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Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information.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


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#1334375 - 02/25/03 10:02 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quite a nice mixture of aussie shrooms there in those pics! If only we had more rain down south! MJ how often do you update that online book? I can confirm that panaeolus cyanescens is found in Victoria Australia and ive had reports of psilocybe cubensis down here as well. Also the dosage for subaeruginosa is a little high - they are damn potent shrooms - 1.4psilocybin .7ish psilocin from law-enforcement funded alkaloid analysis. You could also explain that Ps.Subaeruginosa as found in victoria is Guzman's Australiana.
--------------------
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#1334520 - 02/25/03 10:52 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So what your saying is that your info from that book is based purely on published material? Where was that dosage for subaeruginosa published? Im not why publshing validates your work, when you consider that much of what is published regarding Australian psychoactive mushrooms is factually incorrect and published outside Australia.
--------------------
Edited by Zen Peddler (02/25/03 10:53 AM)
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#1343333 - 02/28/03 03:05 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
'I would also like to point out that Paul Velgalys has already made microscopic identification obsolete with his new 50 page paper on DNA which now reclassifies all of the psilocybian mushrooms into a new genus (Clade) in phylogeny called Psychedlia. ' The plot thickens! This is exactly what the guys im working with are trying to do - isozyme and dna analysis and ofcourse their work will be published. Microscopic identification cannot be relied on anyway, because Guzman's error with Subaeruginosa and pigmented cystidia indicates how easily errors can be made. Your point about published work having more validaty in terms of the credibility of the facts therein has been demonstrated not to be sound. I can quote you numerous documents on Australian psilocybes that are factually incorrect - Stamets and Guzman in particular. CHang and Mills as well as Buchanan are both published and both demonstrate that atleast - Subaeruginosa and Australiana are the same mushroom. My own research has demonstrated this. And I am endevouring for an academic in Australia to publish these findings. Lastly, you seem to be making the point that your dosage recommendation for subaeruginosa is based on personal experience. Have you bioassayed these mushrooms? Thanks again for the info and links - ill pass these on as they are invaluable to the guys conducting these studies. Dont have a copy of Chang and Mills by any chance? Or Guzman's reply? I have mentioned editing the online site simply because I am aware how fastidious you can be with facts.
--------------------
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#1343335 - 02/28/03 03:08 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
'I merely said that Unless it is published it is not valid to the mycological academia. ' But like you said, just because its published does not make it valid. When ive spoken to academics and pointed out names like Stamets they always smile.
--------------------
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: mjshroomer]
#1343418 - 02/28/03 03:54 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting stuff. Still trying to cultivate aucklandii for a looksee. Do you happen to have a copy of Chang and Mills?
--------------------
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: brisbane, australia.. mushrooms [Re: ]
#1344094 - 02/28/03 10:13 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, in most cases i can see your point. But with some psilocybes there has been delineation purely on minute differences in the size/shape of cystidia, and I dont think this really serves any purpose.
--------------------
|
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout 11,141 topic views. 0 members, 15 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] |
|