Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Invisiblesam11
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/08/20
Posts: 677
Loc: North Flag
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: RenegadeMycologist]
    #27788886 - 05/22/22 11:43 PM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Thanks TimmiT.
So please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that, someone found what they thought was an undescribed psilocybe in tasmania. It got called tasmaniana. Then later some other people did some tests and said nah it's just a sub.....
If this is the case then shouldn't the argument be that tasmaniana doesn't exist at all, rather than, that isn't tasmaniana.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTas75
Taswegian
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/12/12
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: TimmiT]
    #27789042 - 05/23/22 05:05 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

TimmiT said:
Original description of Psilocybe tasmaniana
Guzman, G. & Watling, R. (1978). Studies in Australian agarics and boletes, 1: Some species of Psilocybe. Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. 36,179-210.

Paper that synonymised P. tasmaniana with P. subaeruginosa
Chang, Yu Shyun; Mills, Alan K. (1992). Reexamination of Psilocybe subaeruginosa and related species with comparative morphology, isozymes and mating compatibility studies. Mycological Research. 96 (6): 429–441.




Thanks TimmiT,

I have the second one, and am currently trying to get hold of the first one. Alan Mills used to have a copy, but AFAIK his library of reprints was cleaned off when he retired in the early 2000s.

My library does not have Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, unfortunately, it's not in Sci-Hub, and it's too new to be scanned into Biodiversity Heritage Library.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTas75
Taswegian
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/12/12
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: sam11]
    #27789047 - 05/23/22 05:12 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

sam11 said:
If this is the case then shouldn't the argument be that tasmaniana doesn't exist at all, rather than, that isn't tasmaniana.




I think it's going to be difficult to know for certain anyway, but my argument is that this thing we keep referring to as P. tasmaniana is not it.

The argument of whether P. tasmaniana is even a valid species separate from P. subaeruginosa, or even what the name P. subaeruginosa even means, is a separate argument. I'm much less certain. But I am pretty confident that the taxon to which the name P. tasmaniana is being applied does not grow wild down here. And there's the 'on dung' habitat. I'd love to see if that's part of the protologue or only the later revision, and similarly, whether the Mt Field specimen was cited in the protologue or only the later revision.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRenegadeMycologist
On the case
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/20
Posts: 3,817
Loc: Serbia Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 2 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Tas75]
    #27789058 - 05/23/22 05:28 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

sam11 said:
If this is the case then shouldn't the argument be that tasmaniana doesn't exist at all, rather than, that isn't tasmaniana.



It would render Psilocybe tasmaniana name invalid, since it's synonymous with subaeruginosa, which is published first. Saying "tasmaniana" does not exist is not necessarily true, because the name would still refer to something which is real and occurs in Tasmania, being actually already described Psilocybe subaeruginosa.

What really seems off is that original description claims pileus being "without a papilla", and looking at most pictures of Psilocybe "tasmaniana" it is very often papillate.

Also habitat, "growing on dung", is not really the preferred habitat of what people have been calling P.tasmaniana.


--------------------
:mushroom2:  l e a r n i n g  t h i n g s :mushroom2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnglerfishM
hearing things
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 18,643
Loc: Norvegr Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 27 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: RenegadeMycologist]
    #27789135 - 05/23/22 07:18 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

RenegadeMycologist said:
Quote:

sam11 said:
If this is the case then shouldn't the argument be that tasmaniana doesn't exist at all, rather than, that isn't tasmaniana.



It would render Psilocybe tasmaniana name invalid, since it's synonymous with subaeruginosa, which is published first. Saying "tasmaniana" does not exist is not necessarily true, because the name would still refer to something which is real and occurs in Tasmania, being actually already described Psilocybe subaeruginosa.

What really seems off is that original description claims pileus being "without a papilla", and looking at most pictures of Psilocybe "tasmaniana" it is very often papillate.

Also habitat, "growing on dung", is not really the preferred habitat of what people have been calling P.tasmaniana.





So in short what was originally described as P. tasmaniana might not be the same as the species discussed here as being P. tasmaniana? :shrug:


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




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRenegadeMycologist
On the case
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/20
Posts: 3,817
Loc: Serbia Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 2 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Anglerfish]
    #27789309 - 05/23/22 10:34 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Anglerfish said:
So in short what was originally described as P. tasmaniana might not be the same as the species discussed here as being P. tasmaniana? :shrug:



Yes, the name might be misapplied, even though it gained traction. Apparently Tassies ain't finding tassies...But the good news is that holotype is saved, so eventually this could be resolved.

I wonder, Tas75, if you haven't found any Psilocybe like this, what is the closest match (any genera) you have found in Nugent or Mount Field, which corresponds to original, i.e. it has:
- non papillate pileus
- coprophilic tendencies
- forked cheilocystidia


--------------------
:mushroom2:  l e a r n i n g  t h i n g s :mushroom2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesam11
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/08/20
Posts: 677
Loc: North Flag
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: RenegadeMycologist]
    #27789524 - 05/23/22 02:08 PM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Okay after late night reading I found something that talked about the 3 Australian species that were synonymous with subaeruginosa. This article said that it was agreed that the other 2 were synonymous but did not agree that tasmaniana was synonymous. I think this was from round 1995.
So the first sample had a non papillate pileus (non nippley cap from my understanding) most of the "tasmaniana" I've found have a bit of a nipple going on but 2 of the smaller patches in the larger area I find them have a more domed cap like these


I'm not sure if these qualify as non papillate but at least an example of no pronounced nipple.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTas75
Taswegian
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/12/12
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: RenegadeMycologist] * 1
    #27790015 - 05/23/22 09:40 PM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

RenegadeMycologist said:
I wonder, Tas75, if you haven't found any Psilocybe like this, what is the closest match (any genera) you have found in Nugent or Mount Field, which corresponds to original, i.e. it has:
- non papillate pileus
- coprophilic tendencies
- forked cheilocystidia




I've found plenty of non-papillate populations, but they've never differed in other characters. I haven't seen anything in section Cyanescens that I could say was definitely growing from dung. I'm trying to get hold of the original description to see if there is an illustration of the shape of the forked cheilocystidia, so I know exactly what I'm looking for, but so far no, I haven't seen anything I could say for sure fitted the bill.

The main macroscopic variable characters in our populations are pileus colour (caramel-brown vs yellow), shape (papillate - umbonate - convex -flat), and pileus striations (none - faint - pronounced).

In my experience the main two morphotypes are:

  • An urban, landscaped bed morphotype that is generally quite small (2-3 cm wide, 2-4 cm tall), caramel-coloured, with a convex pileus and wavy cap margin. These have an upturned edge once they mature, and strongly resemble a small Psilocybe cyanescens.

  • A wild, native forest and pine plantation morphotype that is much larger (3-10 cm wide, 5-15 cm tall), pale caramel to yellow, pileus papillate - umbonate - convex, not usually going past flat, with the pileus circumference usually perfectly round.


First morphotype (non-papillate):



Variations of the second (all microscopically the same):

Caramel colour:



Yellow papillate:



Yellow umbonate:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Thing
ТнغТнརиو
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/18
Posts: 1,539
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Iggle Piggle]
    #27790058 - 05/23/22 10:37 PM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:



I haven't seen anything in section Cyanescens that I could say was definitely growing from dung.








I have …


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTas75
Taswegian
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/12/12
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: The Thing]
    #27790149 - 05/24/22 01:54 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The Thing said:

I have …




Cool! Horse?

I reckon native marsupial dung might also be able to host woodlovers, because it's mostly made up of cellulose and lignin.

The ones in your picture are fairly sub-like, though, and don't look like the thing being called P. tasmaniana.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Thing
ТнغТнརиو
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/18
Posts: 1,539
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Iggle Piggle]
    #27790195 - 05/24/22 04:09 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Nah, i’d say it was a rogue cow.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRenegadeMycologist
On the case
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/05/20
Posts: 3,817
Loc: Serbia Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 2 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Tas75]
    #27790198 - 05/24/22 04:11 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tas75 said:
I reckon native marsupial dung might also be able to host woodlovers, because it's mostly made up of cellulose and lignin.



Psilocybe angulospora, described from Taiwan on well manured grassland, is frequently found in nothing but woodchips, in New Zealand. Sequences in the GenBank from type material and NZ material match 100%. I wonder if it was firstly described from woodchips, then found in Taiwan many years later in a completely different habitat, would people regard substrate as a deal breaker.
I'm under the impression angulospora seems to be secondary woodlover, in contrast to primary (or exclusively) woodlover eg. P.ovoideocystidiata. So knowing Psilocybe spp are saprophytic, and some might not be substrate-picky, this dung thing might not be as important as it seems. At least in the case of some Psilocybe species, possibly tasmaniana. And like you say, manure consists mostly of lignin and cellulose anyway. There is also a possibility dung was just sitting around doing nothing for the mushroom, and the mushroom was just growing right next to it, around it, through it, whatever.

What is most convincing for me is that no one is finding Psilocybe tasmaniana in Tasmania growing in the wild. Not even at the type locality...


--------------------
:mushroom2:  l e a r n i n g  t h i n g s :mushroom2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesam11
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/08/20
Posts: 677
Loc: North Flag
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: RenegadeMycologist]
    #27790240 - 05/24/22 05:33 AM (1 year, 8 months ago)

as far as I'm aware, and from personal experience angulospora don't really grow on the wood chips as such. as you said they are secondary decomposers and i suspect, as with 'tasmaniana', that they grow from the potting mix that is with the plants when the garden is planted out initially. usually these garden beds are woodchipped to suppress weeds so it can look like they are growing off the wood chip. I do agree that the substrate isn't really a deal breaker.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTimmiTM
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 5,303
Loc: Victoria Flag
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: sam11] * 1
    #27793391 - 05/26/22 07:58 AM (1 year, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sam11 said:
Thanks TimmiT.
So please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that, someone found what they thought was an undescribed psilocybe in tasmania. It got called tasmaniana. Then later some other people did some tests and said nah it's just a sub.....
If this is the case then shouldn't the argument be that tasmaniana doesn't exist at all, rather than, that isn't tasmaniana.




Essentially... yes.

Guzman & Watling's paper examined a bunch of collections of Psilocybe that were collected by Roy Watling in the '70s. They came to the conclusion that that there were 3 new species that could be differentiated from P. subaeruginosa primarily based on the colour of their pleurocystidia. They claimed that P. subaeruginosa had brown pleurocystidia, whereas the new species all had hyaline (clear) pleurocystidia.

They further separated these 3 new species (P. australiana, P. eucalypta and P. tasmaniana) based on some minor differences in microscopic features, primarily the size and shape of their cheilocystidia and spores.

The key features that separated P. tasmaniana (and in their opinion justified its position as a separate species) were the habitat "on dung, or at least on debris (wood and leaves) intermixed with dung" and the cheilocystidia being long necked (>5 um) and often bifurcate. They described this species based on 4 collections that were made by Watling in 1974, 3 collections from Tasmania and 1 from Tidbinbilla (near Canberra). All 4 collections were lodged at the Edinburgh Herbarium (Watling has been criticised at times for not lodging syntype collections in Australia).

In 1992 Chang & Mills re-examined the holotype collections of Guzman & Watling's 3 new species as well as all the syntype collections of P. subaeruginosa made by J.B. Cleland (the mycologist who originally described it). They found that all collections had hyaline pleurocystidia, the key characteristic that had been used to separate P. subaeruginosa. They also found that all four species produced overlapping microscopic features (namely the spore size and cheilocystidia neck length). This left P. tasmaniana's "dung" habitat as the only defining feature of this species, however Guzman & Watling's description of P. tasmaniana's habitat alludes to the fact that it may not even be exclusively dung. For these reasons Chang & Mills reduced P. eucalypta, P. australiana and P. tasmaniana to synonyms of P. subaeruginosa.

Another study in 1995 by Johnston & Buchanan, looking at the species of Psilocybe found in New Zealand, saw the herbarium collection of P. subaeruginosa, P. eucalypta and P. australiana examined again. They also found that all collections had overlapping microscopic features and agreed with Chang & Mills' decision to place P. eucalypta and P. australiana in synonymy with P. subaeruginosa, however they felt that P. tasmaniana should remain valid due to its reported habitat on dung and sometimes branched cheilocystidia. As far as I can tell Johnston & Buchanan didn't examine any collections of P. tasmaniana.

The drawings in Chang & Mills (1992) show branched cheilocystidiata in collections of both P. australiana and P. subaeruginosa, so the utility of this feature in separating the species seems dubious to me.

TLDR:

I tend to agree with Chang & Mills and believe that all 3 of Guzman & Watling's species are actually Psilocybe subaeruginosa. This would mean that there is no such thing as Psilocybe tasmaniana (other than as a depreciated synonym of P. subaeruginosa).

That's not to suggest that the observations we're now taking about in this thread (such as Heyowana's collection) are actually P. subaeruginosa... or even that I know what they are... just that we shouldn't be calling them Psilocybe tasmaniana.


--------------------
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnglerfishM
hearing things
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 18,643
Loc: Norvegr Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 27 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: TimmiT]
    #27793490 - 05/26/22 09:32 AM (1 year, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TimmiT said:
That's not to suggest that the observations we're now taking about in this thread (such as Heyowana's collection) are actually P. subearuginosa... or ever that I know what they are... just that we shouldn't be calling them Psilocybe tasmaniana.




Makes me wonder if they are even one and the same species, all these collections of Psilocybe "not-so-tasmaniana"...?


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




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesam11
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/08/20
Posts: 677
Loc: North Flag
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Anglerfish]
    #27794251 - 05/26/22 07:34 PM (1 year, 7 months ago)

Thanks so much TimmiT. An excellent break down of the situation that even I can understand. Seems like a very logical conclusion, unless new specimens of tasmaniana are found. What is currently being called tasmaniana needs a new name then. And I think that your possibly right in that there maybe a few that are being lumped into the tasmaniana name. similar to how anything resembling a subaeruginosa in nz is referred to as a sub, but recently "suspect" subs have sequenced as cyanescens and alleni.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops.  I suppose someone needs to care enough about this to get a new name for 'tasmaniana'. I think it's fairly ingrained now though.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTas75
Taswegian
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/12/12
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: TimmiT]
    #27794503 - 05/26/22 11:17 PM (1 year, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TimmiT said:
That's not to suggest that the observations we're now taking about in this thread (such as Heyowana's collection) are actually P. subaeruginosa... or even that I know what they are... just that we shouldn't be calling them Psilocybe tasmaniana.




Thanks TimmiT!

I was going to say that I couldn't have said it better myself. I certainly DIDN'T say it better, so thank you for the detailed recap.

I agree this taxon being shown looks distinctive and I myself would not consider it the same as Psilocybe subaeruginosa. My main angle was thinking that we should be seeing this in Tasmania if it really was P. tasmaniana, but I also recall Yu Shyun Chang and Alan Mills being pretty convinced that all the specimens they examined were conspecific and morphologically very consistent.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMyco Phelps
Gold medalist
Male

Registered: 06/18/22
Posts: 73
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Psilocybe tasmaniana taxonomic solidification or dismisal thread! [Re: Tas75]
    #27830279 - 06/21/22 12:18 PM (1 year, 7 months ago)

Throw it back to 2016... This is the point in time where I was told what tasmaniana is...
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23118844#23118844

Quote:

inski said:
I tentatively determined the species as P. tasmaniana based on macro and micro morphology



Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
A new Psilocybe phylogenetic tree which includes these new sequences:



This tree isn't perfect because it lacks resolution - showing the species which are closely related but clearly different to be the same.  I'll make a better tree soon.

When you get the Alvalab results, send them to me so we can align the sequences and see how accurate and repeatable the results are.  I am guessing they will be very accurate and repeatable.

Another species which is close to P. alutacea is P. cyanofibrillosa 634/642(99%) - that result didn't come up in the BLAST search because it's a sequence that Jan made in his lab and he hasn't yet published it.


Another species which is close to P. tasmaniana is P. baeocystis - 643/647(99%).  Also not in GenBank for the same reason.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Psilocybe cyanescens: Official Fall 2004 Thread
( 1 2 3 4 ... 28 29 )
Gumby 104,854 577 12/08/14 02:56 PM
by TheShroomNinja
* Psilocybe Caerulipes?
( 1 2 all )
Zen Peddler 9,713 33 12/15/02 07:05 AM
by Anonymous
* EXCLUSIVE: Psilocybe moravica from the Czech republic
( 1 2 3 all )
mjshroomer 15,591 44 03/13/09 05:54 PM
by HCLivess
* Possible psilocybe azurescens =) farmboybluez 11,684 16 09/20/17 03:08 PM
by perkysmiles
* New Psilocybe species and weilii(TONS OF PICS!)
( 1 2 all )
Gumby 15,476 29 09/09/09 11:15 PM
by Gumby
* English Psilocybe cyanescens - new find / pics
( 1 2 3 all )
pluteus 22,019 42 12/05/03 01:11 PM
by Silverwolf
* Taxonomical Significance of Microscopic Characters.
( 1 2 3 all )
AnastomosisJihad 5,162 52 01/30/08 11:54 AM
by AnastomosisJihad
* Psilocybe tasmaniana, wood or dung lover?
( 1 2 all )
BlimeyGrimey 15,464 36 05/15/10 07:07 AM
by Zen Peddler

Extra information
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
1,108 topic views. 3 members, 29 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.