Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Advanced Mycology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

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Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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.
All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens??
    #1212713 -

I thought Id make people aware of a study that is currently being conducted using protein and DNA analysis combined with spore intercompatability studies of woodloving psilocybes from around the world - chiefly Ps.Bohemica, Ps.Azurescens, Ps.Cyanescens, Ps.Subaeruginosa, Ps.Eucalypta, and a number of other woodloving species.
The original aim of the study was to reject Guzman's delineation of Ps.Subaeruginosa into four entities by using both assen. lectotype specimens of all four for microscopic characteristics and live mushrooms fruits grown from culture.
Not only has become apparent that we are dealing with one main entity for all Australian specimens, but that all are comparable to Ps.Cyanescens. This point is also made by Peter Buchanan in 1993?. This conclusion has been drawn not only because of macroscopic similarities, but from protein and Dna examinations.
The study now also includes Bohemica and Azurescens with the direct aim of demonstrating that these are all type specimens of Ps.Cyanescens.
So in other words, if the contention is proved, many previous delineated Psilocybes will have been delineated incorrectly.


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

Edited by Zen Peddler (01/12/03 05:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1212742 -

Very interesting


--------------------
Laterz, Road

Who the hell you callin crazy?
You wouldn't know what crazy was if Charles Manson was eating froot loops on your front porch!

Brainiac said:
PM the names with on there names, that means they have mushrooms for sale.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1212843 -

That?s the same stuff Kriegelsteiner has been claiming for the last 9 years.
I have the impression though that the aothor only looks at the microscopic characteristics and completely denies the big macroscopic differences.

Here?s the document, it?s in german though:
http://www.fungifun.org/Studien_zum_Psilocybe-cyanescens-Komplex_in_Europa/

S u m m a r y : Following recent collections of members of the Psilocybe cyanescens complex made in West Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Sicily, and as a result of studies of P. cyanescens (collected in the Netherlands) and of P. serbica (type collection) the original and the subsequent descriptions of_Hypholoma cyanescens Maire 1928, Psilocybe cyanescens Wakefield 1946, P. serbicaMoser & Horak 1968, and Sebek 1975, 1983 are compared.
There could be found no significant distinguishing characters neither morphologically nor ecologically which would justify the maintenance of several separate species. Hence, the author considers
them conspecific.


--------------------
Grow Mushrooms from Spores - PF-Tek for Simple Minds

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Anno]
    #1212886 -

If they'll make interfertility tests that they'll solve the mystery.
I would generally prefer less different species, because current fungal taxonomy is a real nightmare.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: zeronio]
    #1212988 -

its all white rot to me  :grin: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1214398 -

Can't wait to see the results of the Tests.

ARE THEY GONNA USE TYPE COLLECTION SPECIMENS? Wasn't that the problem with the Australian woodlover controversy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1214978 -

If I remember Stamets correctly isn't the English "Wakefeild" phenotype lacking in pleurocystidia and the PNW collections rich in these celluar structures?It is my understanding that many of the taxonomic differences about this species complex revolves around this.Am I correct in this?
It seems that species may be a mutable concept for some of the species complex varieties such as certain Pleurotus and P.cyan.
One wonders if P.hispanica will be reclassed as a variety of semillanceata due to their many similarities?
As with Cannabis much error has creeped into classifying Genus psilocybe.F/I Cannabis is a multivariable phenotype single species;Cannabis sativa,with 3 recognized distinct varieties,var.sativa var.indica and var.ruderalis.
So I believe with P. cyanescens that there exists many varietals within the species so P.azurescens becomes Psilocybe cyanescens var.azurescens or var.bohemica,perhaps even var.subaruginosa.Interfertility and viability of offspring may not delineate between species varieties as it does between distinct species.At any rate WR will not be changing any names I have trouble keeping it all straight as it is :grin:WR 


--------------------
To old for this place

Edited by whiterasta (01/14/03 12:58 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: whiterasta]
    #1219173 -

Australiana, Eucalypta and Tasmaniana were delineated primarily on pluerocystidia differences - Australiana with lageniform to lechyniform, Tasmaniana with forked c.cystidia and eucalypta with mucronate and a few variations. Subaeruginosa was delineated from these three in Guzman's reply to Chang and Mills where he described chocolate-pigmented pleurocystidia at odds with the others which have hyaline p.cystidia. Guzman came out to Australia and was provided access to around 12 type specimens of Subaeruginosa as described and assec. by Cleland in 1927. He examined ONE specimen and determined that it had brown pluerocystidia. thus he delineated it as well.
No one eles has ever located a specimen of Subaeruginosa with pigmented pluerocystidia. Buchanan examined six of Clelands other specimens and found only hyaline pluerocystidia. This indicated that Australiana and Subaeruginosa where the same mushroom with the same spore size and cystidia (lageniform/ventricose/lechyniform/hyaline) as Cleland had already described.
Chang and Mills examined a type specimen of Tasmaniana used by Guzman and no forked c.cystidia were found. As its spores were the same it was returned to its proper identification as Ps.Subaeruginosa (same spore size and cystidia.)
So Chang and Mills did spore compatibility and isozyme analysis on there true version of Subaeruginosa and the last of Guzman's mushroom - Eucalypta. (this mushroom was macroscopically different unlike the above three, has smaller spores and unique cystidia.)
Both mushrooms were rigourously identified using Guzman's descriptions and were found to be intercompatible. Again the same species.
Buchanan in New Zealand found that Subaeruginosa there ranged from Guzman's Eucalypta to Guzman's Australiana and were not fixed as one or the other. He accepts Chang and Mills and also rejects Guzman's delineation.
He also explains that Ps.Makarorae was only slightly different from Ps.Caerulipes - delineated due to cystidia and location alone. Aucklandii was extrememly similar to Ps.Zapotecorum (sp?) and was delineated purely on location and (wait for this!) an old photo of Zapotecorum indicating a more petite mushroom!
My friend who is a PhD student who I have eventually conned into helping me has managed to get two of his friends interested in the study and its proceeding accordingly. Buchanan suggests that as Ps.Cyanescens in Europe and America is more significantly different microscopically (europe lacking pluerocystidia - america with pluerocystidia) than Ps.Australiana and Ps.Cyanescens, that they could be very similar - which Guzman conceeds.
So the study included ps.cyanescens from US as well as Ps.Bohemica and Ps.Azurescens. From what they are telling me, most of the delineation in Psilocybes is inappropriate and constructed purely on locational macroscopic and often flawed microscopic details - which alone should not delineate botanical species.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Anno]
    #1219183 -

'I have the impression though that the aothor only looks at the microscopic characteristics and completely denies the big macroscopic differences.'
For Botanical reference most of the macroscopic differences between Psilocybes - especially in the Cyanescens family are not significant.
Many of Guzman's psilocybes are delineated purely on minute microscopic differences and not macroscopic.
Lastly, Gartz did a study on intercompatibility of Ps.Azurescens, Ps.Cyanescens and Ps.Bohemica - can anyone source this?? Stamets quotes it in his book.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1219468 -

You mean this?

"Psilocybe azurescens generally resembles Psilocybe bohemica Sebek, Psilocybe
cyanofibrillosa Guzman & Stamets, Psilocybe cyanescens Wakefield, Psilocybe
eucalypta Guzman & Walting, Psilocybe mairei Singer, Psilocybe serbica Moser
& Horak and Psilocybe collybioides Singer & Smith. Complete reproductive
barriers have been found be one of the authors (Jochen Gartz) between
Psilocybe azurescens and P. bohemica as well as between P. azurescens and
Pacific Northwest European collections of P.cyanescens."

http://www.tacethno.com/info/psilocybe/astoria.txt


--------------------
Grow Mushrooms from Spores - PF-Tek for Simple Minds

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Anno]
    #1224907 -

The actual study itself. No matter Ive managed to find it.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #1224926 -

Online? Or in paper?


--------------------
Grow Mushrooms from Spores - PF-Tek for Simple Minds

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: All woodlovers are Ps.Cyanescens?? [Re: Anno]
    #1224951 -

in paper - lucky because we've found quite a resource of works in Canada of all places.
Id better stop nagging these guys though and just sit back and wait for the results.


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

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

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Advanced Mycology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* cowdung/straw tek for p.cyanescens. doesnt work Pasqual 797 1 01/28/02 09:39 AM
by CLuB99
* Psilocybe subaeruginosa tek taz_devil 14,076 19 06/23/26 05:32 PM
by houndz
* Indoor cultivation of P.Subagaurosa aussishroomhead 2,331 4 10/05/01 09:01 AM
by aussishroomhead
* P. arcana(?) psilocybin/psilocin analyisis AnnoA 3,528 18 11/20/09 02:53 AM
by white rabbit
* A Proposition to Excel Ps. Cyanescens Habitat
( 1 2 all )		 Joshua 5,006 32 06/02/05 12:53 PM
by Anno
* Ps. cyanescens Bed. aaron 2,771 17 12/16/01 11:48 PM
by aaron
* Re: Bulk Ps. Cyanescens Cultivation Anonymous 3,980 12 01/12/00 10:06 AM
by Anonymous
* P. caerulipes? THATS iT! 730 3 10/05/03 10:51 AM
by zeronio

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: RogerRabbit, cronicr, Stipe-n Cap, Pastywhyte, bodhisatta
2,711 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.