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!
Guzman and Watling discovered Psilocybe Australiana, Ps. Eucalypta and Tasmaniana was who destinguished their three psilocybes by MACROSCOPIC detail (Stamets 1996). Subaeruginosa was first listed by Cleland and was found to have a high content of the alkaloid 'aeruginacine'. The first study that demonstrated synonymy between Subaeruginosa and Australiana, Eucalyta, and Tasmaniana was published in 1992 (Chang and Mills) and was based on isozyme analysis and spore intercompatibility of spores and not on macroscopic features. There finding were rejected by Guzman and Watling, John Allen and Dr. Phillip Keene because in their study they openly failed to find a specimen of Subaeruginosa that actually demonstrated the fundamental characteristic of a brown pleurocystidia. Secondly the species also display different fruiting characteristics and active substrates. Australiana displays light orange caps that often uplift found on a lignious substrate. Eucalypta display an thick and often stained stem, a dark orange cap that never uplifts, but is plane on maturity, Subaeruginosa displays a brown cap, pointy umbo and never uplifts - it has been found on both lignious and manure substrates - as has psilocybe Tasmaniana which was falsely idnetified as Psilocybe Collybioides - something that could not occur with other Australian native psilocybes (Australiana and Eucalypta) which as Guzman points out, have more in common with Psilocybe Cyanescens than Psilocybe Subaeruginosa
"Subaeruginosa was first listed by Cleland and was found to have a high content of the alkaloid 'aeruginacine'."
Hi, Cleland (Cleland, J. B. l927. Australian Fungi: Notes and Discriptions No. 6. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia Vol. 51:298.
Cleland, J. B. l934. Toadstools and Mushrooms and other Larger Fungi of South Australia:l9. Adelaide, Australia)
was the first mycologist to write the taxonomic description of Psilocybe subaeruginosa.
However, the tryptamine derivate 'aeruginacin comes from Inocybe aeruginascin and was first discovered, named and reported by Jochen Gartz (Gartz, Jochen. 1992. Inocybe aeruginascens-ein "neuer" Pilz Europas mit halluzinogener wirkung. Yearbook for Ethnomedicine and the Study of Consciousnes vol1(1):89-98).
It was Picker, J. P. and R. W. Rickards. 1990, who were the first to analyse an Australian agaric (Psilocybe subaeruginosa) and wrote of the presence of the psychomimetic principle psilocybine in the species. This article can be found in the Australian Journal of Chemistry vol. 23(4):853-855.
I also question your id of Psilocybe tasmaniana as a mushroom misidentified as Psilocybe collybiodes.
Can you pinpoint a paper that claimes that distinction.
I think it was Malcomb Hall who reported it or Shepherd and Hall, basing their identification on macroscopic similarities to P. collybiodes which is form South America.
sorry, this is just a cut and paste of a reply posted on ethnobotany australia discussing whether we should classify Australiana, Subaeruginosa and Eucalypta and the guy in the discussion was saying that you were the principle person who distinguishes between them.
According to Dr.Phiilip Keane, the subs contain an unknown alkaloid that he assumes is the alkaloid aeruginacine(gartz 1992) or another similar unknown alkaloid.
my last point on tasmaniana was an assumption (sorry) based on the similarity between the picture posted by Magicrooms of the suspected Collybioides mushroom and the description given to me from Taz Devil of Ps. Tasmaniana. I suppose i should retract that statement or atleast make it clear that it is an assumption.