Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Mushroom Hunting and Identification
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: sui]
    #5194346 -

OK, I was able to get samples from these so callled 'fibs' or "friscosas" to some people at the San Francisco Mycological Society. There is one person there at San Francisco State University who is doing research papers on psilocybes.

From what he told me, Paul Stamets is now referring all SF Bay finds regarding updates of these new species to him, so this truned out to be good. Mostly because Stamets is no far too busy with other stuff

It will probably take some time to get real confirmation, but from what he told me, these 'fibs' are indeed closer to cyanescens than they are to fibrillosas.

I hope I remember this correctly, and it will be corrected eventually if I'm not. He said that under a microscope, fibrillosa almost always has 'bifurcated basidia' where cyanescens and these do not. They way he descibed it, was that the basidia (I hope he said basidia) shoots off in two directions in fribrilloasa, where cyanescens and these do not.

After speaking with some other people who have seen the same thing around SF, it is genrally agreed that they are very closely related to cyanescens, but the problem being that except for the shape, wich is not exactly consistent at all times, it is for all purposes, cyanescens.

This is why it's difficult to actually say it's a new species, although it's very close to that now, because it appears to be more and more consistent with time. In this regard, it seems to be in the process of becoming a new species, rather than some strain of cyanescens.

As far as I can tell, the earliest unconfirmed reports are from 6 years ago, 1999, but there's no photos. My earliest photos are from 2002  and I think I saw some other photos from the same year. Not sure tho.

So it will still take time. More samples need to be taken, and more are coming in. The more the better, but if it is a new species, it may not be this year.

One of the problems that I've seen, is what seems to be sort of a progrssion in shape between cyanescens and these new ones. In other words, I might be able to find a series of photos where you can see it changing shape from cyanescens to these new ones (different patches)

pretty fascinating in any case.

Also, I did bring some sample in of the new azurescens find to the same people. First reports of those were from 2 years ago, also unconfirmed and no photos. It's possible I might be the first with photos. I showed them the photos I took, and they said they never saw anything like that before. So that may be confirmed as well sometime soon.

Also, somebody brought yet another sample of something that doesn't fit any desciption, yet is psilocybe and is also strong as cyans/azures. From what I could tell, it had a nipple, was somewhat small, looked like a cross between liberty caps/azures and the gills were extremely close together. I've never seen anything like that either that. It was found it GGP recently and the SF State peope said it looked like a species from Japan that has apparently travelled across the pacific.

That also has yet to be confirmed.

So there you have it...Things is changing in the bay area, ever so slightly, and it appears to be a good thing  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5194355 -

wow thats amazing. way to go aweia.


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

"There is never a wrong note, bend it." Jimi Hendrix


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5194738 -

Hi -

Peter Werner from SFSU here - actually, we get a few things in the Psilocybe cyanescens/Psilocybe cyanofibrillosa complex here in the Bay Area. First, P. cyanescens, P. azurescens, and P. cyanofibrillosa are very close microscopically - the first two are practically identical.

P. cyanofibrillosa proper was first described from Washington state and differs mainly in having very few pleurocystidia (gill face cystidia - P. cyanescens has abundant pleurocystidia) and bifurcate cheilocystidia (gill edge cystidia - no such thing as 'bifurcate basidia'). California P. 'cyanofibrillosa' have few pleurocystidia but lack the distinct bifurcate cheilocystidia of the Washington type collection. Macromorphology is similar to the Washington form. Size can vary a great deal, and they can take on a very large size and a somewhat different appearance when growing on very fresh substrate - new wood chips, etc. They also get very potent, judging by their strong bluing, when growing on this kind of fresh substrate.

What further complicates things is that we also get something that looks very much like P. cyanofibrillosa but has unusual culture characteristics - on a petri dish, the mycelium grows out in distinct zones - it ends up looking very much like a spiral or cyclone. This "cyclonic" Psilocybe is what Paul Stamets is referring to when he mentions a new Bay Area species. So far, I haven't determined what exactly its relationship to the P. cyanofibrillosa group is.

We get "typical" Psilocybe cyanescens here, but we also get ones that lack the characteristic "wavy" cap of P. cyanescens and in some cases are very large. Microscopically, they seem identical to P. cyanescens, leading me to believe that these collections are probably P. cyanescens, and that this species is simply highly variable in macromorphology. Complicating this is that fact that P. azurescens is also extremely close to P. cyanescens microscopically, but it does seem to be a distinct species - it has a very distinctive macromorphology and you don't see mixed populations with intergrading between P. azurescens and P. cyanescens, but rather, distinct populations of each.

Complicating this further is the fact that a recent study using single-spore isolates shows a high degree of interfertility between P. azurescens and P. cyanescens - how P. azurescens and P. cyanescens can have strong interfertility and geographical overlap and yet still maintain distinct populations is a bit of a mystery to me.

As for P. azurescens, of course, its primarily known from Astoria, Oregon, but has turned up in California before - I was given one found in Oakland last year, but I have no idea whether this was actually a wild population or somebody was simply cultivating it in a park.

The "Japanese" species mentioned is something that's similar to P. subaeruginascens, a species previously known only from Japan, with a few collections from Java and India. The San Francisco version has a distinctly papillate cap and a somewhat different spore size from the typical Asian form, so it may be a new species. Also, more "typical" P. subaeruginascens has been found over the last two years in Seattle.

Another Japanese species, Psilocybe venenata, turned up in a landscaped area in a parking lot in San Mateo County last year, but I haven't seen it since.

Peter

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #5195572 -

wow, the Bay Area is the new PNW.

good work guys.


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

CyanoFriscosa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #5195606 -

Thanks to Peter Werner and Auweia for all their research and work on this topic!  :smile:

Quote:
auweia said:Also, I did bring some sample in of the new azurescens find to the same people. I showed them the photos I took, and they said they never saw anything like that before. So that may be confirmed as well sometime soon.


Auweia, what color was the sporeprint from the azures you found?  Typically, azurescens drop spores which are dark purplish black. Does this fit the description of the mushrooms you found?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Quankus]
    #5195648 -

I found a patch very similar to the Psilocybe subaeruginascense images I find on the web, time to upload the latest images from the digital camera for posting just in case not to mention to see if I can go out and pick a sample on a quick lunch break here.


--------------------
I think my eyes are getting better. Instead of a big dark blur I see a big light blur.

俺のシロシャイビケッルリプスがここです。

東京スカパラダイスオクストラ

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #5195765 -

thanks Peter, that helps clarify the problems associated with these newer finds. It would be fascinating to find out if the sample I came up with is the cyclonic one. I can already start seeing that it's getting tough to distinguish some of these varieties by sight alone.

At this point, maybe it's more important to find out what the most common new variety is, the one that many people have been finding recently. This seems to be a consistent variety, they are almost always short and squat, rarely getting above 1 inch stem length. They are usually near or around cyanescens patches, but sometimes have their own patches altogether. That is the sample that I gave you last night, apart from the azure sample.

As reported in some Washington fibrillosa descriptions the psilocin/psilocybin content is reversed which causes them to lose maybe 80% of their potency on drying. I've never noticed that with these, but then I'm not able to analyze the specific content either, but this California variety seems to maintain potency the same way cyanescens do, and are not noticibly different from cyans in potency

They could be fibrillosa, but if that's the case, then there probably should be an updated description seperating them from the Washington variety. Or if it is just a variety of cyanescens, then at least we can attach a varietal name to it, rather than speculating on weather they are fibrillosa or cyanescens.

Below is some representative photos I got from some earlier threads I posted here. I hope this copy/paste job works..These are all the same ones as the sample I gave you, excpt the last photo, which could be slightly different. yet that one also is very potent like cyanescens and also doesn't lose most of it's potency.

It is this variety in the photos below (and sample) that alot of people have been finding and is rapidly becoming quite common. So hopefully we can find out what that is, so we can call it something when people post photos of it in the future.

Now that I see how complicated it's getting, in the future I'll try to get more samples and take greater care to keep them seperated and catalogued with photos. Thanks again














Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: WaylitJim]
    #5195822 -

WaylitJim said:
Thanks to Peter Werner and Auweia for all their research and work on this topic!  :smile:

Yes, they were pretty dark, but the print didn't come out that great..only a portion of it. Still, I gave him two samples of it, so maybe it can be confirmed that way. Another thing is, I can certainly see how these new 'fibs' and cyanescens would have interfertility, but  I have a hard time seeing how these 'azures' and cyanescens have that. from the way they feel to the smell,to the color it looks to me like these fibs and cyans have closer compatibilty than the azures and cyans.

and that certainly is odd, from what Peter is saying. That is really something else

Quote:
auweia said:Also, I did bring some sample in of the new azurescens find to the same people. I showed them the photos I took, and they said they never saw anything like that before. So that may be confirmed as well sometime soon.


Auweia, what color was the sporeprint from the azures you found?  Typically, azurescens drop spores which are dark purplish black. Does this fit the description of the mushrooms you found?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5195838 -

These aren't my photos, but they're a good example of this bay area mushroom.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: WaylitJim]
    #5195946 -

I recognize that first one..I took it in 2003 >>



Also, that spot produced nothing in 2004/2005 season, and only a few this year, but this year, close by, was a normal cyanescens patch for the first time.

And the second photo, yep, same ones.

Also, all of the photos I posted here are reduced by 50% because the image hosting only allows up to that size. Shroomery allows even less I think.

But all of the photos are 3.2 megapixels originally and I can upload the original size if that helps. I have decent 6mb dsl

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5196125 -

auweia said:
I recognize that first one..I took it in 2003 >>



Also, that spot produced nothing in 2004/2005 season, and only a few this year, but this year, close by, was a normal cyanescens patch for the first time.

And the second photo, yep, same ones.

Also, all of the photos I posted here are reduced by 50% because the image hosting only allows up to that size. Shroomery allows even less I think.

But all of the photos are 3.2 megapixels originally and I can upload the original size if that helps. I have decent 6mb dsl



the bluing on those back friscosas is intense! has anyone noticed the shrooms that are bruised more blue to be more potent?

Edited by thosemynikes (01/18/06 06:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: thosemynikes]
    #5196146 -

if anything, they would be less potent because some of the psilocin has oxidized, (which is the cause of bluing) but i doubt there is a noticeable potency loss.

auweia, what did you think the friscosas were 3 years ago? just assumed they were cyanofibs and didnt realize that they are something different and new?


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

CyanoFriscosa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Quankus]
    #5196251 -

I agree with Quankus...the bluing is oxidation and tends to weaken it a little bit..What you see in that photo, the ones in the back looking more blue, are older ones starting to rot...Some of those in the back were pretty slimy indeed..And some of that was bacteria too, so not a good idea to eat those fresh :P

most of what is still fairly solid is saveable as long as it's dried properly. but usually they start getting a little weaker the more blue and black they get.Alot of times, when it gets dry like recently, they'll get sort of dark blue almost black around the edges. and eventually they shrivel up and turn black altogether.

It's good to see examples of that in the wild, in all the various ages they can be found in..It's never a perfect thing as in the lab, or in a tub

I'll still eat dried ones that turned maybe half blue and black.They are a bit weaker, but not like 80% loss or anything..More like maybe 20% or 30% loss..I just don't eat any of those fresh...They give me stomach cramps sometimes, likely from bacteria..
the only fresh ones I ever eat are prime younger ones.

Quankus said:
if anything, they would be less potent because some of the psilocin has oxidized, (which is the cause of bluing) but i doubt there is a noticeable potency loss.

auweia, what did you think the friscosas were 3 years ago? just assumed they were cyanofibs and didnt realize that they are something different and new?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5197568 -

auweia said:





Is that bluing or are they spores???? When i found my huge patch of those the spores had covered the tops and they washed right off


--------------------
Stop experimenting half way through your first grow. Grow it to maturity, watch it, learn from it. Do this a few times then experiment with different ideas and figure out what works best for you.


My Legacy
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22140987#22140987

Teh=The
I need to proofread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: tahoe]
    #5198170 -

that was bluing for the ones in the back..they were getting old. The stems were getting darker too, some of them to the point where only some of it was saveable..when they get that old, you can sort of squeeze the mushie parts of the stem between your fingers and it oozes away from the solid portions..hehe...ewwwwwww

and then whatever is solid can be saved..One way to tell if it's spores or just getting old and bluing. Spres usually don't encompass the entire cap. I've seen it many times, where you can get spore prints on top of the caps, but usually it's not the whole thing. ASnd certainly not every one of those that you see in the back. Nope those ones in the back were just getting old. It wasn't just the caps that were blue, the stems were too. More like a puprlish darker blue.

Actually there were a few in the back there that were too far gone :P

You don't want to know how slimy some of those got...hehe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5200318 -

this is funny, this is my pic from last year. Found a 1/2p


--------------------
Stop experimenting half way through your first grow. Grow it to maturity, watch it, learn from it. Do this a few times then experiment with different ideas and figure out what works best for you.


My Legacy
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22140987#22140987

Teh=The
I need to proofread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: tahoe]
    #5206129 -

here's something mighty interesting..take a look at this > http://www.erowid.org/plants/show_image.php?i=mushrooms/cultivation_psilocybe_cyanescens1.jpg

Look familiar?...they're calling it cyanescens. It might be worth it to find out why they think it is. I wonder if they noticed the mycellium being cyclonic or not.

Maybe we should show them this thread. This is just fascinating stuff here, these recent developments. Curiouser and curiouser indeed

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5208228 -

them dont look like cyans. I bet the person was misinformed about what he/she was growing. Erowid knows that there are cyans, fibs, and the fib look alikes in the bay. i talked to erowid at the last fair.


--------------------
Stop experimenting half way through your first grow. Grow it to maturity, watch it, learn from it. Do this a few times then experiment with different ideas and figure out what works best for you.


My Legacy
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22140987#22140987

Teh=The
I need to proofread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: auweia]
    #5210341 -

Another development - I had a chance to collect in the San Mateo County spot Auweia pointed me to. The mushrooms were on the old and drying side, but nonetheless looked more or less like P. cyanofibrillosa. When I got it under the microscope, however, it had the microscopic features of P. cyanescens - abundant pleurocystidia, larger spores, etc.

Getting a better understanding of the P. cyanescens/cyanofibrillosa group is going to take some effort - DNA sequencing should help sort a lot of this out, hopefully.

As for the chemistry - it's highly variable and not of whole lot of use when distinguishing species. It is true that different species have different potencies *on average*, but psilocin and psilocybin content and psilocin/psilocybin ratio are hugely dependent on strain and on environmental factors, particularly substrate. Mushrooms growing on nitrogen-rich substrate, such as fresh woodchips, can be extremely high in psilocin, as evidenced by an extremely strong bluing reaction, and are typically larger than average as well. The same strain when growing in nitrogen-poor conditions will show next to no bluing.

I found a huge patch of large, intensely bluing Psilocybe in Sausalito in December of 2003 - I thought it was a completely new species, though with microscopic features similar to P. cyanofibrillosa. I went back the next year and found a few small typical Bay Area-type P. 'cyanofibrillosa' (which may be a unique species, but not something that hasn't been collected before). Same strain, I'm sure, just different nutrient conditions.

Peter

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: S.F. Bay fibs [Re: Strophariaceae]
    #5210481 -

wow, this is getting really interesting. I think in the future I will have to start cataloging various patches, matching photos with samples, and writing stuff down now. Hopefully others around the bay area can do this too so maybe next year we can get a larger variety of samples. Thanks for all you're doing Peter. Hopefully someday we can at least get a name to call this increasingly common variety, whether it be cyans or fibs, or just a particular strain.

science in action.  I love it  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > Mushroom Hunting and Identification
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ps cyanofibrillosa vs Ps Cyanescens vs Ps cyanofibrillosa var san francisco???? Which one is this???
( 1 2 all )		 tahoe 9,295 35 01/18/08 01:52 PM
by CureCat
* Cyanofibrillosa or Friscosa? If there fibs they sure look potent!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 pscyanescens 9,380 86 11/20/08 12:56 AM
by pscyanescens
* Fibs? Wolfred 2,434 19 10/22/15 11:24 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Odd Cyanofibrillosa in Seattle? BlimeyGrimey 1,395 11 11/23/07 07:05 PM
by BlimeyGrimey
* PNW ID Request Cyan Fib?? budmanman 1,773 18 10/17/13 11:49 AM
by wolfedawwg
* Cyanescens vs Cyanofibrillosa WaylitJim 2,082 11 01/12/05 06:35 PM
by Quankus
* Ps cyanofibrillosa
( 1 2 all )		 cardboard 3,988 32 09/25/05 05:15 PM
by phreakin
* P. cyanofibrillosa in The San Francisco Bay Area
( 1 2 all )		 Hongosmeester 6,381 33 11/08/03 12:54 PM
by Hongosmeester

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, karode13, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
6,802 topic views. 0 members, 279 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.