|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up?
#7899979 - 01/19/08 12:38 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And to demonstrate my point that "Psilocybe subaeruginascens" that's turned up in the Bay Area is not the "real" Psilocybe subaeruginascens, I present you with this picture showing spores of both species:
The darker, super thick-walled ones are straight from Hohnel's holotype collected at Bogor Botanical Gardens in Java. The lighter, slightly subrhomboid ones are from our locals. Same species? I think not. And, of course, by definition, if a collection is not the same species as the holotype, it should not carry the same name.
By comparison, here are spores from a Japanese collection (from this link):
Pretty similar to ours and not-so-similar to the Javanese one.
Anyway, just thought I'd finally show some of these pics.
|
sui
I love you.
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 32,534
Loc: Cali, Contra Costa Co.
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7899992 - 01/19/08 12:46 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
if its not the jap species then is it?
I really want to see some fruits for myself i should get on it.
-------------------- "There is never a wrong note, bend it." Jimi Hendrix
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7900441 - 01/19/08 03:59 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Peter, is it typical to put spores from two collections on the same slide for comparison like that?? I see the benefit of being able to compare them closely, but at the same time, it leaves room for one to argue which is which.... I think the distinctions are pretty clear, but i mean, someone could argue it. I guess it is probably not a big deal, since the argument would likely be dismissed by the scientific community.
So then, were there any other micro distinctions noted between the java and local collections??
Who's gonna name the Japanese / Bay Area potential new species?
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7901042 - 01/19/08 10:33 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I wish that transplant would fruit one of these years. Mycelium is still going tho. It was nice, and definitely different than cyans in terms of the trip
all I got is some old photos
Edited by auweia (01/19/08 10:45 AM)
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,601
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7901411 - 01/19/08 12:16 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Hmmmmm...... Perhaps the Bay Area species is actually P. septentrionalis from Japan and the Java collection is the real P. subaeruginascens.
And I must agree with Curecat on mixing the spores on a single slide. By just looking at that image, how can you be sure that some of the lighter, thinner walled spores are not immature Java spores?
Do you have any micrographs of just the Hohnel's holotype spores and/or other structures for reference?
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Workman]
#7901837 - 01/19/08 01:48 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Workman said: By just looking at that image, how can you be sure that some of the lighter, thinner walled spores are not immature Java spores?
Yeah, that was pretty much my concern, but i figured you look at both collections first, and that they were dissimilar enough (even the immature spores) that it was no worry mixing them up.
Anyway, are there any photos or at least sketches of the java Ps. subaeruginascens??
I found this in Workmans thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6520065#Post6520065
All the photos I've found are from Asia.
--------------------
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7901849 - 01/19/08 01:50 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
i love those old pics
--------------------
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Workman]
#7901876 - 01/19/08 01:55 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have separate photos of each, of course, but mixing them on the same slide was the quickest way to do a "comparison" shot – exactly the same illumination, same exposure time, etc, hence color differences are most clear this way. (I think the differences in color between the Bay Area collections in the above photo and that of the Japanese ones is mainly an artifact of illumination and photography.)
Not all of my photos are in one place – I'll have to dig up the single-collection spore photos.
As for other structures – no photos, but I do have drawings.
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: sui]
#7901916 - 01/19/08 02:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
suimush said: if its not the jap species then is it?
Well, I'm not sure of the "it" to which you're referring, but I don't claim that what we get in the Bay Area is a different species from what's collected in Japan. It could be, mind you, but I'd have to examine both side by side to really tell the difference. They're close relatives at the very least.
What I'm saying is that neither the North American or Japanese populations are different from the Javanese ones.
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Workman]
#7902070 - 01/19/08 02:47 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Workman said: Hmmmmm...... Perhaps the Bay Area species is actually P. septentrionalis from Japan and the Java collection is the real P. subaeruginascens.
Well, Guzman is going back and forth on deciding whether he's going to simply merge P. septentrionalis into P. subaeruginascens or not. (He's still working under the assumption that the holotype of P. subaeruginascens is conspecific with the other populations. I'm putting together some documentation to convince him otherwise. That said, Guzman's "working concept" of P. subaeruginascens is clearly the Japanese collections.)
The state of P. septentrionalis is a long an interesting story. Basically, it was only known from a few collections, the holotype and a few other collections, all from Hokkaido and all in the personal herbarium of Kazumasa Yokoyama. Over the years, this collection was badly hit by insects, leaving no intact collections. However, the spore print from the holotype was still available and I was sent a small part of it. I was able to examine the spore characteristics and get spore stats. To me, the spores and spore stats don't really look that different from the North American collections I've seen, nor from the pictures of "regular" Japanese "P. subaeruginascens", but I was looking at a far-from-complete set of characteristics.
Guzman separated the two mainly based on a difference in pleurocystidia size between "P. subaeruginascens" and P. septentrionalis. Unfortunately, there's simply no way to go back and double-check that at this point.
There is one rather intriguing possibility for getting a new collection of the P. septentrionalis holotype, because there is actually a type culture (that is, a culture grown from the holotype) for P. septentrionalis at NITE-BRC, a Japanese government genomics and culture collection. The record can be found here:
http://www.nbrc.nite.go.jp/NBRC2/NBRCCatalogueDetailServlet?ID=NBRC&CAT=00030219
One could easily grow, fully describe, and designate a neotype collection from this culture material. However, getting it is a whole other story. I tried doing so. Knowing that it was an active, they promptly asked the Japanese drug-control agency, who asked the US Embassy, who stated that I would need permission and documentation from the DEA, and possibly the FDA as well. I wasn't even about to try and pursue that route.
I'm not sure who could get the culture, inside or outside Japan, and I actually don't know of any mycologists or herbarium managers who typically go through the legal minefield of getting DEA/USDA/etc approval when borrowing collections.
Anyway, depending on the way Guzman wants to go with it, all Japanese and North American collections could be treated as conspecific with P. septentrionalis until direct study of all of the different populations is possible, or a new species could be named using North American or perhaps Japanese material as a holotype.
Edited by Strophariaceae (01/19/08 02:55 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: Strophariaceae]
#7902104 - 01/19/08 02:55 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Someone needs to fly to Japan and grow this Ps. septentrionalis (=Ps. subaeruginascens var. septentrionalis) out!!
Fuck I hate drug policy.
--------------------
|
sui
I love you.
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 32,534
Loc: Cali, Contra Costa Co.
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7902111 - 01/19/08 02:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
isnt there a shroomerite living in japan?
-------------------- "There is never a wrong note, bend it." Jimi Hendrix
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: sui]
#7902118 - 01/19/08 03:00 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Even if there is, what are the chances that they are credible enough to be granted this culture for study??
--------------------
|
sui
I love you.
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 32,534
Loc: Cali, Contra Costa Co.
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7902146 - 01/19/08 03:07 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
true true.
maybe alan should just go to japan and pick em.
-------------------- "There is never a wrong note, bend it." Jimi Hendrix
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: sui]
#7907344 - 01/20/08 09:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Curecat, P Werner isn't saying it outright, and I don't think he knows for sure either because >> It takes more than just a few samples to be sure..If you really want to nail it down, it's better to have hundreds of samples and we just don't have that in the bay area...We have your find, Waylits find, and my find..I met one guy at an MSSF meet with one single specimen once, and it looked alot what I found the next year, but not like what you put on Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_subaeruginascens
I'm really leaning toward what you found in GG Park isn't quite the same thing me and Waylit found 2 years ago ( see above Wiki link-- I can't find much commonality with that one with what I found)..I'm convinced what Waylit found is the same as what I found, but not your find ( yours might actually be closer to the proper Japanese species, but what I found and Waylit found seems to be further away from that (there's a number of macroscopic characteristics involved, and some of it is color, the stem, how they feel, how they smell, all fairly difficult to describe
so here goes...We confirmed that it is NOT Azurescens, it is NOT stuntzii, but apparently it is related to Stuntzii, but it is more potent than cyans (go figure)
so what the hell is it?...and Curecat, please note that almost none of this looks like your finds and post on Wiki, except for maybe this >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Psilocybe.subaeruginascens.7.jpg
you can see that it is a little close, but not quite, because as the monoghraph expands, it gets further away from these central common traits
does this look anything like what you found?
I don't think so, buddy, Curecat...Nope..I honestly don't..There is something distinctly different in what you found that is significantly different from what I found...(can't even be sure yet exactly what)
Edited by auweia (01/20/08 09:55 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: auweia]
#7907641 - 01/20/08 09:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
>Curecat, P Werner isn't saying it outright, and I don't think he knows >for sure either because >> It takes more than just a few samples to >be sure..If you really want to nail it down, it's better to have >hundreds of samples and we just don't have that in the bay area...
I understand that well...
>We have your find, Waylits find, and my find..I met one guy at an >MSSF meet with one single specimen once, and it looked alot what >I found the next year, but not like what you put on Wiki
First, "my collections" are from the same patch as that guy from MSSF. So actually, that specimen you saw that looked a lot like what you found the next year, was actually from the same patch that I've posted pictures of.
I didn't put anything on Wikipedia, that was Alans fine work. The top 4 photos (including the main photo) are "that guys" photos. The 5th one is alans photo, and the last 3 are mine. They are ALL from the same patch. That guys from MSSF.
>I'm really leaning toward what you found in GG Park isn't quite the >same thing me and Waylit found 2 years ago
Again, I didn't find them in GGP. "That guy" found them back in like, 2004 or something in GGP, and then transplanted the patch to Oakland. All my photos are from the transplant in Oakland.
>does this look anything like what you found?
The first photo of the pin looks very much like collections I've seen.
Seriously, it's called phenotypic variation.
I think the differences you are pointing out can be accounted for by the exposed habitat of your patch, versus the Oakland patch, which fruits among tall grasses, big logs, blackberry vines, and other small shrubs and bushes. It is also watered very frequently.
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7907734 - 01/20/08 10:23 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said: >Curecat, P Werner isn't saying it outright, and I don't think he knows >for sure either because >> It takes more than just a few samples to >be sure..If you really want to nail it down, it's better to have >hundreds of samples and we just don't have that in the bay area...
I understand that well...
>We have your find, Waylits find, and my find..I met one guy at an >MSSF meet with one single specimen once, and it looked alot what >I found the next year, but not like what you put on Wiki
First, "my collections" are from the same patch as that guy from MSSF. So actually, that specimen you saw that looked a lot like what you found the next year, was actually from the same patch that I've posted pictures of.
I didn't put anything on Wikipedia, that was Alans fine work. The top 4 photos (including the main photo) are "that guys" photos. The 5th one is alans photo, and the last 3 are mine. They are ALL from the same patch. That guys from MSSF.
>I'm really leaning toward what you found in GG Park isn't quite the >same thing me and Waylit found 2 years ago
Again, I didn't find them in GGP. "That guy" found them back in like, 2004 or something in GGP, and then transplanted the patch to Oakland. All my photos are from the transplant in Oakland.
>does this look anything like what you found?
The first photo of the pin looks very much like collections I've seen.
Seriously, it's called phenotypic variation.
I think the differences you are pointing out can be accounted for by the exposed habitat of your patch, versus the Oakland patch, which fruits among tall grasses, big logs, blackberry vines, and other small shrubs and bushes. It is also watered very frequently.
That could be, since I admit the one find of mine WAS out in the open and exposed to the elements much more than any other patch found so far
nevertheless,I just want you to admit that much more work needs to be done on this species before it can be called , properly > subaeruginascens
we are nowhere close to being able to properly identify what we found in the bay area, and i'm pretty sure Peter Werner is acknowledging that in this thread
it is commonly accepted knowledge that in cases like this, one or three samples just will not cut the cake, but hundreds of them might
we here in the bay area are nowhere close to that point, and as good a picker as I am, neither am I
this is the main problem the scientific community has < not enough samples < still too rare here in the bay area
Edited by auweia (01/20/08 10:47 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: auweia]
#7907771 - 01/20/08 10:36 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
>nevertheless,I just want you to admit that much more work needs to >be done on this species before it can be called , properly > subaeruginascens
Where in this thread or anywhere else, have I seemed to be struggling with this concept?
I think that this Bay Area species is NOT the same as the Java Ps. subaeruginascens based on Peters comparison and research. I do not know why I am being asked to "admit" anything... I don't see how we are in disagreement on this issue.
Our disagreement revolves around the local collections.
--------------------
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7908041 - 01/21/08 12:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Auweia –
I'm totally unclear on what you're talking about, but I can assure you, I don't need "hundreds of collections" to tell me that Japanese/North American so-called "P. subaeruginascens" is different from the Javanese type. As for how close or how distant the Japanese/North American populations are, and whether P. septentrionalis is or isn't a different species from these populations I'm pretty non-committal on, because I really don't have the data to establish that one way or the other. I can tell you they're all pretty close and all very unlike the Javanese type collections of P. subaeruginascens and P. aeruginomaculans.
As for the collections, you showed me, yes, they do have notable differences both macroscopically and in spore statistics with the collections Pillsbury gave me. They weren't different enough for me to all them a different species, though.
I'll post separate photos shortly of the spores of P. subaeruginascens holotype, local so-called "P. subaeruginascens", and (what's left of) the holotype of P. septentrionalis – I need to convert them out of psd format to jpegs first, though. I can't locate my P. aeruginomaculans holotype spore photos, unfortunately.
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Will the real Psilocybe subaeruginascens please stand up? [Re: CureCat]
#7908589 - 01/21/08 07:11 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
sorry, poor choice of words on my part
I just can't seem to get around that Wiki page being the same as what I found two years ago. Whatever is on the Wiki page isn't what I found and maybe I can't put my finger on it but dang it, it just ain't the same
Peters description and comparison seems fine to me, except I'm not sure which bay area type he's comparing it with. If he's comparing it with the same type on that Wiki page, there might be three types, not two
I'll tell ya, when I first saw that Wiki page, it was like 'huh?...bay area?...this can't be right...that's not what I found...this is some sort of bastardized love child experiment gone horribly awry...kill it...kill it now before it's too late!"
naw, just kidding
I'm just saying we might be talking about three types instead of two
Edited by auweia (01/21/08 07:55 AM)
|
|