. cyanescens, but this is independent of P. subaeruginosa. They need to wait I finish my second edition in order they know my new and modern concept of the species. Let me all of you to work, I have a lot to do in Psilocybe from all the world (!).
By the way, your “P. subcaerulipes” from ohio is probably a new species, I am studying it, and after finish it I will give you my results to publish you, your friend, my colleague and me a paper. Let me time.
Gastón Guzmán
Edited by auweia (01/12/07 10:19 PM)
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms [Re: auweia]
#6453997 - 01/12/07 10:34 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
See, even the experts in this field of ethnomycology can err in their writings.
Dr. Guzmán should have written P. caerulipes (not P. subcaerulipes).
But I sent him an email back reminding him they were allegedly thought of as P. caerulipes.
He is studying them now. He has photos of them in situ and in vitro so he has comparison photos, etc. WE also have chemical analysis and SEM photography of the spores.
mj
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#6454023 - 01/12/07 10:45 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
thanks, MJ....well, how do I explain...this stuff changes sometimes..what is it?..evolution?...climatic changes?....who knows?
but some aspects of mycology are changing, including descriptions.
we just have to stay on top of it, that's all..being complacent and comfortable with 20 year old, or even 5 year old descriptions isn't working anymore, in some cases
it's a life work, and will stay that way till the day you die...till I die
it's mushrooms, and the only constant, is the fact that they change sometimes
we saw this ourselves plain as day here in San Francisco the last 7 years..Nobody ever reported this 'friscosa' before 2000
yet there they are
my earliest photo of this is from 2001...to this day, I have seen nothing earlier than that, especially a photo with a time/date stamp on it...just rumours, and even that stops around the year 2000
Nobody, and I mean not a single person among the hundreds that I talked to in person, ever heard of this, or even seen this before....before 2004, much less 2001
so yes, this is recent..this is local to San Francisco AND it is recent
it's localized, it's recent, it's an identification problem, we're dealing with it...however difficult that may be :P
Edited by auweia (01/12/07 11:19 PM)
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#6460924 - 01/15/07 01:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
ACtually Guzman doesnt even mention the fact that I suggested it was subaeruginosa. Or the differences between suaberuginosa and cyanescens. I assume you dont agree with my statement that the mushroom could be subaeruginosa. And you bae that opinion on Guzman alone? Unlike Guzman's work, Chang and Mills used many measurable parameters to demonstrate their contention regarding subaeruginosa and the cyanescens complex. I dont necessarily believe subaeruginosa and cyanescens are cross compatible, but considering their macroscopic and microscopic similarities its not outside the realm of possibility. gee - Auweii - I might have mentioned subaeruginosa because its nearly IDENTICAL microscopically to your mushroom, whereas Ps.cyanescens isnt... Please dont lecture me on my reasoning... I mean you've spent countless hours examining this mushroom under a microscope to support your argument that it isnt? Do you contend that eucalyptus in San Fran is a native species of north america?
And there is no such thing as a 'recent' change when it comes to specification - so its most likely NOT recent, and since phenotypes can be present and latent most likely NOT localized and its NOT a particularly diffucult identification puzzle. ALl you need is a microscope and a good bunch of specimens - like i said to you about 30 times now - but you'd sooner bang on about your own opinion
--------------------
Edited by Zen Peddler (01/15/07 01:23 AM)
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: About P. cyans, P. subbs(Austraila) and Shroomey Dan's Ohio Shrooms [Re: auweia]
#6460926 - 01/15/07 01:14 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
WHy do you continue to talk Auweii like you are an authority of some kind on mushroom biology? Do you have any factual evidence for your statements other than your own opinion?
--------------------
|
|