Quote:

---

Producing some ATL 7 and Mexicana, and I'm curious if anyone knows 1. Can you eat the fruited mushrooms? 2. If so, is potency similar to cubensis (if not any comparisons)?

---

Quote:

---

it seems like the fruits are more potent. I'd be fine with half what I'd normally take in cubes - 2 grams of P mex would easily give me what an eighth of cubes does

---

Quote:

---

In my experience they are
1.Psilocybe Azurescens
2.Psilocybe Cyanescens
3 Panaeolus (Copelandia) Cyanescens
4 Psilocybe Mexicana(fruit)
5 Psilocybe Tampanensis (fruit)

---

Quote:

---

why don't more people grow sclerotia species. It seems like you'd get to double dip. The harvest of stones and libs.

---

Quote:

---

Pandemoon said:
I think he is asking about the fruitbodies ontop of the truffles.
He wants to know about the potency of the mushroom fruit itself, not the sclerotia underneath.[\quote]

I was talking about the fruits.

[Quote]I read elsewhere that it's harder to fruit P.mexicana than lets say P.cubensis.

---

Quote:

---

36fuckin5 said:
Whoever wrote that is just wrong. They're more potent than Cubensis.

---

Ok, you're probably right.
And I'm sorry, I totally misread your post in the first place.

-

Quote:

---

Tampanensis is mexicana lol its a variety of mexicana not a distinct species.

---

Quote:

---

Guzmán classified P. tampanensis in his section Mexicanae, a grouping of related Psilocybe species characterized primarily by having spores with lengths greater than 8 micrometers

---

Quote:

---

Mexicanae is a section in the Psilocybe genus.
Some species in this section produce sclerotia, like P. mexicana, P. tampanensis and P. galindoi, just to name the "infamous three".
When you refer to "ATL#7" it is actually P. galindoi, so yes, that's part of the Mexicanae too.
A/B/Jalisco are variants of P. mexicana.
When I wrote that my favorite is section Mexicanae to cultivate, I meant that I like it's species for their overall macroscopic appearance.
As far as sclerotia production goes, my ultimate favorite is P. mexicana/A.
The yield is fantastic, but it is pretty difficult to fruit.
P. galindoi/ATL#7 has lower but still great yield however it's much easier to fruit.
P. tampanesis yields OK, fruits OK.
This is from the cultivator POV only, since I don't trip.
Hope it clears some thing up.

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

Quote:

---

PlantManBee said:
as far as the species go there are several things going on naming wise. The latin naming system is pretty specific, as it is supposed to keep things clear as to what are and aren't the same things.

P. mexicana Strain A, Strain B and Jalisco are all the same species (assuming the names are correct)

---

Probably correct, but ITS sequences should be checked to see if there are any cryptic species hiding in this group which have the same microscopic features.

Quote:

---

but different strains.

---

Or I would call them different collections because I am more of a taxonomist than a cultivator.

Quote:

---

P. galindoi (AKA atl#7, Atlantis ) is a similar species that was found in GA.

---

P. galindoi was described from Jalisco, just a bit south of Guadalajara near Lake Chapala.  I have hunted there and P. mexicana everywhere.  The microscopic features of the holotype overlap completely with those of the holotype of P. mexicana, so this is another P. mexicana synonym.
 
Alonso studied all of the holotypes in this group (and about 50 more collections, months of careful microscopy) and found that P. armandii, P. galindoi, P. pileocystidiata and P. tampanensis are synonymous with P. mexicana. 

The name which takes precedence is P. mexicana because it was published first - described in 1957 from Huautla de Jimenez, Oaxaca.  I have a topotype collection from Huautla which I intend to sequence, but I am pretty sure it would be the same as all of the other sequences.

All of the ITS sequences of this group that I have seen are identical, and there are quite a few.  I made a few more in a Mexican lab while filming Hamilton's VICE documentary, but they didn't use that footage in the show.  P. mexicana is a pretty widespread species which occurs in Florida, Mississippi, about half the states in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

Quote:

---

P. tampanensis is yet another species

---

P. tampanensis is what they called P. mexicana when they found it in Florida.    Guzman was infamous for being a splitter, and he would call things different species if they were found 100 miles apart and had some tiny microscopic difference.

Quote:

---

The last two are not P. mexicana .... that is unless there is a labeling snafu across the industry. I don't think there is.

---

The ATL7 that is going around might be P. atlantis.    It is slightly different from P. mexicana both macroscopically and microscopically - but very close.  The cap of P. atlantis is darker and less striate.  I imagine that ITS sequence would be just a couple base pairs off, but I don't have that one yet and it's not in GenBank.

Quote:

---

stevo said:
ATL7 was thought to be atlantis originally but then workman relabeled it was galindoi, but iirc, initially galindii, just in case they werent the same thing.

---

Calling ATL7 P. galindoi was an error.  Vicki made the same error when she studied the holotype, but then she studied it again a couple years later and was able to find minor microscopic differences.  Guzman's microscopic descriptions vary in quality and completeness, so the only way to make progress with this group is to sequence the ITS region of all collections and then carefully compare with the microscopy with the microscopy of all of the holotypes - Years of careful microscopic drawings by Alonso, which is currently sitting in binders at Inecol in Xalapa.  Alonso and I have a paper in press with the findings, but it'll be a couple years before it gets published.

Quote:

---

Also, the stones from P.mexicana are markedly darker in all the photos I've seen than any P.galindoi stones I've seen.

---

The color of the sclerotia is not one of the features that Guzman used to delimit species in Psilocybe.  If the DNA sequences between various collections differ, that will be a feature that will be used to delimit species in future literature.

Quote:

---

I have looked at sclerotia from ATL7, tampanensis, Jalisco, chicon nindo, and mex-a and have not noticed any difference.  I might have thought that too at first but I think they just vary a lot from strain to strain.

---

Chicon Nindo is just up the road from Huautla, so that is the one most likely to be the true P. mexicana.  But I think they all are except probably for ATL7.    ATL7 would be the next logical one to do DNA work on.    I'll try to get my sequences uploaded to GenBank soon so anyone else who wants to dig into this can easily access the raw sequence data.

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

Quote:

---

northgahunt said:
Wouldn't you think the range of findings would be much larger than North Georgia?

---

Oh it is.  P. caerulescens was described from Montgomery, Alabama, by Murrill in 1923 on sugarcane mulch.  It is also common in Georgia and is also found in South Carolina, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Panama, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and many other places.

The original description of this species wasn't very good, so it has been redescribed many times since.  Psilocybe bispora, P. villarrealiae, P. weilii and P. caribaea are synonyms which have been more recently described.

Guzman is a "splitter" rather than a lumper.  He did not take the full range of possible variations into account when deciding if something is a new species.  His new book is based on extensive review of type collections, and will consolidate many species which are actually synonymous, greatly simplifying the task of Psilocybe identification.  The release date of the new book is not yet known.

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

Quote:

---

dxharms said:
ive seen you say this before but why is it not called weilii anymore?

---

Psilocybe weilii was described as a new species by Paul Stamets in 1996 due to the presence of pleurocystidia, which was supposedly missing from P. caerulescens.

However Alonso studied the type collection, which was collected by Murrill in Alabama in 1923.  It has pleurocystidia.  Also AH Smith's notes from the 50's mention that he saw pleurocystidia, though he never published that.

Quote:

---

how does andrew weil feel about this?

---

I don't think he really likes it.  I told him in person a couple years ago, and he immediately ran out of the room and called Paul Stamets.  Paul was like....ummm....I don't know man....


The lesson to be learned here is that when you describe a new species, always check the closely related species to find out if they are actually the same.  Preferably by studying type collections.  If Paul had done this in 1996, he never would have published P. weilii.

P. caerulescens has several synonyms which will be synonymized in a new paper coming out soon - they include:  Psilocybe mazatecorum, Psilocybe caerulescens var. mazatecorum, Psilocybe caerulescens var. nigripes, Psilocybe mazatecorum f. ombrophila, Psilocybe mazatecorum f. heliophila, Psilocybe mixaeensis, Psilocybe caerulescens ssp. mazatecorum var. ombrophila, Psilocybe caerulescens ssp. caerulescens var. albida, Psilocybe wrightii, Psilocybe caerulescens var. ombrophila, Psilocybe heliconiae, Psilocybe weilii, Psilocybe villarrealiae, Psilocybe caribaea, Psilocybe bispora and Psilocybe subannulata.

---