|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
 The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members 
#3750929 - 02/08/05 12:31 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
HEre is the latest bit of information from Dr. Guzm?n on his revised edition of the Geneus Psilocybe.
From a personal communication to me:
Quote:
My second edition on my book the genus Psilocybe is in preparation. I will take all the year in it. I am studying collections from all the world. I have now more than 200 species (in the 1983 edition were 144).
It is bad that people take my book of 1983 by internet, this a bad way and it is forbidden.
mjshroomer
|
ambros
Stranger
Registered: 09/09/03
Posts: 79
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#3783223 - 02/15/05 11:54 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
why is he so biased towards people publishing (just parts i tink) on internet?
i would like to see everything regarding semilanceata
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: ambros]
#3783624 - 02/15/05 01:29 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The copyright of the book belongs to the journal which published it and it is a violation of copyright laws to post other peoples coryrighted materials.
The book was originally $100.00 a copy. It is a lifetime of research for Dr. Guzman. He gets no money for the book because it is a journal publication. But uit is a vilation of the copyright law and someone posted it ont he internet.
mj
|
 Workman
1999 Spore War Veteran
 
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 3,603
Loc: Oregon, USA
Last seen: 14 hours, 51 minutes
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#3783811 - 02/15/05 02:13 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I would buy a copy but it is impossible to find and I have tried for years.
I was able to get the suppliment from the publisher.
--------------------
Research funded by the patrons of
The Spore Works
Exotic Spore Supply
My Instagram
Reinvesting 25% of Sales Towards Basic Research and Species Identification  
|
ambros
Stranger
Registered: 09/09/03
Posts: 79
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#3788821 - 02/16/05 10:44 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
if he gets no money for it and just want to spread the knowledge of his reaserch, would it be so hard to work out a deal with the publisher for making it avaible online aswell. (perhaps just the parts regarding the most common like cubensis and semilanceata)
people who buy such a book will do so anyway
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: ambros]
#3788976 - 02/16/05 11:30 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The book is printed in 1983 and an updated new supplement was written in 1995.
Respectable scientific journals do not like their copyrighted papers on the internet. Most journals have a small printing. soemtimes only 200 copies of a journal to 2000 copies. They end up on library shelves and a few to the authors for their paper contribution to the journal.
Remember that not all knoweldge is free. Thats why people go to schools to learn about these things.
While the internet has opened the door to the spread of information, A lot is not free.
Even many sites have blocks on their images so no one can copy them.
I provide over 6000 images at my site, yet every now and then I get on someones case for using my materials without my permission.
Most respected authors do not go on line for communications of anything, except maybe to do other research or learn of other peoples most recent works.
While Funghi Pefecti has a site, evewn Paul Stamets has threatened to sue many people over the past four years for illegally using his images on the web. He does not like it. And the same with many professionals. Also some sites by professionals also carry mistakes created by other experts years before.
Two mushrooms of this situation are Panaeolina foenisecii and Panaeous sphinctrinus.
Always listed as possibly hallucinogenic, etc.
So is Psilocybe coprophila. I still see dozens of websites offereing this misinformation. Guzmans book was loaded with typos and bad English. We all hope the new edition will be improved on in those departments.
Guzman had his book on the web for four years and took it down when he began to write the updated new version.
He, as noted in the post above I made, does not like other people posting his works without permission. Not that he would give permission or not. He is mad that someone else is posting his copyrighted materials from the journal the book appeared in.
While I have posted papers I have written with Guzman, I have permission frm the publishers and him to do so at my site and a few other well known shroom sites.
mj
|
Kevin
IES
Registered: 06/03/00
Posts: 676
Loc: Oregon
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#3791662 - 02/17/05 02:38 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
LOOK WHAT I MADE ALL BY MYSELF!!!!
--------------------
"Is it a mile walking, or a mile driving?" - dobie
 
|
lesstutrey
All Weather Associate
Registered: 10/24/04
Posts: 495
Loc: Chicagoland
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Kevin]
#3791676 - 02/17/05 02:44 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
but witholding information for money is the basis of elitism in all of the world.
|
Joshua
Holoman
Registered: 10/27/98
Posts: 5,398
Loc: The Matrix
|
 Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Kevin]
#3793988 - 02/17/05 03:33 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
LOL!!
--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore
Great books for inquiring minds!
"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,652
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 11 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: lesstutrey]
#3798481 - 02/18/05 12:58 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed.
Probably best that this Guzm?n character, and his product be ignored.
There's no reason someone else couldn't provide a similar product that is open liscensed.
--------------------
This space for rent
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#3798603 - 02/18/05 01:25 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Gast?n Guzm?n is the leading authority on the genus psilocybe, haveing written the only recognized monograph on the genera psilocybe.
He is also the leading expert on the Indians who use these mushrooms as well as the head of the Mexican mycological Society and His works appear in journal publications, Not in books of personal profits.
Of course he also has shroom ID books, but then again, All good mushroom identification books generally cost a pretty penny. There is one book on Shroom poisoning byu Rumack and Salzman which is also very expenzive.
The larger the shroom ID book (pictorials, etc.) the more expensive the shroom guides are.
Even Paul Stamets next shroom book on the Psilocybes will cost close to $50.00
Thats the cost of publishing these days.
Books are bercoming very expensive as paper products become more expensive for the consumer.
mj
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members *DELETED* [Re: mjshroomer]
#5427901 - 03/21/06 10:30 PM (18 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by bluemeanieReason for deletion: bbb
--------------------
|
remediator
IllustriousPotentato
Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 137
Loc: NOLA ATM
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5428461 - 03/22/06 12:53 AM (18 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Why on earth did you revive this thread?
I mean, i agree with you 100 percent. DNA is irreversibly changing taxonomy, and the old ways are just that, OLD.
Like this thread used to be. 
|
Quankus
keep a dreamjournal
Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 362
Loc: Benicia, CA and Monterey ...
Last seen: 4 years, 15 days
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: remediator]
#5428592 - 03/22/06 02:12 AM (18 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I hope the updated psilocybe list contains info on the new bay area species aka cyanofriscosa.
--------------------
CyanoFriscosa
|
rDr4g0n
Young Hand
Registered: 01/17/06
Posts: 587
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Quankus]
#5428825 - 03/22/06 07:01 AM (18 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
i hope the book is better written than the personal corrspondence posted above.
"do not eat these mushrooms. they are bad mushrooms! bad mushroom! bad! and they are forbidden!"
--------------------
i can speel... im just too lazy to sppelcheck.
My first trip (good read) - Speed Leaching Poo! - My Second Trip (with art)
Edited by rDr4g0n (03/22/06 07:02 AM)
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: remediator]
#5436942 - 03/24/06 01:29 AM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
sorry mate - good point
--------------------
|
Anno
Experimenter
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 5 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#5436987 - 03/24/06 02:38 AM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
My second edition on my book the genus Psilocybe is in preparation. I will take all the year in it. I am studying collections from all the world. I have now more than 200 species (in the 1983 edition were 144).
So, where can we buy this book?
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Anno]
#5437427 - 03/24/06 07:37 AM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Hi Anno,
Guzm?n is still working on his revised monograph.
The more than 200 species is actually 227 taxa in the genera of which 144 are hallucinogenic.
Now tht does not count the other 11 families of fungi which are also psilocybian, such as Copelandia, Gymnopilus, etc.
AS for when the book will be out. I have no idea. I am sure he will let me know sometime.
And I wondered why this old thread was brought up but the info is still good. The original book was 100.00 from the publisher. And that was in 1983.
This one will probably be be even more expensive.
Aniother cool, yet expensive book was Richard Evans Scultes and Albert Hofmann's Botany and Chemistry of the Hallucinogens. That also was a $100.00 book. Now out of print and probably worth a lot on ebay.
later,
mj
|
asci
HONGO
Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 111
Loc: oregon
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#5442269 - 03/25/06 09:09 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
dr. guzman's book the genus psilocybe is one of the most complete works on the specie. without dr. guzman's hard work and dedication alot of the etnomycologist today would not have the extensive knowledge of psilocybin fungi. i would like view the revised edition. hopefully it will be available through my university soon.
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: asci]
#5442437 - 03/25/06 09:54 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
sorry mate but i dont agree at all - for the reasons ive stated above.
When proper DNA mapping or izozyme compatibility studies are done I doubt there will be anywhere near 200 species in the Psilocybe family - infact soon there wont even be a Psilocybe family - from what ive heard there will be a name change.
Although I have respect for Guzman's interest and his study in the early days - the majority of his delineation work based on minor microscopic differences will be proven redudant.
As for the info still being correct - well that would be according to MJ and Guzman... But opinion aint fact...
--------------------
|
ToxicMan
Bite me, it's fun!
Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,725
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 11 hours, 17 minutes
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5442721 - 03/25/06 11:52 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
bluemeanie, I partially agree and partially disagree with you.
The book will be useful as a definitive survey (at least at the point in time when it's published) of the genus. The descriptions and other data in it will be of great value to anybody who wants to seriously study the genus.
On the other hand, you are correct that the classifications will be changing once molecular studies are done. This will be happening all over. The initial studies seem to indicate that Cortinarius will be split into lots of pieces. Coprinus already has bee split into multiple genera (almost none of the mushrooms we call Coprinus are still in the genus). The species Guzman lists will undoubtedly be split and joined into something different. This is already being done elsewhere. Galerina autumnalis, G. venenata and G. marginata (and a couple other species) are the same species (G. marginata has priority, so it's the official correct name).
We are at an interesting time historically for biology. The taxonomy world will be turned on its head.
The professionals I've spoken with have advised that we should ignore all of that. Basically, learn to recognize the species in your area. If you can't be sure what the current official name is, go ahead and make up a common name for your own use. If an expert comes by and can tell you what the official name is, you can then translate your common name to the official name and anything you'll have done with those species is perfectly valid.
Happy mushrooming!
--------------------
Happy mushrooming!
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Quankus]
#5443927 - 03/26/06 12:38 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quankus said:
I hope the updated psilocybe list contains info on the new bay area species aka cyanofriscosa.
Guzman has seen a collection that I've sent him - he identifies it as Psilocybe cyanescens, but I'm not so sure. I'm doing work on this group for my California monograph. I think the California "cyanofibrillosa" is a distinct species, but on the other hand, I see a range of gradation between P. cyanescens and "cyanofriscoa", which implies that they might be crossing with each other, which would make them the same biological species. (Note that interfertility between P. azurescens and P. cyanescens has also been demonstrated.)
My schedule for publishing my California monograph won't be until next year, so unless there's a delay in Guzman's finishing his world monograph, a lot of my findings won't be incorporated into that work. (Since I've done lots of in-depth study of California Psilocybe populations that Guzman isn't able to do - which would be true of anybody writing a regional monograph as opposed to a world one - the information in my monograph will not be redundant.) Its to be expected, though, that there will continue to be ongoing work on the genus and lots of name changes, even after Guzman publishes his monograph.
Peter
|
Strophariaceae
mycologist
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 109
Loc: Marvelous Marin County, C...
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5443977 - 03/26/06 01:09 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bluemeanie said:
sorry mate but i dont agree at all - for the reasons ive stated above.
When proper DNA mapping or izozyme compatibility studies are done I doubt there will be anywhere near 200 species in the Psilocybe family - infact soon there wont even be a Psilocybe family - from what ive heard there will be a name change.
Although I have respect for Guzman's interest and his study in the early days - the majority of his delineation work based on minor microscopic differences will be proven redudant.
As for the info still being correct - well that would be according to MJ and Guzman... But opinion aint fact...
I don't know where you get the idea that microscopic features are "irrelevant". Just because those are features you wouldn't ordinarily use in field identification does not mean that micromorphological features aren't distinct characters that are indicative of species-level differences. One could just as easily accuse authors of splitting on "irrelevant" macroscopic characteristics - Psilocybe cyanescens and P. azurescens are practically identical under the microscope, but the distinct macromorphology is enough to have them be described as different species.
I think as molecular data becomes more available (which will largely be through direct sequencing of DNA regions rather than isozyme studies), the result may very well be that some species will be put into synonymy, but it may also result in some species being further split. (This has already been observed in widespread species like Russula brevipes, which shows a huge degree of diversity when looked at molecularly, to the point where its unlikely its all one species.)
When I look at the question of whether two individuals belong to the same species, I look at everything - macromorphology, micromorphology, and molecular data. I also keep in mind that with macroscopic and microscopic characters, I'm essentially delimiting a morphological species, and whether that's a real species or not is an open question. (Also, its not entirely clear that "species-level" differences in ITS, etc sequences really indicate that you're dealing with two different species.)
Since its possible to actually cultivate Psilocybe species, an area of research that really needs to be carried out is to grow mycelium from single-spore isolates (so you grow out hyphae that's monokaryotic, eg, effectively one "sex") and carry out interfertility experiments between closely related species. That would really provide answers to questions like whether Psilocybe cyanescens and P. cyanofibrillosa are just different populations or variations of the same species.
Peter
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Strophariaceae]
#5449744 - 03/28/06 12:49 AM (18 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
I have never said that they are irrelevant, but they are not automatically indicative of specification and to assume so after a cursory examination isnt sound.
The example here is Guzman's descriptions of ps.subaeruginosa, ps.australiana and ps.eucalypta. He declared that we had found three seperate species in Australia after only making a small number of collections.
If you find Ps.azurescens and Ps.cyanescens as practically identical i assume your working with the United States version of cyanescens rather than the european variety that lacks cystidia to begin with. That being said - if you look into the break down of the subaeruginosa group the claimed differences in cystidia shape were much smaller than those found between azurescens and cyanescens - well with the ones I have examined at least.
But these were still used ALONE to justify their description and type specimens as seperate species.
When macroscopically they are identical, when a clear and concise study of these mushrooms demonstrates that their cystidia shapes vary within collections, when two independent compatibility studies and isozyme protein studies indicate that they are all the same entity it proves that he jumped the gun.
As ive already stated - using the methods Guzman suggests - that is letting cystidia shape suggest specification Panaeolus cyanescens would have at least eight different entities. And Panaeolus cyanescens has cystidia differences that are massive when compared to the Ps.cyanescens allies.
So are we suggesting that there are eight seperate and incompatible species of Panaeolus cyanescens or are we suggesting that like the Ps.subaeruginosa scenario, it is one entity with varied and ranging cystidia shape.?
--------------------
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5449885 - 03/28/06 02:51 AM (18 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Blue Meanie,
psilocybe cyuanescens and Psilocybe azurescens are two distinct species form one another and are not macroscopically similar to each other except for the chestnut color of the cap and the white stem. The shape of the cap of P./ azurescens is exterememly different from the shape of the caps in P. cyanescens.
Shit, I have grown P. cubensis with wavy caps on them. That is just one of the many characteristics of the genera Psilocybe and it does mn not mean they are the same or related shroom.
Agrocybes and other families alos get a wavy cap including Galerina species.
mj
|
Quankus
keep a dreamjournal
Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 362
Loc: Benicia, CA and Monterey ...
Last seen: 4 years, 15 days
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Strophariaceae]
#5452069 - 03/28/06 05:03 PM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Strophariaceae said:
Quote:
Quankus said:
I hope the updated psilocybe list contains info on the new bay area species aka cyanofriscosa.
Guzman has seen a collection that I've sent him - he identifies it as Psilocybe cyanescens, but I'm not so sure. I'm doing work on this group for my California monograph. I think the California "cyanofibrillosa" is a distinct species, but on the other hand, I see a range of gradation between P. cyanescens and "cyanofriscoa", which implies that they might be crossing with each other, which would make them the same biological species. (Note that interfertility between P. azurescens and P. cyanescens has also been demonstrated.)
My schedule for publishing my California monograph won't be until next year, so unless there's a delay in Guzman's finishing his world monograph, a lot of my findings won't be incorporated into that work. (Since I've done lots of in-depth study of California Psilocybe populations that Guzman isn't able to do - which would be true of anybody writing a regional monograph as opposed to a world one - the information in my monograph will not be redundant.) Its to be expected, though, that there will continue to be ongoing work on the genus and lots of name changes, even after Guzman publishes his monograph.
Peter
The tallest friscosa i have ever seen was in GGP growing right next to a cyan patch. I have a mediocre cell phone picture of it. But, usually friscosas don't get much taller than a few inches, this one's stem was 5+, which is a characteristic cyans have.
I agree the new bay area species did come from cyans/fibs but i've seen them fresh right next to each other and you can distinguish a number of differences. They are a mutation of the two, in my amatuer opinion.
keep up the good work. and post some pics maybe?
--------------------
CyanoFriscosa
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: mjshroomer]
#5458078 - 03/30/06 02:13 AM (18 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
mate read my post - im saying the same thing - i never said they were identical - someone else said they were similar microscopically not me -
i like opinions - but prefer informed ones when it comes to arguing with my intent.
--------------------
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Strophariaceae]
#6488386 - 01/23/07 01:18 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
'Psilocybe cyanescens and P. azurescens are practically identical under the microscope, but the distinct macromorphology is enough to have them be described as different species.'
Actually I think spore compatibility was the clincher with these two.
--------------------
|
pscyanescens
The Raindancer
Registered: 12/14/06
Posts: 1,397
Loc: Santa Cruz, CA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6491741 - 01/24/07 05:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quankus:
But, usually friscosas don't get much taller than a few inches, this one's stem was 5+, which is a characteristic cyans have.
How do you know they weren't cyanofibrillosa? The ones i found were just as tall as Cyanescens if not taller. But i don't know for sure if what i found was Cyanofibrillosa or the so called 'Friscosa', which doesn't actually have a real scientific name at this point in time.
Also, where did you get your ID info for Friscosas? The Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa thread?
--------------------
----------------
"With an abundance of Cyanescens... i would never touch another Cubensis again."
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
farmboybluez
1 2 3 4 all )
ivi
Lizard King
ToxicMan
YouInfoIt