Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6142226 - 10/07/06 12:55 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Im sorry but who ever wrote this doesnt really know what they are talking about:
'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 '


Gartz and others demonstrated that azurescens and cyanescens were not compatible - if they were azurescens would have never been delineated in the first place. Infact ive read NO studies were any spore compatibility was demonstrated between azurescens and cyanescens.
Secondly, I wouldnt be sending mushrooms to Guzman for identification purposes. He uses outdated methods to delineate species based on minute variations in cystidia shapes and sizes. And he commonly makes errors with these delineations.
Why would someone be making a monograph anyway if Guzman has already done it?
This person makes a statement that suggests that he doesnt believe this species is indeed a regional phenotype of Ps.cyanescens yet provides no evidence of why he thinks this.

At the end of the day I dont see what all the mystery is - working out what it is wouldnt be that challenging - get it under a scope - isozyme protein studies, DNA studies, compatibility studies would all be conclusive.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6142236 - 10/07/06 01:00 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Actually those look a lot like Ps.subaeruginosa. I wouldnt be surprised if they were. But they are also very similar to Ps.cyanescens and ive seen stranger regional phenotypes.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6144715 - 10/07/06 08:51 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

'They very often appear among cyanescens patches. For a long time I thought they were mutating from cyanescens because whenever you find these friscosas, you can usually find cyanescens nearby'

Perhaps that is because friscosas are just a phenotype of Ps.cyanescens which is almost certainly the truth. Im not the biggest fan of Guzman, but I wouldnt doubt his ability to correctly identify a specimen of Ps.cyanescens. Thats what phenotypes are - varied characteristics within the same species. If its appearing in cyanescens patchs its almost certainly just that, which is no big deal. Just because they look different to you and peter doesnt automatically suggest they are a different species.

the macroscopic appearances of Psilocybes can vary considerably. Those arent even that different from cyanescens so why do you assume they are a separate species?

So this Peter guy is claiming that he was able to demonstrate cross-compatibility with correctly identified Ps.azurescens and Ps.cyanescens? There would only be cross-compatibility with those two distinct species if Peter had incorrectly identified his collection of Ps.azurescens. And you say yourself he wasnt even sure they were indeed azurescens (which wouldnt be that challenging to ID) so perhaps he should really be sure of his own techniques before making blanket statements that other scientists have already demonstrated arent correct.

lastly fibrillosa is vastly different microscopically from Ps.cyanescens - you could tell them arpat under a microscope in about five minutes. So its either one or the other or its different. I dont see where the confusion lies...


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6149225 - 10/09/06 05:51 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Ok - Whether Stamets rates Peter or not, I dont know anything about the guy other than the fact he has made a claim that Im 99% is false. (azurescens/cyanescens compaitiblity).
Im not impressed with the fact that Stamet's rates him - although I dont personally mind Stamets, he rates a number of people that I dont in any way - namely Ray Watling and Jonathan Ott among others. Trippers rather than scientists.
Whats more Pluteus and I were corresponding with Stamets ourselves for some time about the Ps.cyanescens family - namely that off-shoot of the Ps.cyanescens allies - Ps.subaeruginosa.
To give you some example of the problems with the specification in this family already, you have collections of Ps.cyanescens from Britain and the United states with VAST differences in cystidia size, shape and form - UK specimens have lots of mucronate to ventricose rostrate cystidia but with no pleurocystidia, while the US variety has sublageniform, to capitate to ventricose pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia.
The importance of this point is that Guzman delineated Ps.subaeruginosa from Ps.cyanescens and into Ps.australiana and Ps.eucalypta based on MINUTE variations that arent even one 10th the precentage of variation found within our current lechotype of Ps.cyanescens.
An important group of studies in Australia (Chang and Mills in 1993 and Johnson and Buchanan in 1996) both showed that dispite the considerably variable shape of ps.subaeruginosa in Australia, isozyme protein analysis and spore compatibility tests demonstrated that they are the same taxon.

please have a look at the pictures of Ps.subaeruginosa/Ps.australiana and Ps.eucalypta on my site in the link below and you will see the variation in macroscopic appearance from almost identical to Ps.cyanescens to quite similar to a small version of Ps.azurescens.
There variations are expressions of the liquid state of species - they vary through regional separation until eventually there is specification. Phenotypes differ more and more until they eventually evolve into different taxons. The question is when. In different regions phenotypes just grow apart until theyeventually become cross compatible.
In a same regional area, specification would only occur when their were varied conditions and the adaption afforded the phenotype a constistent advantage. If they grow on the same substrates in the same regional area it is much less likely that specification has occured.

they look just like a non-wavy phenotype of Ps.cyanescens.

fibrillosa has forked cystidia and I could ID it in five seconds if you had a specimen.
Please PM me with a specimen and ill see if I can help the debate further - or if Peter is a grad student as he claims, perhaps he could do spore compatibility tests.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: sui]
    #6153115 - 10/10/06 05:02 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Im not overly surprised - Mj seems to concentrate on Thai and North east mushrooms - I would also wager I know more about Australiasian Psilocybes than him now, although his work is invaluable in terms of the their historical context.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: deathcapcubensis]
    #6157219 - 10/11/06 07:13 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Interesting. Now im quite interested in both this bay mushroom and the one pictured cultivated. If you sent me a gill fragment for microscope analysis I could add pictures of these mushrooms for you in this thread a day after I receive them.
Let me know if your interested. Im keen to resolve these issues.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: WaylitJim]
    #6165465 - 10/13/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

No problem. Just a section of a mushroom cap and Ill ID it.


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: Quankus]
    #6252626 - 11/06/06 06:35 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Man they look like dried subaeruginosa...


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


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Blueing Mushroom Find in Oregon!!! (5/18)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Joshua 29,246 140 12/08/18 02:14 PM
by Colonel
* Early Reports of Azurescens??? OregonBluesGil 520 0 10/12/04 10:52 AM
by OregonBluesGil
* a couple big azurescens from today
( 1 2 3 all )
Dobie 7,843 46 11/26/02 02:54 AM
by Zen Peddler
* azurescens season in fold
( 1 2 all )
ThePicker 8,191 27 11/06/04 01:19 AM
by raindance
* Possible psilocybe azurescens =) farmboybluez 11,684 16 09/20/17 03:08 PM
by perkysmiles
* Offical Humboldt County thread ?Cyanfibrilosa?or Cyanences
( 1 2 all )
OregonBluesGil 7,548 38 01/15/07 01:29 AM
by Zen Peddler
* Psilocybe Castanella Herbus 3,699 7 11/21/04 02:45 AM
by mjshroomer
* P. cyanofibrillosa in The San Francisco Bay Area
( 1 2 all )
Hongosmeester 6,244 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, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
11,058 topic views. 3 members, 8 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.019 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.