Lysergic_Milkman ,

Those are not Psilocybe weilii and look nothing like them. The weilii also have no ring on them and these ones that Shroomy Dan collects has. Thus they are not P. weilii.

As for Guzmán, he has already studied over 11 species I sent to him last year, two of those species are new species, three unknown at the moment and the rest were already known species.

And Blue Meanie, As far as your friends sending mushrooms to to Dr. Guzmán, most likely they were already known species so maybe he felt no need to study them further, or they were species already known, or it is most likely that he has not yet examined them. His Engilish is not so c good sometimes so it is possible your friends misread his bad English rather than they did not make sense of what he wr4ote.

For instance my mushroom, P. violacea,



Those P. violacea were later cultivated by both Workman and myself

and as Guzmán noted, a paper by he and I is forthcoming.

I discovered that species in 2001 and just got the data last year for those. So it takes time to look at everything.

However, the P. violacea turned out to be an already known common tropical species, Psilocybe pseudobulacea.

My unknown Psilocybe from last year, which grew by the hundreds in open rice paddie pasturelands in Thailand is not a Psilocybe. Roy Watling looked at fresh specimens and thought it was a possibly a Stropharia species. I agreed with him, but Guzmán examined a collection of them I sent him three years ago and told me they were actually a non-active species of Hypholoma.




And here are two images of a new species of Psilocybe. But Guzmán has not yet got to examine these mushrooms.

Two images of an unidentified manure Psilocybe species.. One image from the wild



Outstanding features are the fibrils on the stem and its annulus and no incurve margins in this species the caps become almost wavy, are thick and full.

and the second image is a basket collection with one cube partially visible (the one with the incurved margin at the top of the basket).



Those particular shroom collecions are from 2002. He has yet to examnie those.

And One more note regarding Blue Meanies above comments.

Gastón and his daughter Laura, who is but one colleague of many who are helping with Guzmán's work in assisting him as he rewrites the revision of "The Genus Psilocybe", have several hundred more collections of mailed in and/or collected by him, Psilocybes to yet examine, so please tell your friends to be patient.

If everyone who visited the shroomery here begin sending him mushrooms to examine, I would personaly go nuts.

And this is just my opinion because the majority of people who come here to the mushroom hunting at the Shroomery forum are constantly asking,

Quote:

---

"I found these in my backyatrd, are they magic?"

---

Quote:

---

"Can you tell me what kind of mushrooms I have?"

---

Quote:

---

mjshroomer said:
Lysergic_Milkman ,

Those are not Psilocybe weilii and look nothing like them.  The weilii also have no ring on them and these ones that Shroomy Dan collects has.  Thus they are not P. weilii.
\

---

Of course they are not Psilocybe weilii, that is not what I was implying. There was a post in an earlier thread where many weilii hunters stated that the caps of some of the maturing fruit bodies pictured looked similar to psilocybe weilii.

I look forward to updates on this new species! 

Quote:

---

Sure it is not P. caerulipes, because this mushroom from Ohio has annulus, which is absent in P. caerulipes.

---

Quote:

---

Partial veil thin, cortinate, and forming an evanescent fibrillose annular zone in the superior region of the stem, if at all.

---