|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria 1
#4397850 - 07/12/05 10:06 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Psilocybe sierrae 7/12/05

I'm pretty sure about the identification on this one, but not 100%. Original singular specimen was collected in a field with Psilocybe semilanceata. Fruits easily and densely on manure based substrates.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
Kalix
'Head

Registered: 03/20/05
Posts: 1,504
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#4397869 - 07/12/05 10:15 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That's a beautiful, delicate mushroom!
-------------------- My Unitarian Jihad Name is: The Shotgun of Sweet Reason
|
scatmanrav
Brainy Smurf

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 11,483
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 25 days
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Kalix]
#4397920 - 07/12/05 10:34 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Are the active and if so, how much so?
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: scatmanrav]
#4397983 - 07/12/05 10:48 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
They are active and one (and only) test subject reported the potency roughly equal to Psilocybe cubensis.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
Edited by Workman (07/12/05 10:49 PM)
|
Cyano
Stranger
Registered: 03/25/04
Posts: 89
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#5001910 - 12/01/05 10:36 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Can they be grown indoors? If yes, what is the temperature dor fruiting?
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Cyano]
#5004782 - 12/01/05 10:48 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I haven't attempted it. Fruiting temperature is around 55-60F
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
ohmatic
searcher


Registered: 02/28/04
Posts: 6,742
Loc: europe
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#5005546 - 12/02/05 02:52 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
mmmmmmh some new looking species, yummy. being tired, well not tired but a bit bored, of the all alike lookin cubes already.
go 'n isolate it workman, id love to see a sucessful ftruitification indoors. peace ohm
--------------------
MONOTUB tek HEATBOMB tek RIP #cultivation! ....can't associate? well FUCK U !
|
eatyualive
Eat's You Alive :)


Registered: 08/17/01
Posts: 19,026
Loc: In Your Head
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#5098019 - 12/23/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
those are some nice fatties! congrats on the find!
|
GGreatOne234
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 8,946
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#5102006 - 12/24/05 01:38 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
those are some beauties! nice find..
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran



Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman] 6
#28610290 - 01/05/24 09:41 AM (22 days, 11 hours ago) |
|
|
ITS sequence of specimen.
CAAATTGTCATTTGTATTGTCCAAACGAAGGAACGGTTAGAAGCAGCGCAATCCCATTCATGCAAAGGCCCACGGCGTAGATAATTATCACACCAATAGACGGCTTTGCGCGGGGCACCGGCTAATACATTTAAGGGGAGCAGACCTCTTGACGAAGCCAGCAAAAGACCCCCACATCCAAGCCATTATCAGCAAAAACTGGTAAGGTTGAGAATTTAATGACACTCAAACAGGCATGCTCCTCGGAATACCAAGGAGCGCAAGGTGCGTTCAAAGATTCGATGATTCACTGAATTCTGCAATTCACATTACTTATCGCATTTCGCTGCGTTCTTCATCGATGCGAGAGCCAAGAGATCCGTTGCTGAAAGTTGTATATAGTTTATAGGCACAAGGCCAATATAATACATTCTGTTACATTCTTTGGGGTATATGAAAACGTAGGCCTGGGTTAATTGCAAGGAGAGCTTGTGAAAGCAATCCTCCCGACCGAGTTTCCTCGGAAAGTTAACTAATCCAGGTCTACAAAAGGTGCACAGGTGGAGAGATAAAGGGACACGGCGAGCACATGTCCTCGAGAGGACCAGCTACAACCGAGCCAAGTTTATTCCAATAATGATCCTTTCCGCAGGTTCCCCCTACGGAA
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,787
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman] 2
#28615951 - 01/10/24 04:01 AM (17 days, 17 hours ago) |
|
|
Closest I could find on a BLAST search is Ps. stuntzii. I couldn't find any Ps. sierrae ITS sequences available.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
inski
Cortinariologist



Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 5,720
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: BlimeyGrimey] 1
#28616239 - 01/10/24 10:45 AM (17 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Yes, and it's macroscopically similar to P. stuntzii also.
|
the_chosen_one
On the Darkslide


Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 2,882
Loc: 1984
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: inski]
#28616255 - 01/10/24 11:03 AM (17 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
This is awesome!
Hey Grimes! Good to see you around again!
-------------------- "Luck favors the observant." - Workman
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,787
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: the_chosen_one] 2
#28616610 - 01/10/24 04:41 PM (17 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
inski said: Yes, and it's macroscopically similar to P. stuntzii also.
I'm not very good at interpreting ITS data, but is there a chance this is Ps. stuntzii? Most of the Ps. stuntzii in the blast don't even match 100% to each other, and this ITS sequence even has some 99.5% matches with Ps. stuntzii. Once again though, I'm not very versed in ITS data.
Quote:
the_chosen_one said: This is awesome!
Hey Grimes! Good to see you around again! 
Hey TCO! I'm back! 
Over the next few months I'll be getting back into the hobby. Just got a scope after being scope-less for a decade.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran



Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: BlimeyGrimey] 3
#28617713 - 01/11/24 02:32 PM (16 days, 6 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlimeyGrimey said:
Quote:
inski said: Yes, and it's macroscopically similar to P. stuntzii also.
I'm not very good at interpreting ITS data, but is there a chance this is Ps. stuntzii? Most of the Ps. stuntzii in the blast don't even match 100% to each other, and this ITS sequence even has some 99.5% matches with Ps. stuntzii. Once again though, I'm not very versed in ITS data.
Quote:
the_chosen_one said: This is awesome!
Hey Grimes! Good to see you around again! 
Hey TCO! I'm back! 
Over the next few months I'll be getting back into the hobby. Just got a scope after being scope-less for a decade.
ITS data is very new to me too. I don't fully understand what I am looking at (yet) but the potential is huge. Currently working towards getting my entire collection sequenced. Good to see you Grimey!
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran



Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,598
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman] 1
#28619585 - 01/13/24 10:33 AM (14 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Alan Rockefeller confirms that it is P. stuntzii. So I guess it is settled and not so novel after all.
-------------------- Research funded by the patrons of The Spore Works Exotic Spore Supply My Instagram Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification 
|
the_chosen_one
On the Darkslide


Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 2,882
Loc: 1984
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#28619641 - 01/13/24 11:20 AM (14 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|

Hey, it brought some of the old crew out of the lurk. Not a total loss. 
Thanks for the update!
-------------------- "Luck favors the observant." - Workman
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,787
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Workman]
#28621065 - 01/14/24 01:47 PM (13 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Well that settles a few things for me.
1. I can, somewhat, interpret ITS using Genbank BLAST.
2. Ps. stuntzii has many varying morphologies that seem to be more substrate-based than temp-based. I'll have to revisit CaptainFuture's grows to see if he used any manure substrates in his Ps. stuntzii grows.
Considering I couldn't find a single Ps. sierrae sequence online, is it a real species?
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 38 minutes, 46 seconds
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: BlimeyGrimey] 1
#28636541 - 01/27/24 07:49 AM (13 hours, 35 minutes ago) |
|
|
As someone who studies and interprets molecular sequenceswith some regularity, I was excited to see this thread and would love to share my thoughts.
Firstly, I will start by saying that interpreting molecular sequences can be a bit challenging. I will also mention that my experience comes from non-fungal sequences, so my thoughts originate in that context.
It is possible that this is a new species (P. sierrae) and that the ITS barcode has not diverged enough to distinguish these two species from each other. However, in this case I would say that seems unlikely. The best way to truly know is full genome sequencing and comparison with other P. stuntzii species. There are examples of defined animal species (through morphology or other means) that are not resolvable at molecular barcode loci, which adds to the difficulty to interpret these data. Additionally, the degree of sampling plays a huge factor here, if species are poorly sampled, and represented in genetic databases, the ability to make meaningful conclusions about taxonomic identity are limited as well, because the full range of genetic diversity is not represented for the species that are likely candidates.
Making inferences from a single molecular sequence is also difficult, and generally discouraged in the molecular taxonomy literature. The rates of change at these barcode loci can be influenced by many things such as the time since speciation between this organism that was sequenced, and its last common ancestor with P. stuntzii (if it is a novel species). It can also be influenced by mutation rates in the species as well.
I suppose an experimental way to know if this is a novel species (I would imagine) are mating tests between the mycelia (not sure if these are done in this field). At least in non-fungal species the defining barrier for a species is generally the inability to produce viable interspecies hybrids. I know mycelia can have +/- mating types in some psilocybe species, so I am not sure if this sort of test can be used to evaluate interspecies hybrid fruits and sporulation capacity. The way I would like most to evaluate a true novel species would be this experiment in combination with whole genome sequences.
Now, interpreting the BLAST results for this ITS1 sequence:
The immediate interpretation definitely suggests that this sequence is most like P. stuntzii when using GenBank. If these two sequences are from different species (hypothesis), they must not have speciated long ago, or the rates of mutation are quite slow, and as a result mutations have not accumulated in ITS. The best way to know is to perform an integrative taxonomic approach which involves leveraging morphological data, with the molecular data (which it sounds like was done in this thread by others).
Now, I will point out some other observations about this sequence:
If we consider all of the intraspecific variation that is observed in P. stuntzii at this ITS sequence (by looking at all the ITS BLAST hits for this sequence from P. stuntzii) we can see that there are sequences with up to 98.9% similarity across the entire ITS sequence (OR167896), and even less when not considering the full query sequence (98.1%, KC669295). I will also point out that there are not many samples for this species, so the intraspecific variation at the ITS locus is likely not well captured here.
Despite that, these stuntzii records are pretty similar to the query sequence, but I will also draw your attention to the fact that there are ITS sequence from other species with a high degree of similarity to this sequence as well. For example, record MH856273 from P. semilanceata is 97.2% similar across the entire sequence. This level of difference would make me confident that at least this sequence seems most like P. stuntzii and can be resolved from P. semlianceata at this barcode locus. However, the interpretation is confounded by the fact that there is a P. baeocystis record OQ318237 that is 98.2% similar to the sample sequence, although a smaller alignment is considered in that case (93.5% of the query sequence). Additionally, P. angulospora seems to be closely related as well (97.4% identical across 93.5% of the sequence.
To me it seems that using the ITS1 sequence alone, it is hard to distinguish between P. stuntzii, P. semilanceata, P. angulospora, and P. baeocystis at least to a high degree of certainty.
The sequence certainly looks more like P. stuntzii to me, but I wouldn't be confident in the ID based on this sequence alone. Secondly, if you place the sequence into other species identification engines that can accept ITS sequence, it suggests there are a few species that are close matches including P. stuntzii, P. semilanceata, P. fasciata, P. hispanica, and P. strictipes, and it seems they actually cannot be resolved either. It suggests the best match to actually be P. semlianceata. What's more, P. strictipes seems to not be represented in GenBank, so when looking at these sequences, multiple database searches might be best.
In general, I would say that personally I would not confidently ID this species based on ITS sequence alone. The ID would have to be made based in other distinguishing morphological features as well (spore features, gill features etc.), and if possible other molecular data (ideally whole genome).
Those are my thoughts, happy to answer questions or clarify if need be.
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores




Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,787
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Psilocybe sierrae aka P. subfimetaria [Re: Pscientist]
#28637055 - 01/27/24 03:14 PM (6 hours, 10 minutes ago) |
|
|
Thank you for that rundown!
I'm not 100% convinced that even breeding studies would definitively identify multiple species as being synonymous. There seems to be evidence that species such as P. azurescens and cyanescens will breed and I believe most species within the same sect will probably breed, even if they don't do it often or readily.
Now I remember why I tend to stick to the hunting and cultivation of mushrooms instead of the taxonomy.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
|