Quote:

---

Mycoangulo said:
Mexicanae, Aztecorum, Cyanescens, Stuntzae, Cordisporae, Zapotecorum, Semilanceatae, perhaps a few others that skip my mind IDK...

Guzman was the inventor of the "Section" thing AFAIK...

---

Quote:

---

Gaston Guzman said:
To divide the genus in sections the following characters were used:
1) presence of absence of pleurocystidia.
2) color of the pleurocystidia,
3) form and size of the spores,
4) thickness of the spore wall.
5) presence or absence of an annulus. and
6) bluing reaction.

To delimit species the following characters are the more important (besides the mentioned above):

1) form of the pileus.
2) surface viscid or dry (of the pileus),
3) position of the gills, and
4) structure of the subhymenium and hypodermium.

---

Quote:

---

in his worldwide monograph, published an infrageneric classification based on the bluing reaction of basidiomata; pileus shape; presence and type of annulus; growth substrate; form, color, and wall thickness of basidiospores; and content color of pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia. Thus far, Guzmán (1983, 1995, 2004) and Guzmán et al. (2007a) have recognized 19 sections in Psilocybe s.l.

---

Quote:

---

Singer (1986) pointed out the presence of chrysocystidia, differentiated sterile cells located in the hymenium that possess a golden inclusion in alkali solutions, as an important character for Psilocybe classification, in addition to
many of the abovementioned characteristics. However, Singer did not consider spore shape and content color of cystidia to be meaningful. Singer (1986) recognized only seven sections, one of them (sect. Caerulescentes) with seven stirps.

---

Quote:

---

Noordeloos (2011) divided Deconica and Psilocybe into three sections, each based on the same features considered by previous authors except for the presence of chrysocystidia.

---

Quote:

---

RenegadeMycologist said:
Not sure those sections match phylo groups, probably not.

---

Quote:

---

Alan should exlain to us how many phylo groups are there in total in Psilocybe, and do they corespond to macro/micro morphology sections, thats all that matters imo.

---

That would be clades then, not sections, if I'm not mistaken?

Quote:

---

Anglerfish said:

That would be clades then, not sections, if I'm not mistaken?

---

Quote:

---

obtuse said:

Quote:

---

Anglerfish said:

That would be clades then, not sections, if I'm not mistaken?

---

In an ideal situation, the Sections should match the clades in a Phylogenetic tree.

---

Quote:

---

angulospora said:
Hi Alan, I was given your address by a friend and have sent you a spore print and some dried cap segments in the mail. I included an email address you can use to contact me directly if you need any more information or samples.

---

Quote:

---

Mycoangulo said:
Does anyone have any information about what section Section Cordisporae is?

Not very much comes up in an initial google search.

---

Quote:

---

RenegadeMycologist said:

All adaptive morphological forms we use to construct genera and sections are result of coding part of DNA, spacing parts are noncoding, maybe full genome analysis could help to establish some sections, but I doubt it's even possible.

---

Quote:

---

Blazer420 said:
Cant wait to eat these tonight with the bro

BLESS!

---

Ayyyyyyyy WHAT srs no way...

I hear that Psilocybe papuana is on Psilocybe aucklandiae lvl of potency from what Heyowana told me about his papuana trips.

LMK how it goes oi.

Quote:

---

angulospora said:
"They tend to be small, potent, dark in color and slow growing"

This describes them perfectly...

---

Fuck yeah dude!!!


I hear that papuana KICKS ASS!!!

Quote:

---

RenegadeMycologist said:
Feels sad man. Big, potent, dark in color and fast growing, thats a section you want your mushroom to be in

---