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

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6143151 -

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 ' <quote

This? why would that be inaccurate....Peter's statement seems exactly like what they are doing. 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, and many times they grow in the same patch.(peter doesn't seem to go with the 'mutation' theory. I guess that implies some sort of biological mistake) They are closest to cyanesens, but they are obviously different. I have heard Peter say that cyanescens and azurescens can cross breed. I've only seen one patch here in the bay Area and that still hasn't been confirmed if it is azures or not. But they have been transplanted down here. I know he's done this in the lab, so if he says it's possible, I believe him, hard as it is to imagine. I can say just from experience that while it might be possible to have interfertilty between cyanescens and azurescens, it's very unlikely in the wild, and it is alot more likely with cyanescens and friscosas. That's just from the sheer number of cases where they grow near each other

These could be called cyanofibrilosa, but that would have to be distinct from the washington variety if they are called that. There's certainly enough distinction not to call them cyanescens, but they do seem to cross breed with cyanescens, which would make them cyanescens.

As far as I know they can't answer this yet. Why do they aften grow among cyanescens? or if they don't why is there usually cyanescens within 20 feet?. They very well could be cyanescens under the current defenition. peter is right to try and do a regional monograph. i hope he keeps doing it because this is regional, Bay Area and San Francisco only. They may look alot like some species in other parts of the world, but they definately seem to be some sort of sattelite function of cyanescens. why?

You have to live here to answer that. Habit and habitat can be just as important as a microscope, especially in this case

In any case, there's always going to be disagreement with any new species that appears and hasn't yet been properly named. It has to go back and forth among the peers until there's an agreement.

This year could be very interesting because transplants and out door test patches will fruit for the first time, so we might be able to study this better under specific conditions

Until then, we can always take more photos keep looking. The more we find of this mystery, the better it gets

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6143322 -

In my opinion, they really just look like Ps. cyanfibrilosa. The picture where you compare the large woodlovers to the known cyanescens also just look like cyanescens. I have seen them get that large on multiple occasions.

I believe in post #6141677 that those are just simply cyanfibrilosa's.


--------------------
Ph.dizzle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: SweetLeaf]
    #6143487 -

SweetLeaf said:
In my opinion, they really just look like Ps. cyanfibrilosa. The picture where you compare the large woodlovers to the known cyanescens also just look like cyanescens. I have seen them get that large on multiple occasions.

I believe in post #6141677 that those are just simply cyanfibrilosa's.


Yeah, they could very well be cyanofibrillosas. people have been calling them fibs for a few years now. the only problem is that in washington it's well reported that fibs lose their potency after drying...like more than 50%

The ones here don't do that..they retain most of the potency after drying, just like cyans

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6143497 -

also, I might be wrong, but I think I recall peter Werner saying that under a microscope, these look closer to cyans than fibrillosa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6144715 -

'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: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6144803 -

myea

Edited by auweia (01/08/07 11:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6144932 -

here's another example in photos >>>





would you confuse these two types? If they are both cyanescens, then why do people reject the bottom photo ones, saying they are no good, and go for the top photo?. I have seen even smaller variations between an edible and a deadly poisonous type (not just a different species, but a different genus), so this is potentially dangerous.

the bay Area location is key for one thing..there's a famous ongoing story here every year about people from Vietnam, Loas, etc who get poisoned by Deathcap amanitas evey year...They confuse it with an edible fro SE Asia that looks very similar to the Ammanita Pantherina here...Even more similar than the differnce between these two photos

yes, there is plenty of confusion about this new species, therefore this thread was started. For one thing, I never saw the ones in the bottom photo before maybe 6 years ago, and I've been picking cyans for 24 years.

in the past it was all cyanescens here in San Francisco, and pretty much that was the only thing in town...Then about 6 years ago, the turn of the century, this appeared

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6149225 -

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: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: SweetLeaf]
    #6150518 -

SweetLeaf said:
If it's similiar macroscopically to Ps. cyanescens, azurescens, and cyanfibrilosa, what are the differences? I mean, I realize you think you may have found it...but what made you think you found it?

Was it simple how you reacted on bioassay, or was there a distinct physical feature that made you go "hmmmmm."?

I am curious, not skepitical. Woodlovers are very interesting to me.

Some info I've dug up from this site:

Quankus said:
Strophariaceae said:
Quankus said:
I hope the updated psilocybe list contains info on the new bay area species aka cyanofriscosa.


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


The tallest friscosa i have ever seen was in GGP growing right next to a cyan patch. I have a mediocre cell phone picture of it. But, usually friscosas don't get much taller than a few inches, this one's stem was  5+, which is a characteristic cyans have.
I agree the new bay area species did come from cyans/fibs but i've seen them fresh right next to each other and you can distinguish a number of differences. They are a mutation of the two, in my amatuer opinion.
keep up the good work. and post some pics maybe?


Really limited...mj will probably have a response to all this.




We down here in the bay actually know more about this species than MJ. lol :grin:


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

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: sui]
    #6153115 -

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: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6153234 -

just from looking at the photos, those P Australiana look fairly close to cyanescens, but none of the other ones, including the Ps.subaeruginosa look like these new ones here in the Bay Area..

most of the time, these friscosas are short and squat..less than one inch stem..Sometimes barely even that, with a huge cap that hovers just above the ground. Hopefully peter can get a nice micro photo this year.

I was hoping to get a 6mp camera this year, but maybe not. Still, more photos always helps

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6153328 -

The uestion of why they are found with the cyans alot could simply be the fact that they share the same type of habitat. I mean if there both wood lovers and they grow in the relatively same area then what is so surprising that you would sometimes find thenm in the same beds togather. I know that here in Georgia where there has been some decent new active finds in the past few years The weilii and atlantis both grow close togather in cases and sometimes just 15 or 2twenty feet away from each other. I agree with the above statement that this shouldnt be so hard to destinguish if it is infact a new species or just a known species simply found there to me they look like subaeriganosa or cyana fibs but hey i have no experience in these species other than lots of literature and pictures. Hope you shed some light on it, its interesting non the less.


--------------------
"Moderation is the key to life..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: deathcapcubensis]
    #6153499 -

Great thread and very informative.

Here's a few pics of an unknown Bay Area psilocybe.
I'm not sure what it is, possibly cyanofibrillosa.
These are cultivated pics started from a wild patch.
















Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: WaylitJim]
    #6153886 -

egads, Waylit, those look an awful lot like those yellow Stropharias so common toawrd the end of last year along the freeways in the Bay Area

is that the first fruit. Have you actually tried one of these yet?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6154195 -

I haven't eaten them, yet I'm fairly certain they are a psilocybe. All stained blue like the last photo and have purple black print.

Notice the intense bluing from a squeeze beneath the cap.


Stropharia ambigua are unique in that they usually have adhering veil fragments which remain around the margin.



Anyway, Workman has a sample, so in time I'll know for certain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: WaylitJim]
    #6154305 -

Yeah, the cap color above look about right..and the second photo in the first post looks closer, but all the other ones, it's the shape that seems off. Stems much longer than normal, but I bet this is because it's very sheltered in your spot, like no wind. And that might account for the fuzziness around the stem, which I've never seen in the wild.

seems sort of like an albino type friscosa maybe, because if it's new home nearly indoors?. I mean, I've seen albino cyans and friscosas before. much blonder than normal, but that's usually because of an odd substrate

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6154425 -

These Stropharias is what I meant...probably ambiguas too, but most of these don't have that veil..Some do, but most don't around here.

But you can sort of see, how the difference between these Stropharias, the wild friscosa photos from last year, and your photos is getting a little tougher



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6154466 -

oops sorry..here's two more, stropharia >

friscosa >

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: auweia]
    #6155051 -

Im 99.9% sure these are the ones that have grown in my near my location, the last two years in a row, and boy ARE THEY POTENT :mushroom2: :crazy2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Psilocybe Friscosa thread [Re: deathcapcubensis]
    #6157219 -

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

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

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Blueing Mushroom Find in Oregon!!! (5/18)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Joshua 31,266 140 12/08/18 02:14 PM
by Colonel
* Early Reports of Azurescens??? OregonBluesGil 532 0 10/12/04 10:52 AM
by OregonBluesGil
* a couple big azurescens from today
( 1 2 3 all )		 Dobie 8,649 46 11/26/02 02:54 AM
by Zen Peddler
* azurescens season in fold
( 1 2 all )		 ThePicker 8,959 27 11/06/04 01:19 AM
by raindance
* Possible psilocybe azurescens =) farmboybluez 12,067 16 09/20/17 03:08 PM
by perkysmiles
* Offical Humboldt County thread ?Cyanfibrilosa?or Cyanences
( 1 2 all )		 OregonBluesGil 7,611 38 01/15/07 01:29 AM
by Zen Peddler
* Psilocybe Castanella Herbus 3,790 7 11/21/04 02:45 AM
by mjshroomer
* P. cyanofibrillosa in The San Francisco Bay Area
( 1 2 all )		 Hongosmeester 6,378 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
11,297 topic views. 0 members, 161 guests and 15 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 0.033 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 17 queries.