Heyowana said:

Both you guys would have some prejudice. Might I suggest myself. I'll give them a true evaluation. I've had plenty of northern NSW goldtops. So I'll judge them fairly. I promise.

---

How come you reckon we would have any prejudice?
Are you suggesting reporting on a decent amount of samplers experiences?
You can most definitely have a print after I have done my job with the genetics brother.

I'm sure many epiphanies will be had from this variety, they are shrooms after all...

Heyowana said:

This is what I don't like about this website. The near mythic status given to P.cubensis by kids.

---

Heyowana said:

I can find potent P.cubensis in NSW but mostly they are not potent. Even at their best weight for weight they do not match up to most other psilocybin mushrooms.

Ignorance begets ignorance. So instead of worrying about who gets what and whatever ensure that you start with decent goldtops. They look decent but the proof is in the testing.

---

Oh yeah, no worries Heyowana, I'm not bias like that.

Are you wanting to try Subsistence's wild specimens from his woodchip cube patch?
If that be the case, then you will have to hit him up I suppose...
I don't even know if the patch is still producing at the moment.

Yeah, I hear that wild cubes are not as potent as say, wild subs, but they are cubes, so it's only fair they are compared to other cubes when testing potency, your experience would make you an ideal candidate to test the potency of Epiphany in the Woods no doubt.

I don't even know if Subsistence has tried them yet bro...
But if Subsistence takes you up on your offer, I would be ecstatic, that would be really dope, he should definitely take you up on that offer.
I don't see why not, unless the patch has stopped producing and he has no dried stock of them, in that case it's too late.

Either way, I'm still going to be getting to work with the spore print regardless, I will receive it from Subsistence soon, and a few months later I'll be able to test the potency of the second generation, first generation being the specimen the print came from.

The main reason behind the name, is just to acknowledge the fact that shrooms give you epiphanies, I don't see why these would be any exception, and in the woods because of the substrate they fruited in.
Short and sweet with meaning.

Subsistence and I just wanted everyone who gets a chance to ingest our var. to know that, our little message is in the name.

Adden, there is great truth in this part.

Adden said:

Well and TBH there's trillions of genetics in that and there's already been horizontal gene transfer through it, so the next fruits will look completely different from pin to mature. It's not just going to decide to eat wood and wood only.

---

But as for the rest bro, in all seriousness, this is exactly how certain varieties or "strains" are created!!!

Take Psilocybe cubensis var. Lizard King for example....
Lizard King finds woodchip cubes, Lizard King hooks Anand up with spores from said wild woodchip cubensis, Anand stabilizes and domesticates it...
And there you go, Lizard King is born...

Subsistence and I shall be doing the same.

I'm not saying that I shall be getting Epiphiany in the Woods to fruit exclusively on wood, I shall be attempting to get the myc to eat woodchips no doubt, but I shall also be getting it to eat your typical cube substrates, like brf cakes, hpoo, coir, straw, ect...

Yeah, I know you are not intending to be a dick or negative Nancy, do not worry brother, I'm not perceiving you in that way.

Heyowana said:

This is what I don't like about this website. The near mythic status given to P.cubensis by kids.

---

Heyowana said:

I can find potent P.cubensis in NSW but mostly they are not potent. Even at their best weight for weight they do not match up to most other psilocybin mushrooms.

---

Heyowana said:

-I'm only saying that their psilocybin levels vary by a huge degree in the wild. I think someone should try them before going to a lot of trouble to cultivate and spread them around.

---

I Agree. Well said's..

mjshroomer said:

This is the original shroom from which all Koh Samui Ban Hua Thann shrooms orginated rom.

The first shroom I obtained three prints from.  It was collected in the same field as the P. samuiensis.  IT was then grown indoors in Europe and prints were obtained and sent to me.

And so I present these prints for your pleasure and enjoyment.

Here is a picture of the original mushroom involved.



mj

---

Subsistence said:

I thought i'd chime in at this point and say that I am feeling good about handing over my one and only spore print to Hashed to see what comes of it.. He seems like an excitable and passionate dude, and I like that. Also, he was the first to write to me and offer to cultivate from the print I have.

I harvested about 6 grams dry from the one and only flush of these shrooms and I consumed 4 grams last week. While I haven't tried different strains or varieties side by side, I have had my fair share of cubensis trips and I would have to say these were some of the more potent cubensis I've tried. TBH I had one of my most difficult trips to date. I only use mushrooms when I am feeling disconnected or need a kind of spiritual reboot, which was the case for me last week, and these little beauties were powerful for me. They brought me face to face with my deepest fears and anxieties, which was confronting as fuck, but I awoke the next morning feeling a massive weight lifted off my chest and a renewed sense of connection to my life. These feelings have lingered ever since.. So grateful..

Thanks Hashed for offering to take the time to cultivate these little forest dwellers, I really hope you find something unique and of interest to the community.

Big Love

---

If you can get a decent hit off 4g of wild cubensis that sounds good. At least they have been tested. All the best

Heyowana said:

I am not pro P.cubensis. I'm only saying that their psilocybin levels vary by a huge degree in the wild. I think someone should try them before going to a lot of trouble to cultivate and spread them around.

---

Well said. Anyone who has grown cubes long enough can tell you that even with a domesticated lineage, potency can range from stone bunk to near pan potency. The range is incredible and to achieve any sort of stability is going to require incredible attention to detail, careful testing of each generation and the guts to go back if things are not to par.

I also feel that wild lineages should have some reference to the location in the name. We have many older ones where that is lost and it's too late, but in the interest of preserving the history of a well domesticated line the name should be an indication of where it was found.

CureCat said:

Regarding "sub strains"(which is not a necessarily accurate description for phenotypic variation within a species).

Substrains are reference to allele variation within a species (i.e. Psilocybe cubensis).  Alleles are the term used for a specific genetic trait, they are in essence, genes, however within one parent organism, there may be different alleles(traits) for the same gene.  In the case of animals including humans, each parent has two alleles of one gene.  If one parent has lets say, a blue and a brown allele for the eye colour gene (lets assume only ONE gene influences eye colour for simplicity), brown eye colour is the dominant allele to blue.  What a dominant allele means versus a recessive allele, is that the dominant allele will be the one that is phenotypically expressed.  Phenotype refers to the active or apparent allele, rather than the dormant allele (blue eye colour) which will not be expressed because the dominant brown allele inhibits it.  The parent with brown eyes, yet having a blue allele and a brown allele, is said to be a "carrier" of the recessive allele(blue). 
When two parents produce offspring, each parent randomly passes one of their two alleles of a gene to the offsrping- either the blue or the brown.  Lets say that the other parent also has brown eyes, this means that we can assume that the parents has ATLEAST one brown allele, because brown is the phenotype, and the only way to express brown eyes, is to have atleast one brown allele.  This parent could also have a blue or green recessive allele, or they could have two brown alleles, which would still express itself as brown.  If the parents produce offspring, the ofspring could recieve both dominant brown alleles, one brown dom. allele, and one blue rec. allele, which would produce brown eye colour, OR they could get one blue rec. allele from each parent, and without a brown dom. allele to mask the blue trait, the child of two brown eyed parents could produce a blue eyed child.
With "strains" or "substrains", often the less adaptive trait will hinder the organism, and the organism may die before reaching reproductive maturity, thus it would not pass on it's maladaptive alleles to the next generation.  This phenomena if referred to as Natural Selection, and it often works well for the species, allowing only the best traits to be passed on.  This is all relative to environment, and the environment will select for specific traits that are beneficial for the organism in its environment.  This is why you do not sea animals with dense fur such as a polar bear in Africa- because those traits which help the animal to survive extreme colds, are maladaptive in its survival in the hot savanna of Africa, and it would die.

When you see consistent phenotypical variation between two geographical populations of the same species (as in the case of P. cubensis), it is because natural selection has selected for or against certain traits, and often certain traits may become extinct within one population, where another population of the same species may commonly express the trait that became extinct in the other group.  Because both members of the two populations are of the same species, they are able to breed and produce offspring, with some traits familiar to both populations(strains).

---