|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither???
#5794318 - 06/26/06 10:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
hey guys i found these in MD over on the NIH campus in some grass. sorry the pictures aren't very good. my camera is literly falling apart. well heres the pics there are 6 caps. its been raining at NIH very very hard for the past 2 days so they were a very very dark color when i found them and i thought i picked 3 of 2 different kinds but now that they are dryer, they seem to be the same and their spore prints are both (i think) black. the stems have that texture on them like the subbs do. there are very prominent vertical lines running up and down the stem they definitely do not have a brown spore print like the mushrooms i found in my neighborhood (foes probably) but i was wondering if these were subbs??? or wether they are pans at all. thanks guys and heres the pics...




i'll post more pics as soon as i can cuz my limit is up for now but i'll post more tomarrow and probably have more mushrooms tomarrow -SenselessRebel
Edited by SenselessRebel (06/26/06 10:56 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
|
Those are most certainly Panaeolus, and most likely Pan. subbalteatus. The pics aren't so bad, cept for the one up-close shot. Can you get a photo of the spore prints?? I bet they are black, but if you are unsure, I am certain some people here on the board can tell you if it's black or brown. They look just like the subbs I have been finding, the gills are darker than foes and the stems appear to have a reddish-brown tint. Nice Finds!!
--------------------
|
baycafe
Urawa RedDiamonds


Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 500
Loc: 埼玉県&...
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: CureCat]
#5795661 - 06/27/06 11:54 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They look alot more like the foenisecii than subbalteatus though the spore print would be a better indicator than the pics in this case.
-------------------- 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
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: baycafe]
#5800202 - 06/28/06 05:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
yea i found a shit load more today and yesterday and its been raining for the past three days!! my basement carpet is all wet!! lookslike im going to ahve to pull it up and get tile...fuck.... oh well thos pics up there, there prints are black as night so that definitely means their p.subs?????? i found many many more!! i hope they are subbs that would boost me sooooo much today was the first day since sunday that it hasn't poored buckets of water from the clouds! and mushrooms are EVERYWHERE!! i found tons of other ones andim going to post em up on new threads. so since the prints are black they are definitely subbs???? can anyone else varify????
thanks guys(and chicks ) -SenselessRebel
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
|
Just because the sporeprints may or may not be black is not an indication that the musrhooms are Panaeolus subbalteatus.
First off there are 22 species of Panaeolus in the genera.
About four of those are close to Pn. subbs but are only similar macroscopically. Under the microscope they are probably something other than P. subbalteatus. maybe olivaceus or microsporus, however, all the microsporus collected in the wild showed no chemical actrivity but the ones cultivated indoors did.
The stems look awful sinewy to be subbalteatus. They do resemble the typical Panaeolina foenisecii Maire.
mj
|
psychonaut_420
psychonaut

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 285
Loc: mid atlantic
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
|
i have been looking around in MD today too, but didnt find any actives but i did find some mushrooms that were in the paneoulous genus
--------------------
"Life sucks, Shit happens, Smoke weed and forget about it"
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
huh...welll...can i eat em??? OR WILL IT KILL ME OR GET ME SICK!??!?!?!?! also, if edible mushrooms are in a bag with poisonus ones and then i eat only the edible ones will i get sick/die??? thanks guys and what should i do about these pans??? i have tons of em and i wanna eat em!! haha thanks guys -SenselessRebel
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
here is the spore prints from thos pics up top there
 -SenselessRebel
mjshroomer should i put some of these spores under a microscope??? i only got one that goes to donno it says DIN40 0.65 on it sooo donno hhow much that is but what shouild they look like if they are subbs??? thanks
Edited by SenselessRebel (06/28/06 08:36 PM)
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
heres what i found yesterday
 -SenslessRebel
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
|
Nice nice... from what I have read, there are no poisonous mushrooms within the genus Panaeolus. Others on the board have concurred. They have been known to cause some stomach upsets for sensitive individuals. So as far as I know, you wouldn't die from consuming accurately identified Pan. mushrooms (perhaps PM a few of the pros for verification- i did, and they confirmed my suspicion).
Also, I don't stress about throwing a few poisonous mushrooms into my bag of otherwise edible finds- so long as the poisonous ones aren't squishing all over the edibles in the bag as you romp around hunting... As long as you are confident in your ability to sort the poisonous mushrooms from the edibles, which I would not trust most people to do. One mix up could mean liver failure.
--------------------
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: CureCat]
#5804248 - 06/29/06 06:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
hey wanna give me a list of the "pros" if you wanna don't worry bout it but yea me too cure i also have found that no other pans are poisonus but yea i think they are subbs cuz i used my mushrooms demistifyed and used the di. keys in it (assumeing they are pans) anyone out there have any reason to think different??? i got a handfull more today too so...hope they are good!! )))) thanks guys(chicks) -SenselessRebel
|
SenselessRebel
Stranger


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 189
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
well i think im gonna try em tonight with my friend donno its not too much but i think im gonna pm some mods like cure suggested so thanks cure but as stated before i definitely havn't come accross anything that says any pans are deadly poisonus. ive used my dicot. keys in my mushrooms demistifyed book and it led to subbs later -SenselessRebel
Edited by SenselessRebel (06/30/06 11:52 AM)
|
ate
Stranger
Registered: 07/01/06
Posts: 16
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
|
Any update?
It rained heavily here in southern MD for the past week and those are growing all over the place.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: CureCat]
#5809537 - 07/01/06 11:55 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
CureCat said:
Quote:
Also, I don't stress about throwing a few poisonous mushrooms into my bag of otherwise edible finds- so long as the poisonous ones aren't squishing all over the edibles in the bag as you romp around hunting.
Never under any circumstances should anyone ever put any poisonous or different shrooms into their collection bags.
This is the stupidist advice I have ever heard.
A piece of a mushroom can easily break off into sevral poieces while romping and lodge itself into the cap of an edible or active shroom. I have seen this happen with people in the rain forest clearcuts in the PNW who were collecting P. pelliculosa in late November and had dozens of Galerina and Conocybe species in their bags. I have also seen people who pick liberty caps throuw other shroonms in their bags, and from people in Hawaii who collected Copelandia have numerous specimens of both Panaeolus sphinctrinus and/or Panaeolus antillarum in their bags. Upon examing some of those collections I have found bits and pieces of broken shrooms lodged in the caps of the P. pelliculosa species, in caps of P. semilanceata and caps of Copes with Panaeolus sphinctr4inus and P. antillarum.
So please do not giove this advice to anyone.
I am sorry but I really cannot write anymore about this. As i noted above, that was reeally stupid advise to give to pickers CureCat. Let alone even suggesting it.
mj
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5809596 - 07/01/06 12:18 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mjshroomer said: CureCat said:
Quote:
Also, I don't stress about throwing a few poisonous mushrooms into my bag of otherwise edible finds- so long as the poisonous ones aren't squishing all over the edibles in the bag as you romp around hunting.
Never under any circumstances should anyone ever put any poisonous or different shrooms into their collection bags.
This is the stupidist advice I have ever heard.
A piece of a mushroom can easily break off into sevral poieces while romping and lodge itself into the cap of an edible or active shroom. I have seen this happen with people in the rain forest clearcuts in the PNW who were collecting P. pelliculosa in late November and had dozens of Galerina and Conocybe species in their bags. I have also seen people who pick liberty caps throuw other shroonms in their bags, and from people in Hawaii who collected Copelandia have numerous specimens of both Panaeolus sphinctrinus and/or Panaeolus antillarum in their bags. Upon examing some of those collections I have found bits and pieces of broken shrooms lodged in the caps of the P. pelliculosa species, in caps of P. semilanceata and caps of Copes with Panaeolus sphinctr4inus and P. antillarum.
So please do not giove this advice to anyone.
I am sorry but I really cannot write anymore about this. As i noted above, that was reeally stupid advise to give to pickers CureCat. Let alone even suggesting it.
mj
I simply said that is what I do, but then I am extremely meticulous. I have read your discouragement of the habit, but I will not lie to people, simply to be on the "safe side", I prefer to explain the potential dangers or problems with a method, and if there are ways of avoiding it, explain. I think I explained that, if you are going to be rough with your collection, pieces of poisonous mushrooms could squish up against an edible- No good- or as you described, a piece could break off and become lodged in the gills. That being said, i think it is evident that you would look over your finds to make sure they are clean of any debri. If that was Not Clear, I am sorry for the miscommunication. That is my method- as I said, I am very thorough with looking every specimen over. I did not advise it, I was responding to the question subjectively, as I see both sides of the coin (why not mix edibles and potentially poisonous mushrooms/ how to avoid the dangers).
Now, do you consider there to be any further dangers to this method beside the ones covered, that I have not addressed?? If so, inform me. I have no death wish, for myself or others.
--------------------
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: CureCat]
#5810124 - 07/01/06 03:34 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
While that may have sounded agressive, CureCat, I apologize, However, I am just curious as to why you would collect poisonous mushrooms in your bags to begin with. Otherwise, most of the advice you give here is okay. I just felt the need to question that statement that you made about doing so.
Since I am on the subject, another point I want to mention is regarding the toxic bluing boletes since you recently brought them up in a reply to another post..
Over the years I have taught mushroom ID workshops and lectured at many conferences around the world.
Usually when I teach people to pick active shrooms, I always try to show them in detail, what they should not pick.
If someone is looking for magic shrooms they can knock out the majority of the deadly poisonous mushrooms by following a few simple rules.
One. You should be looking for magic shrooms with gills (Agaricales). Not musrhooms with pores (Boletes). The magic shrooms you are looking for should have Black (Panaeolus-Copelandia spp.) or chocolate-brown to purple-brown spores and spore prints (Psilocybes).
Forget the minor species of Gymnopilus and and Inocybes and those species which have white orange-cinnamon colored gills and prints. Elimenate those species.
Now. Do not pick any orange to cinnamon colored shrooms. The 3 dealdy species of Galerina and one species of Concoybe (C. filaris) have orange gills. AS noted above. They6 are deadly.
And avoid any white gilled shrooms. That would include all of the deadly Amanita mushrooms such as A. Phalloides, A. verna, etc.
Therefore regards of the mentioning of the bluing Boletes, you should always mention they are not gilled mushrooms so there is no need to bring them up except to verify they should not be eaten,
Later,
mj
|
eris
underground


Registered: 11/17/98
Posts: 48,024
Loc: North East, USA
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5810181 - 07/01/06 03:57 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I am just curious as to why you would collect poisonous mushrooms in your bags to begin with
I collect them sometimes, just for the sake of taking pictures or spore prints for later at home identification. At the same time, I don't throw them in the same bags with edibles or something I might eat.
Some days I go out just hunting edibles and that will be all that I put in my bags.
Other days, I will pick just about everything I find, for hobby and not plan to eat any of it ahead of time. When I already know I'm not gonna eat anything I don't care what gets in the same bag.
The proper practice for mushroom hunting is to store each collection individually by species. This is for those who hope to consume their collections.
-------------------- Immortal / Temporarily Retired The OG Thread Killer My mushroom hunting gallery
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: eris]
#5810206 - 07/01/06 04:10 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Good point Eris.
O also separate shrooms when collec ting for prints and I wipe hands with those handi wipes before handing a second species. I would hate to sell someone a cope pritn and cubes grow because my hands had been handling other shrooms prior to picking the copes.
Some buffalo dung heaps in Thailand can have three to four species fruiging form the same large trurds. AS many here known I have show how big some of those buffalo heaps can be.
I have images of Copelandia,cubes, concocybe and Panaeolus sphintrinus i9 the same manure piles.
Anyway, idf collecting multiple species of mixed shrooms then use separate bags. If you want to mix yyour edibles together, there is no harm in that, but only if one knowns what they are doing. mj
|
CureCat
Strangest


Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5810608 - 07/01/06 07:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mjshroomer said: I am just curious as to why you would collect poisonous mushrooms in your bags to begin with.
mj
I will address the bolete question when I return from work, I forget the context and need to look for the post to recall my reason for metnioning it.
As far as collecting poisonous specimens, I have not yet consumed any of my finds. All of the mushrooms I have collected have been purely for the purpose of research, identification and experience. I enjoy simply picking different species and examining them. I admit, when picking Pan. subbs which I intended to dry for later indulgence, I tended to avoid picking too many mushrooms I knew were poisonoues, hehe. Not because I worried of later sorting them with my subbs so much, as I was worried the subbs would crush the poisonous finds and become inedible (i had a lot of subbs in a little bag). I have moved into my new house and am looking forward to finally trying out these mushrooms on the 4th of July.
--------------------
|
shroominDole
Stranger


Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 482
Loc: O.C . S o. C a l .
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: CureCat]
#5810655 - 07/01/06 07:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
mjshroomer said :
Quote:
Please try not to keep furthering the misidentification of mycological names of shrooms if you do not have knowledge of the nomencalture of the species.
Panaeolus foenisecii has always been used in countless publications over the years.....
In Stamets 96 ' he states : ( P M o t W ) " The fractionation of such a closely knit, naturally allied group of species into seperate genera seems artificial and uneccessary . Guzman and Perez - Patraca's ( 1972 ) treatment of the genus seems the most sensible to me : Each of the above - named groups is a subgenera within an expanded concept of Panaeolus . Gerhardt (1987, 1996 ) further articulated the case for an expanded genus. Georges M. Ola'h , after spending a lifetime studying these fungi, currently believes the taxonomy of these species are better served under Panaeolus as one genus. Therefore for taxonomic clarity, I consider these genera or subgenera to be accurately represented under the epiphet of one genus Panaeolus sensu lato - Panaeolus in the broadest sense ."
Also......under Stamets section for this mushroom in Stamets 96 ' ( P M o t W ) he has headed as the nomencalture of the species as Panaeolus foenisecii (Fries ) Kuhner
Please try not to keep furthering the misidentification of mycological names of shrooms if you do not have knowledge of the nomencalture of the species.
Click..... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5390043&dopt=Abstract http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_article4.shtml http://www.mushroomexpert.com/panaeolus_foenisecii.html EDIT : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Panaeolus+foenisecii&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?q=Panaeolus+foenisecii&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
-------------------- Worlds Largest 'Liberty Cap' (Cali Libs Confirmed !) ' Comments On Hallucinogenic Agarics And The Hallucinations Of Those Who Study Them ' Alexander H. Smith Mycologia vol.69 1977
Edited by shroominDole (07/02/06 02:05 AM)
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: shroominDole]
#5810941 - 07/01/06 09:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A WORLDWIDE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEUROTROPIC FUNGI, AN ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Gastón Guzmán John W. Allen Instituto de Ecologia
Jochen Gartz University of Leipzig
Guzmán, G. Allen, J. W. and Jochen Gartz. 2000. A Worldwide Geographical Distribution of the known species of the Neurotropic Fungi, Their Analysis and Discussion. 39 photographs -In Annali dei Civici Musee Rovereto, Italia. vol. 14:189-280.(In English).
SUMMARY
The distribution of 214 species of neurotropic fungi in the world is discussed. The neurotropic fungi considered are divided in: 1) species with psilocybin's indoles, or probably with these substances, 2) species with ibotenic acid, 3) ergot fungi, and 4) species used as sacred fungi but without any reliable chemical studies. In the first group are Psilocybe (116 species), Gymnopilus (13 species), Panaeolus (13 species), Copelandia (12 species), Hypholoma (6 species), Pluteus (6 species), Inocybe (6 species), Conocybe (4 species), Panaeolina (4 species), Gerronema (2 species) and Agrocybe, Galerina and Mycena (each with one species), although in several species of this group, mainly in the Panaeoloideous fungi, there are no chemical studies. In the second group are Amanita muscaria, A. pantherina and A. regalis; in the third group is Claviceps purpurea and allies: 5 species of Claviceps and 2 of Cordyceps, and in the fourth group are bolets (two genera with 8 species), Russula (6 species), and 5 species of gasteromycetes in 3 genera.
Ott (1993) presented a list of 97 species of fungi containing psilocybin with many bibliographic references. These fungi belong to the genera Agrocybe (one species), Conocybe (four), Copelandia (six), Galerina (one), Gerronema (two), Gymnopilus (seven), Hygrocybe (one), Inocybe (seven), Mycena (one), Panaeolina (two), Panaeolus (nine), Pluteus (five), Psathyrella (two), and Psilocybe (forty seven).
IN 1996, when Paul’s PMOTW was published, he also noted Gerhaert’s monograph on Panaeolus. He had access to a copy of the manuscript so he cited the book in his PMOTW – page 220. And btw, Gyorgy-Miklos O’ah is a good frined of mine for more than twenty years.
I would also like to point out that there are also many errors in Pauls book. A minor example of one is on page 140. Paul identifies my mushroom as Psilocybe samuiensis Guzman, Allen and Merlin.
It is actually Psilocybe samuiensis Guzman, Allen and Gartz.
I also have three photos in Paul’s book .
This publication of me and my colleagues supercedes that of Stamets, based on our specimens we examined and wrote in 2000 and based on Gerhardt’s monograph and the published papers of Natarajan & Raman.
If you have access to Gerhardt’s book then read it.
The rest of below is also from the paper. The url for the paper is here at the shroomery.
Quote:
(see Table I). In the Panaeoloidae fungi 29 species are considered. These include Copelandia with 12 species, Panaeolina with 4 and Panaeolus with 13 (Table I). Of these, Copelandia mexicana is considered as a good species, in spite of the fact that Gerhardt (1996) placed it as a nomen excluded.
BASIDIOMYCOTINA Agaricales
Coprinaceae
32. Panaeolina foenisecii (Pers. : Fr.) Maire [= Panaeolus foenisecii (Pers.: Fr.) Kühner; Psathyrella foenisecii (Pers. : Fr.) A.H. Sm.].
33. Panaeolina rhombisperma Hongo (about Gerhardt, 1996, this is a nom. excl.) [Horak (1980) considered this species as Crucispora rhombisperma (Hongo) Horak].
34. Panaeolina sagarae Hongo (about Gerhardt, 1996, this is a nom excl.).
35. Panaeolina microsperma Natarajan & Raman (= Panaeolina indica Sathe & J.T. Daniel; this is the true name about Gerhardt, 1996).
GERHARDT, E., 1996. Taxonomische Revision der Gattungen Panaeolus und Panaeolina (Fungi, Agaricales, Coprinaceae). Bibl. Bot. 47, Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
mj
You need to go reread the comments papers I posted in the ethnobotanical forum here which you quote on the bottom of youir posts
|
2859558484
Growery is Better


Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 8,752
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5811089 - 07/01/06 10:35 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
everyone at the shroomery is so bitchy
--------------------
|
shroominDole
Stranger


Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 482
Loc: O.C . S o. C a l .
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: 2859558484]
#5811509 - 07/02/06 02:15 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hasnt Ola'h always lived in Quebec ?.....Nothing there negates Stamets statement.....and it looks like all your reference used for Panaeolina was from 96' concurrent with Stamets 96' which Stamets statement made reference to......and much earlier.....wasnt most of Nataran and Raman back in 83'?
And isnt that your list of known Psilocybin containing mushrooms ? Why does it include Panaeolus foenisecii when you claim that the great O'lah misidentified it in his landmark paper ? Why P. microsperma ?
-------------------- Worlds Largest 'Liberty Cap' (Cali Libs Confirmed !) ' Comments On Hallucinogenic Agarics And The Hallucinations Of Those Who Study Them ' Alexander H. Smith Mycologia vol.69 1977
Edited by shroominDole (07/02/06 02:30 AM)
|
xmush
Professor ofDoom


Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: shroominDole]
#5811859 - 07/02/06 08:34 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Might be time for this catfight to either get its own post or maybe you guys can PM each other...
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: xmush]
#5811953 - 07/02/06 09:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Are paper does supercede Paul's MMMOTW by four years. WE have examined the specimens discuss. Inthe paper we consider the Panaeolina as a separate genera form Panaeolus. Basses for the paper is that we know recognize four distinct species of Panaeolina, all with brown spores and all four are separate by spore size outside the range of Panaeolus which are black spored. IT is that plain and simple. And will stay as four species until someone else rewrites as different.
And xmushr, this is a forum for the discussion of such as is posted here. Why would it need another forum. It has to do with species people come across when hunting for identifying species containing or suspected of containing psilocine/psilocybine.
mj
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: shroominDole]
#5812119 - 07/02/06 11:03 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yes Shrooomindole, O'lah lives in Quebec and is associated, but retired from the Universite Laval in Quebec. He was a phytologist who had an interest in Mycolgy, that is he studied the branch of biology that studies plants in the Department of Phytologie at Universite Laval.
And what so you refer to as Gyorgy-Miklos Ola'h's so -called land-mark paper (Etude Chimiotaxinomique sur les Panaeolus. Researches sur la Presence des corp Indoliques Psychotropepes Dans Ces Champignons) or (Additional Evidence supporting the Occurrence of psilocybin in Panaeolus foenisecii).
Or are you refering to his monograph (La Genre Paneolus) on the taxonomy of the genus which is a book, not a paper. BTW, he has also privately addressed this matter with me and he accepts the genera of Panaeolina as a valid one. So Does Ott, Stijve, Merlin, Guzmán, Bigwood, Gartz, Samorini, Sihanonth, McKenna, and even Albert Hofmann in private commnications both verbal and private mail between us also and he accepted the genera of Panaeolina as a valid one.
By the way, I have a private book from Ol'ah which contains many of his published and unpublished research in a bound edition privately printed by him.
I doubt that you have this monumental (LANDMARK) work which is not available to the general public (270 pages).

I have all of his published works and do not consider any of them as landmark papers since he now admits there were many errors and misidentifications in his work on Panaeolus sp.
I have letters from him stating that he had no knowledge of P. anomala and P. bispora where he wrote to me that he never heard of those species. Of course now he knows they are real.
Both Paul and Gerhardt also wanted to move the Copelandia's back to Panaeolus, something which Guzmán and I diagreed with and we placed them back into the genera of Copelandia based on Rolf Singer's writings.
And again, Paul relying on Noordeloos 1995 paper on Psilocybe and Pholiota, placed many species of Stropharia back into the Genus Psilocybe. However, Paul posted many of those species in his book, PMOTW and they contain no psilocine/psilocybine, thus adding to confusion for people interested in magic shrooms. Since his book deals with psilocybin mushrooms of the world, there is no reason for posting mushrooms in his book which do not contain those alkaloids.
BElow is a letter to me from Ola'h in October of 1997, 0ne year after the publication of paul's book. aftger this I feel no further need to continue this discussion.
Mr. John W. Allen C/o Beauty and the books 4213 University Way Seattle, Washington 98105 U.S.A.
Quebec 17 octobre 1997
Dear Mr. Allen,
1/ Thank you for your field guide, Magic Mushrooms of the…> I find it very interesting and a real good job, congratulations.
11/ I have read through and analyzed your future publication: A LIST OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI, I have read it and find again interesting approaches too.
First Question: are you listing only real HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI? Can you include in the same time the latent HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI? You know as well come me, they are numerous and important too.
In my works on the Genus of PANAEOLUS and other, we make this very important distinction.
I give you here the best of my knowledge, same information the Hallucinogenic fungi collected or study by us.
Panaeolina foenisecii Maire=Panaeolus foenisecii (Fr.) Kuhn. Cosmopolite, anywhere of the world and any time.
Panaeolus africanus Ola’h (R. Cailleux) Bburkina 1966.
Panaeolus ater (Lange) Kuhn et Romagn. (R. Heim and Gy. M. Ola’h) –India and Sri Lanka 1964-1966/ 1972-74.
Panaeolus cambodgeniensis Ola’h et Heim (R. Heim) Cambodia 1967.
Panaeolus castaneifolius (Murr.) Ola’h Quebec, Can. 1963-1967.
Panaeolus fimicola Fr. Cosmopolite, anywhere of the world anytime.
Panaeolus microsporus Ola’h et Cailleux (R. Cailleux) Bburkina 1965.
Panaeolus cyanescens Berk et Br. (R. Heim, GY. Ola’h) India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. Ola’h) CaribbeanL Martinique and Guadeloupe 1982-86.
Panaeolus sphinctrinus (Fr.) Quelet. India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. M. Ola’h) Caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe, Quebec, Can. 1964-1990. Panaeolus subbalteatus Berk. Et Br. India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. M. Ola’h) Caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe, Quebec, Can. 1964-1990.
Panaeolus tropicalis Ola’h (R. Heim and R. Cailleux) Bburkina and Cambodia. 1963-1965.
Psilocybe =Stropharia cubensis (Earle) Singer. (Ola’h) Brazil, Florida, caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe. 1974-1990.
I hope this information will be useful, With my best regards,
G.-M. Ola’h,
Sincerely,
Dr. Gyorgy-Miklos Ola’h, Professor UNIVERSITE LAVAL
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The paper Ola'h refers to is the one retitled by Guzman, Gartz and me and pubished, as noted, in 2000. And it took almost three years to be published due to the journals previous commitments. Most articles now take from six months to three years to appear in print after being submitted for publication. There are many authors whose works are in progress and sit at various journals in wait for several years to be published.. mj
Edited by mjshroomer (07/02/06 01:05 PM)
|
xmush
Professor ofDoom


Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5812202 - 07/02/06 11:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
What scientist publishes a LANDMARK work as a special private edition? That's not science. MJ, I didn't say this needed a different forum, just its own post since the original post here has been thoroughly thread-jacked for a discussion that is of interest to about 2 people.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: xmush]
#5812500 - 07/02/06 01:32 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That paper is accepted as a p publication the same as R. Gordon Wasson' 11 papers in his Ethnomycological studies whic were also private papers published as are my 9 books and my 4-cd roms. And they are recognized as valid scientific studies.
And one final comment,
i have been a member here since 1999 and I have posted and helped hundreds of people learn about the magic and the magic of the shrooms. I do not provide false information about what I write about.
Paul has been my friend for almost 30 years. But he, Like me and other have made mistakes in all of our books and they get corrected by others who study the shrooms as I and others have over the years by corrected other peoples errors and publishing the new data.
You can read that in the big volume book I am publishing next year through Quick Trading Publishers (Ed Rosenthal).
Another point to make. Many new journals are now publishing online. Journals such as the new International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms. And many new journals are not printed but sold as issues over the internet with Visa, etc, so there are no printed copies or reprints available for authors. Such journals are very valid publications. And many of thenm are private publications, available only by internet payment for PDF copies, although most of you here cannot afford a copy of the journal because they are in the $100.00 and up per issue.
What I find funny is that many people here cannot afford to buy a ten dollar guide with color photos, and at the same time cannot afford to buy a copy of Paul's $24.95 book. The letter above shows that Ola'h listed the species Panaeolina. My comments above were for Panaeolina foenisecii as the proper name so viewers here will learn the correct current names of the species they really know nothing about.
So this post is valid to the question regarding the name of Paneolus foenisecii which is now currently Panaeolina foenisecii until someone else rewrites the genera.
mj
Read Ola'h's letter to me from 1997, a year after Stamet's wrote his guide. Ola'h now recognizes that Panaeolus foenisecii is Panaeolina, so lets keep it that way.
|
xmush
Professor ofDoom


Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5812664 - 07/02/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I would never think that you provide false information. Your presence here is a real benefit to all of the members. And correction of past errors is part of what makes science go forward. I was only confused by your mention of private publications. It appears they are not private, but are just not free. No scientific journal (except for the new and excellent Public Library of Science) is free, but they are all public.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: xmush]
#5812796 - 07/02/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hi xmush, As for the publication of private publications, I would like to point out another problem these days. I worked as a research asociate for Mark Merlin at the U of Hawaii for ten years. I am also one of the contributing editors of his re-issue of his Man And Marijuana book with Rob Clark.
In the mid 1990s, our school suffered a loss of money. Governor Cayetano took $36,000,000 dollars of what was to be library funding and cut the purchase of no new books for two years and 20% less journal publications for two years and the money went to the schools football team and other sports events at the university.
These same budget cuts are also common at the U of Oregon and at the U of Washingotn where money is diverted from other sources such as library funding and given to the sports teams.
To begin with, most journal publications have a printing of 2000 copies or less. So data is slow in getting to students for study.
Journals send free reprints to the aurthors of the articles, usually 50 copies per author, but some are cutting that down to no copies.
My recent article in the International Journal of Medicinal mushrooms was sent to me as a PDF copy. No reprints at all. And I could never afford the price of their journal. Very high, as are most journals, so only a few interested scholars have copies and only those in school usually can read a journal.
I can't imagine what the cost of Guzmán's revised editon of the Genus Psilocybe will cost. But I do know it will be more than the journal price of the original book in 1983 which cost $100.00 at that time.
The fact that sports gets all of that funding when the schools say it is the sports which bring money to the schools.
If that was the real case than the teachers would not be complaining that they did not make enough.
In the 1980s, a good friend of mine, Scott Chilton, Head of the Department of Chemistry at the U of W. quit his job here and took a job at the U of St. Louis because they paid about $6,000 a year more for the same position as he was getting paid here for.
Another problem is the excising of articles and photographs from hundreds of journals here at the UW.
Someone over the years, has snipped and razor cut pages of many articles and photos out of journal publications, thus making it hard for students who wanted to study those works.
Every article by Roger Heim and R. Gordon Wasson which appeared in four separate French publications are missing from the books. The Wasson Life Magazine article of his discovery of the shrooms also had the pages torn from it. Dozens of articles on psychiatric problems associated with mushroom use were also cut from books.
Most photos were cut.
In the year 2000, a fellow I met while working at the Beauty and the Books book store told me that my article on Hawaiian mushrooms published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology had all of the photos cut from the journals pages.
Luckilly I had a few reprint copies left over and was able to give the book repair department the article to be repaged into the journal and replace the stolen images.
This is the greed of many pickers, and the funny thing is, these missing pages were not stoplen by uneducated teenagers but more likely from students at the schools looking to collect shrooms.
At one time in the early 1970s, every lawn and every UW building had mushrooms growing on them, 3-4 varieties, including P. cyanescens, P, baeocystis and P. stuntzii were the commonest shrooms in Seattle. Over 70% of the new lawns once produced large amounts of those species.
So pictures and text were destroyed by some so others would not have a chance to see or read of them.
That is the shits.
Anyway, I am not going any further on this name trip. It was tiring to respond to as I have other things to work on.
have a shroomy day xmush
mj
Edited by mjshroomer (07/02/06 04:41 PM)
|
xmush
Professor ofDoom


Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: Jaw-juh
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5812871 - 07/02/06 04:20 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed MJ journal prices are a huge problem. Either subscriptions are incredibly expensive, or they are cheap but the authors are charged a ton of money to have their work published. Not a problem if you are affiliated with a university or have a grant funding your research. Much more of a problem for lifelong students who often can't get access to the literature. That's why new, free, online journals such as those from the Public Library of Science are so important. And of course why having someone with yours and all of the moderators expertise on a site like this are so important too.
I remember as an undergraduate finding books in the library on psychoactive plants in various states of destruction. It is an incredibly selfish act.
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: shroominDole]
#5813617 - 07/02/06 08:57 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I am bumping this one with a repeat of this post made earlier before the thread became sidetracked into obscurity so that Shroomin Dole can respond. mj
Yes Shrooomindole, O'lah lives in Quebec and is associated, but retired from the Universite Laval in Quebec. He was a phytologist who had an interest in Mycology, that is he studied and worked at a branch of biology that studies plants in the Department of Phytologie at Universite Laval.
And what so you refer to as Gyorgy-Miklos Ola'h's so -called land-mark paper (Etude Chimiotaxinomique sur les Panaeolus. Researches sur la Presence des corp Indoliques Psychotropepes Dans Ces Champignons) or (Additional Evidence supporting the Occurrence of psilocybin in Panaeolus foenisecii).
Or are you refering to his monograph (La Genre Paneolus) on the taxonomy of the genus which is a book, not a paper. BTW, he has also privately addressed this matter with me and he accepts the genera of Panaeolina as a valid one. So Does Ott, Stijve, Merlin, Guzmán, Bigwood, Gartz, Samorini, Sihanonth, McKenna, and even Albert Hofmann in private commnications both verbal and private mail between us also and he accepted the genera of Panaeolina as a valid one.
By the way, I have a private book from Ol'ah which contains many of his published and unpublished research in a bound edition privately printed by him.
I doubt that you have this monumental (LANDMARK) work which is not available to the general public (270 pages).

I have all of his published works and do not consider any of them as landmark papers since he now admits there were many errors and misidentifications in his work on Panaeolus sp.
I have letters from him stating that he had no knowledge of P. anomala and P. bispora where he wrote to me that he never heard of those species. Of course now he knows they are real.
Both Paul and Gerhardt also wanted to move the Copelandia's back to Panaeolus, something which Guzmán and I diagreed with and we placed them back into the genera of Copelandia based on Rolf Singer's writings.
And again, Paul relying on Noordeloos 1995 paper on Psilocybe and Pholiota, placed many species of Stropharia back into the Genus Psilocybe. However, Paul posted many of those species in his book, PMOTW and they contain no psilocine/psilocybine, thus adding to confusion for people interested in magic shrooms. Since his book deals with psilocybin mushrooms of the world, there is no reason for posting mushrooms in his book which do not contain those alkaloids.
BElow is a letter to me from Ola'h in October of 1997, 0ne year after the publication of paul's book. aftger this I feel no further need to continue this discussion.
Mr. John W. Allen C/o Beauty and the books 4213 University Way Seattle, Washington 98105 U.S.A.
Quebec 17 octobre 1997
Dear Mr. Allen,
1/ Thank you for your field guide, Magic Mushrooms of the…> I find it very interesting and a real good job, congratulations.
11/ I have read through and analyzed your future publication: A LIST OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI, I have read it and find again interesting approaches too.
First Question: are you listing only real HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI? Can you include in the same time the latent HALLUCINOGENIC FUNGI? You know as well come me, they are numerous and important too.
In my works on the Genus of PANAEOLUS and other, we make this very important distinction.
I give you here the best of my knowledge, same information the Hallucinogenic fungi collected or study by us.
Panaeolina foenisecii Maire=Panaeolus foenisecii (Fr.) Kuhn. Cosmopolite, anywhere of the world and any time.
Panaeolus africanus Ola’h (R. Cailleux) Bburkina 1966.
Panaeolus ater (Lange) Kuhn et Romagn. (R. Heim and Gy. M. Ola’h) –India and Sri Lanka 1964-1966/ 1972-74.
Panaeolus cambodgeniensis Ola’h et Heim (R. Heim) Cambodia 1967.
Panaeolus castaneifolius (Murr.) Ola’h Quebec, Can. 1963-1967.
Panaeolus fimicola Fr. Cosmopolite, anywhere of the world anytime.
Panaeolus microsporus Ola’h et Cailleux (R. Cailleux) Bburkina 1965.
Panaeolus cyanescens Berk et Br. (R. Heim, GY. Ola’h) India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. Ola’h) CaribbeanL Martinique and Guadeloupe 1982-86.
Panaeolus sphinctrinus (Fr.) Quelet. India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. M. Ola’h) Caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe, Quebec, Can. 1964-1990. Panaeolus subbalteatus Berk. Et Br. India, Brazil, Philippines, (GY. M. Ola’h) Caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe, Quebec, Can. 1964-1990.
Panaeolus tropicalis Ola’h (R. Heim and R. Cailleux) Bburkina and Cambodia. 1963-1965.
Psilocybe =Stropharia cubensis (Earle) Singer. (Ola’h) Brazil, Florida, caribbean: Martinique and Guadeloupe. 1974-1990.
I hope this information will be useful, With my best regards,
G.-M. Ola’h,
Sincerely,
Dr. Gyorgy-Miklos Ola’h, Professor UNIVERSITE LAVAL
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The paper Ola'h refers to is the one retitled by Guzman, Gartz and me and pubished, as noted, in 2000. And it took almost three years to be published due to the journals previous commitments. Most articles now take from six months to three years to appear in print after being submitted for publication. There are many authors whose works are in progress and sit at various journals in wait for several years to be published.. mj
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5815171 - 07/03/06 09:15 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
IS shroomin Dole going to respond is the question?
mj
|
mjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5815945 - 07/03/06 01:12 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Still waiting on Shroomin Dole's response to my rejoinder to his above comments
mj
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pan. Subbs?? Foes?? Neither??? [Re: mjshroomer]
#5816482 - 07/03/06 03:56 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
He usually doesn't respond when his assertions are corrected. I'm sure he has read and learned.
|
|