|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
kevbo
Manure Connoisseur


Registered: 10/02/06
Posts: 372
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Why don't substrains matter?
#11708108 - 12/23/09 07:05 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
It seems to be well-known around here that the substrains of p. cubensis are the same, with regards to the substrate they grow in and yield (not talking about PE, as RR and others have said this seems to be an exception). I don't understand how this could be, unless we can concede that this is probably a little overgeneralized. I think its important to say that I have no scientific data to support anything I'm about to say and is entirely based on my interpretation of evolutionary theory. Hopefully I can get my thoughts out clearly as I'm pretty tired today.
Just looking at where the substrains are from: Australia, Mexico, Hawaii, Argentina, Nepal; just to name a few, there is a huge variety in geographical location. If we can assume that they all originated from before the continents shifted, there is a long, long time for each continent to evolve its own population of cubensis mushroom, since they were more or less isolated from each other. I am not saying that each substrain is "different" like one species is different from another, but that each has, quite obviously to the eye, evolved its own set of characteristics. Why is it not assumed that each substrain has evolved to grow in the environment that it was first found in? Surely there are some differences in temperature, substrate nutrients, competitor fungi/molds, humidity, and animal consumers when comparing two places like Mexico and Australia, or Argentina and Nepal, and so on.
What made me think of this is the now defunct 86*F "optimal" incubation temperature cited by Stamets in TMC. It is now stated by RogerRabbit that after 83*C, growth slows down. But isn't it possible (and perhaps even probable) that mushrooms grown in a hotter area, especially one with an isolated gene pool such as Hawaii, would have been naturally selected to grow better in hotter temperatures? Likewise with nutrients. I'm not a dog person at all, but it seems that specific breeds of dogs are better suited for certain types of food than others. Some are more prone to certain diseases. Of course, dogs breeds are an example of artificial selection, but the same principles apply, I think. Isolated populations diverge and display different phenotypes more or less frequently based on what has been selected by the environment.
I'm not saying that some can grow in Alaska or anything like that. Subtle differences. I'm just saying that *maybe* its possible that some factors can be tweaked based on species. It would make sense, anyway. Then again, I don't know much about mushroom genetics and reproduction; on a side note, if anyone could point me in the direction of an explanation I'd appreciate it.
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: kevbo]
#11708144 - 12/23/09 07:12 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Each substrain is different, sure. But within a spore print, you'll find genes to make a variety of mycelia, in most cases. The ones that do well in a given environment are the ones that then proceed to propagate, and the process continues. It's true in the wild and it's even more true for indoor culture: home cultivators have selected substrains to match their needs. But while there may be some differences in range of potential overall, most cubensis substrains have about the same potential.
(And they didn't have to separate before the continents broke up. Volcanoes and hurricanes both blow spores for thousands and thousands of miles.)
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
skullhuman
the skullman cometh



Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 1,473
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: kevbo]
#11708153 - 12/23/09 07:13 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Personally, I have noticed consistent sub-strain traits, such as dotted caps, or caps that don't flatten, or aren't dotted, etc. I figure that at least some degree of evolutionary divergence must occur when members of the same species are segregated from one another. And I know that spores can drift across the ocean and end up just about anywhere, but I have a hard time imagining how Cubensis spores from India could migrate to Mexico and exert more (or as much) of a presence than spores of mushrooms that actually live there.
|
Solanaceae
Curador del Jardín de los brujos



Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 100
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: kevbo]
#11708198 - 12/23/09 07:22 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
While all of this is undoubtedly true, cubensis as species (along with any of its sub-species, varieties, landraces) are so variable in cultivation that it is really hard to make very much of a objective distinction between them. Generally speaking, "a cube is a cube is a cube" is true to a certain extent.
-------------------- Preservation through dissemination.
“The basic difference between an ordinary man and a warrior is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge, while an ordinary man takes everything as a blessing or as a curse.” ― Don Juan Matus
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: skullhuman]
#11708232 - 12/23/09 07:32 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
yeah im not to keen on the whole a cube is a cube except pe.. its really kinda silly.. i can see why that would be said.. but why genetics has determined the different look of each "strain" in terms of color of caps and the differences in how the partial veil comes of..etc..then suddenly stopped at potency.. well thats part of whats got me wonderin.. heres another interesting tidbit.. the main proselytizer of the "a cube is a cube" well i read a post once that was dated a few years back.. and imagine my dismay to find him actively engaged in a thread where he was talkin about the different trips you get from different strains and if i remember correctly a preference or lack thereof for thai strains of cubensis.. 
and this-->"While all of this is undoubtedly true, cubensis as species (along with any of its sub-species, varieties, landraces) are so variable in cultivation that it is really hard to make very much of a objective distinction between them. Generally speaking, "a cube is a cube is a cube" is true to a certain extent." as stated by the above poster.. perhaps its a generalization to make things simpler
Edited by evildee125 (12/23/09 07:35 PM)
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure



Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: evildee125]
#11708291 - 12/23/09 07:43 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
The whole terminology of mycology gets turned around here when people act like they can grow from a print and get a certain 'strain', which is ludicrous. That is why we say a cube is a cube. It doesn't mean they're all the same, and every substrain develops its own characteristics, but the only way you'll grow that same strain again is if it's a single sector isolate. The name on a print doesn't define a strain. That's only marketing.
Cubes only evolved in tropical climates. There are no temperate region cubensis. This isn't true with species such as P ostreatus, which might grow on Alder in Alaska or palm trees in the tropics, yet it's the same species, and the strains really are different from each other. You must also keep in mind that the spores float on the winds, which carry them thousands of miles and they'll grow anytime they land on a suitable area, blending the 'strains' from one region to another. P cubensis from Thailand isn't much different from P cubensis from Florida in the US.
By the way, Paul never said 86F is the optimum 'incubation' temperature. That's being misread. He was quoting another study which found a 'mycelium' temperature of 86F resulted in the fastest lineal growth on a petri dish. My own studies have found that threshold begins to fall off above 83F, which is a very slight difference. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms
semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat
"I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work."
Thomas Edison
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#11708338 - 12/23/09 07:54 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
this thread will probably die now..
|
cowfodder
banged your mom.



Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 391
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: evildee125]
#11708410 - 12/23/09 08:05 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
evildee125 said: this thread will probably die now.. 
Or turn to much more serious matters, such as.........
-------------------- "“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.""
—Bill Hicks
|
skullhuman
the skullman cometh



Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 1,473
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#11708447 - 12/23/09 08:12 PM (15 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: The name on a print doesn't define a strain. RR
But doesn't it to an extent? because there are some characteristics that are clearly inherent of certain substrains. Is it not fair to distinguish them in at least a vague sense?
I also wonder if there are substrain specific qualities that perhaps exceed the scope of mycology at this time.
|
kevbo
Manure Connoisseur


Registered: 10/02/06
Posts: 372
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#11709197 - 12/23/09 10:29 PM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: The whole terminology of mycology gets turned around here when people act like they can grow from a print and get a certain 'strain', which is ludicrous. That is why we say a cube is a cube. It doesn't mean they're all the same, and every substrain develops its own characteristics, but the only way you'll grow that same strain again is if it's a single sector isolate. The name on a print doesn't define a strain. That's only marketing.
Cubes only evolved in tropical climates. There are no temperate region cubensis. This isn't true with species such as P ostreatus, which might grow on Alder in Alaska or palm trees in the tropics, yet it's the same species, and the strains really are different from each other. You must also keep in mind that the spores float on the winds, which carry them thousands of miles and they'll grow anytime they land on a suitable area, blending the 'strains' from one region to another. P cubensis from Thailand isn't much different from P cubensis from Florida in the US.
By the way, Paul never said 86F is the optimum 'incubation' temperature. That's being misread. He was quoting another study which found a 'mycelium' temperature of 86F resulted in the fastest lineal growth on a petri dish. My own studies have found that threshold begins to fall off above 83F, which is a very slight difference. RR
I understand what you mean - certainly I wasn't saying that they are different in a taxonomic sense, just that they each display a somewhat unique set of phenotypes. An evolutionary biologist will tell you that traits did not simply occur by chance, but because they are advantageous in nature. Isn't it possible that there are slight variations in their indigenous substrates, because of the different species of plants, animals, etc., that naturally occur there, thus causing natural selection to favor the genes which "tweak" its ability to grow on this substrate? Nothing drastic of course, although a study at Michigan State (Lenski et al) showed that when the same strains of E. coli were allowed to evolve separately in isolation and given a defined amount of glucose and citrate, one of them developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source (they cannot "naturally" do this) which then took over that isolated environment. Apples and oranges, perhaps.. but the principle is the same. These "substrains" are from different continents, and are more or less isolated from some of the others.
Do cubes grow solely on horse/cow manure? What about that from an elephant? I don't know the answer to that, but if so, and a certain continent has primarily elephants vs horses, one would think that the substrate would be quite different given the differences in diet. As far as the temperature thing - you're right, I didn't quote it correctly. What I was trying to say was: If a location A, which happens to have cubes, has a temperature that is, on average, 3*F higher than location B, which also has cubes, evolutionary theory would predict that the cubes in location A were more adapted to the (slightly) higher temperature.
If the environment has even slight differences and the cubes there weren't recently dragged over by humans, it seems very likely that they would have different adaptations.
I'm actually not explicitly referring to psilocybin content by the way, although one hypothesis for higher psilocybin content being evolved would be that it disorients the animal that eats it, thus spreading it to areas that it might not normally go to. This wasn't my intention though.
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure



Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: kevbo]
#11709256 - 12/23/09 10:41 PM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
That may be true much more for other species than cubensis, such as the oyster example I gave above. In nature, cubensis grows on cow manure. I believe John Allen found some on elephant manure once, but the main habitat is cow manure, and since cows are domesticated world wide, they all eat roughly the same diet.
There's a few strains of cubensis sold by reputable vendors that are stable strains. However, 90% of what's out there today is complete bullshit. I know of at least one well knows spore supplier that only grows one strain and then labels syringes with whatever the customer has ordered. He's been doing it for years and many 'strain reports' here are based on what they bought from him. Furthermore, everyone who finds a wild cube, takes a print and gives it a silly name, declaring it a strain. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms
semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat
"I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work."
Thomas Edison
|
purple1969haze
Holy Diver



Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 217
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#11709278 - 12/23/09 10:48 PM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said:
There's a few strains of cubensis sold by reputable vendors that are stable strains. RR
Could you enlighten me further?
|
blackdust


Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 8,327
|
|
Quote:
purple1969haze said:
Quote:
RogerRabbit said:
There's a few strains of cubensis sold by reputable vendors that are stable strains. RR
Could you enlighten me further?
Which strains? I can see how their are so many different strains for marketing reason. We do the same thing with medical weed. We give all these names but its all either a sativa or indica.
|
purple1969haze
Holy Diver



Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 217
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: blackdust]
#11709679 - 12/24/09 12:11 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blackdust said:We do the same thing with medical weed. We give all these names but its all either a sativa or indica.
I'll argue that. There are plenty of crosses of the two. And with plant breeding, it's much easier to isolate a specific genotype from crossed genetics that have specific desirable features. Look at the "low-ryder" strain for an obvious answer. He's figured out a way to get some desirable potency without giving up the autoflowering and dwarf traits.
Granted the medical MJ scene in some parts **cough*california*cough** is extremely watered down and a lot of it is marketing.
|
blackdust


Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 8,327
|
|
Quote:
purple1969haze said:
Quote:
blackdust said:We do the same thing with medical weed. We give all these names but its all either a sativa or indica.
I'll argue that. There are plenty of crosses of the two. And with plant breeding, it's much easier to isolate a specific genotype from crossed genetics that have specific desirable features. Look at the "low-ryder" strain for an obvious answer. He's figured out a way to get some desirable potency without giving up the autoflowering and dwarf traits.
Granted the medical MJ scene in some parts **cough*california*cough** is extremely watered down and a lot of it is marketing.
yeah. They give out free magz at the 7/11 full of advertising weed specials
|
kevbo
Manure Connoisseur


Registered: 10/02/06
Posts: 372
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#11710777 - 12/24/09 08:38 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: That may be true much more for other species than cubensis, such as the oyster example I gave above. In nature, cubensis grows on cow manure. I believe John Allen found some on elephant manure once, but the main habitat is cow manure, and since cows are domesticated world wide, they all eat roughly the same diet.
There's a few strains of cubensis sold by reputable vendors that are stable strains. However, 90% of what's out there today is complete bullshit. I know of at least one well knows spore supplier that only grows one strain and then labels syringes with whatever the customer has ordered. He's been doing it for years and many 'strain reports' here are based on what they bought from him. Furthermore, everyone who finds a wild cube, takes a print and gives it a silly name, declaring it a strain. RR
Thank you. I know very little about how cubensis grows in the wild, so this helped me understand a little better.
Anyone have any ideas on how penis envy came to have the shape it did?
|
wygram
Myconaut

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 573
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: kevbo]
#11710877 - 12/24/09 09:11 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kevbo said: Anyone have any ideas on how penis envy came to have the shape it did?
Through careful genetic selection for a mutation that causes the fused cap.
-------------------- Changing your mind is one of the best ways of finding out whether or not you still have one.
|
Breakfast Crew
Cheerios



Registered: 01/20/09
Posts: 1,985
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: wygram]
#11710894 - 12/24/09 09:16 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
This is why I buy the cheapest cube "strain."
|
Thyrax
No way



Registered: 01/03/08
Posts: 1,068
Loc: Montreal, Quebec
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
|
name on the syringue is bullshit, period.
--------------------
|
blackdust


Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 8,327
|
Re: Why don't substrains matter? [Re: Thyrax]
#11710964 - 12/24/09 09:35 AM (15 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thyrax said: name on the syringue is bullshit, period.
and i just got 11 new cubensies races...
Edited by blackdust (12/24/09 09:36 AM)
|
|