Home | Community | Message Board


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   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: sui]
    #6320792 - 11/30/06 09:05 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

isn't that amazing?...Lots of people are convinced those aren't the right ones, but we know better :smile:

I'm suprised a little that one came up already, since many simlar areas out in the open like that haven't started yet..I'd say that's a bit isolated right now. I might make it up there in a couple weeks after some more rain.

try making some cardboard out of the leftover mycelium..and btw, last year when I picked i also pulled up some mycelium just like in these photos, and they grew back just fine. Nice agressive strain here

here's the same place from last year. Note the date, jan 16



As far as I can tell, this season isn't really that much earlier than last year


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: angryshroom]
    #6320949 - 11/30/06 10:02 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Here's something I've never seen done before. This cardboard is inoculated woodchips from both psilocybe cyanescens and these new friscosas..half and half mixed togther

it's still a little early, but as you can see, they are starting to grow into one another and become one organism



whether or not this becomes a shroomzilla that rampages through the bay area remains to be seen  :smile:


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: mjshroomer]
    #6321090 - 11/30/06 10:49 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

close, but not quite..The pins don't look like that here, the dark ring in my photos is only bcause they're getting burnt by the sun, and it's not normal..And you last photo, the semi nipple or bump in the middle?..here's it's opposite and inverted.

then there's the bifurcate cystidia of the Wash variety and these don't have that


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #6321101 - 11/30/06 10:52 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

and the first photo..I've never seen stems that long down here, excpt for once in a deep bush where there's no circulation


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: notapillow]
    #6321138 - 11/30/06 11:04 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

yeah, I hope this is ok, but Waylitjim did a great job witha post an another forum > http://forums.mycotopia.net/showthread.php?t=16394

notice how those are inverted nipples


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: CureCat]
    #6321990 - 11/30/06 04:24 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

there's a couple of other things too..why does Stamets refuse to call these fibrillosa then?..Why is he calling this a possible new species in california?..wouldn't it be easier just to call them fibrillosa?

also, why are there so few photos of fibrillosa from washington and why are there so many down here?..It's been demonstrated repeatedly under a microscope that these in california are closer to cyanescens than to fibrillosa, even tho they look closer to fibrillosa

as far as I know MJ has rarely been to california and probably has never seen these in person, but Stamets comes down here alot..

But I said from the very beginning I thought these were a mutation of cyanescens, they are commonly near and around cyan patches, since the day i first saw them 5 years ago, and i've been picking for 25 years now..If they can grow together as one, they would be the same species, so why are they shaped so different then?..In the mushroom world, things like this are possible. or rather, with some behaviors, we can't say it's impossible anymore, because the more we learn the stranger it gets

As far as I'm concerned people can debate the name till kingdom come, but I have no trouble identifying them as good as cyans, I'm happy, my friends are happy.

Other people have trouble tho


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #6322025 - 11/30/06 04:37 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

or another way to look at it, these in the bay area have been around for about 5 years now, and dozens of samples and tranplants have made it to the MSSF and San Francisco State for study...it should have been published by now and fairly straightforward if these were fibrillosa or cyans.

but apparently there's characteristics of both, so people have a hard time going one way the other...so maybe a new species is the way to go, but maybe you can't do that either if they can grow together.

I think this is why there is no clear definition yet, and may yet take some time, and probably DNA tests to figure out what's going on here


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: angryshroom]
    #6322383 - 11/30/06 06:41 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

well, a couple people said they did a year ago..I haven't heard a thing

at least with MSSF I got a response, and they're working on it

Quote:

angryshroom said:
Have you sent any spore's to Workman at Sporeworks? He is actively in the business, and has a microscope. Im sure he could make some good arguments on what these truely are.

I know Auweia, you have actually found these in real life, you know that you can tell a difference. Its hard for us to sit back and just look at pictures, rather than have them in our hands.




Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #6322407 - 11/30/06 06:49 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

oh this reminds me, I completely forgot about this and mentioned it once..there is a new microscope imaging center at UCSF mission bay campus, only a few blocks away from me here > http://microscopesblog.com/2006/10/nikon-imaging-center-at-ucsfs-mission.html

I'll send this to the Peter Werner at Sf State..maybe he can get in there and use that


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6326822 - 12/02/06 10:25 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

to tell you the truth bluemeanie, I don't really care who the authority on psilocybes is, nor do I care what these are named. I couldn't care less. I know what they are and I'll keep picking them. You guys go ahead and debate the name all you want, cause I'm too busy hunting


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6328373 - 12/02/06 08:00 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

bluemeanie said:
Looking at those photos I see nothing remarkable - its just a phenotype of cyanescens. The problems arise when people assume that macroscopic variations are stable within species when they arent...


Nothing new there, and certainly agrees with what I've been saying. The problem is that others, like, say, the San Francisco Mycological Society DO assume that cyanescens is consistent. I dunno about you, but those photos on their website look mighty consistent to me. maybe you and I should campaign them to change their ID key

'there's a couple of other things too..why does Stamets refuse to call these fibrillosa then?..Why is he calling this a possible new species in california?..wouldn't it be easier just to call them fibrillosa?'

So you are assuming that Stamets is THE authority on Psilocybes? If so, please tell me what formal qualifications he has to justify this title?[/qoute]


Gee, I dunno, maybe all those books he wrote ARE a crock. But strangely enough, didn't MJ just get finished recommending one of his books on another thread today? Does MJ have formal qualifications to recommend somebody else without formal qualifications? Is Stamets more formal then MJ? does either have a tuxedo?..hehe

would you say writing a scientific paper and naming a new species is a formal enough qualification? then maybe Stamets does have some knowledge then..Gosh, I'm so confused now.

Or how about an undergraduate degree from SF State in mycology?

'also, why are there so few photos of fibrillosa from washington and why are there so many down here?..It's been demonstrated repeatedly under a microscope that these in california are closer to cyanescens than to fibrillosa, even tho they look closer to fibrillosa'

If its been demonstrated, then please explain to me exactly what shape the cheilo and pleurocystidia on this mushroom look like. Ive been attempting to have one of you guys send me a specimen for quite a while without success. Its pretty simple however - if its got lageniform or capitate cystidia then chances are its a variant of the cyanescens family - if it doesnt then chances are it isnt.


I can't and never said i could, but I bet other people could, like Peter Werner, who DOES have some formal qualifications, and who I bet got SO formal, that he even wore a tassle hat to graduation! And I think he just got finished addressing you recently here > http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6322343#Post6322343

well, ok, he's not describing specifically what the pleurocystidia looks like, but I bet he's seen it and can describe it if you ask him, possibly with a  'formal' question

The again, maybe this helps  >  http://forums.mycotopia.net/showthread.php?t=16394

Honestly, I would like to see that myself, you know, just to see it. It wouldn't change a thing about how or when I go hunting tho

Really only spore compatibility tests or DNA could really solve this, but phenotypical variation within species can be amazing (compare pygmies to swedish people)

that's odd..This seems to be nearly identical to what I said a few days ago, and here I thought this was the argument clinic.

'as far as I know MJ has rarely been to california and probably has never seen these in person, but Stamets comes down here alot..'

So you suggesting that because MJ doesnt go there much his opinion is less valid than someone with less training who does?


Not at all, but MJ himself is asking people from the PNW to stop giving advice to Europeans. Of course, that's because it's another part of the world and that can get dangerous..For example, every year we have poisonings here with people from SE Asia who find  a mushroom that looks EXACTLY like an edible in their home town..There's very good reasons why people too far away should not give advice to locals.
With that in mind, I should mention that San Francisco is over 1000 miles away from you guys up there in the PNW. We don't even have the same trees down here, mush less the same environment, so yes, I would suggest that somebody who's had at least some experience with the local variety FAR outweighs somebody who's never handled them in person, and only seen photos

'But I said from the very beginning I thought these were a mutation of cyanescens, they are commonly near and around cyan patches, since the day i first saw them 5 years ago, and i've been picking for 25 years now..If they can grow together as one, they would be the same species, so why are they shaped so different then?..In the mushroom world, things like this are possible. or rather, with some behaviors, we can't say it's impossible anymore, because the more we learn the stranger it gets'

What things are possible? Your posing a question and then making a blanket statement.


I'll promise to stop making blanket statements if you promise to never mention 'formal training' in the same paragraphs as psilocybe again


specification comes down to to variables - isolation or advantage. Every mushroom has a range of different phenotypes it can employ to handle specific environmental parameters. Some serve and apparent purpose, others dont serve any discernable one - some remain some dont. Subaeruginosa can look like azurescens or it can look like a wavy-capped cyanescens macroscopically for no apparent reason is identical habitats - there is no reason for it, and teh wavy-capped characteristic is stable and can be replicated through spores, to agar, to fruiting in an outdoor bed. It is still however, cross compatible with other forms of subaeruginosa - it is still the same species. And the differences are far more significant than the ones you are suggesting demonstrate this mushroom to be a different species than Ps.cyanescens.

did I say it's a new species? I said it could be, but I've always seen them around cyans so just from sheer experience I would call them cyans. But the problem is, this doesn't help beginning hunters at all, no matter what you call it. There is an ID problem with alot of people who are familiar with the normal wavy capped cyans. I should correct myself about 'not caring' because I do, it's just that I see that none of this naming debate helps hunters who can't identify it. I agree with you on these points.the wavy charcteristic is stable. For the most part, that's what I've seen. But then one corner will suddenly have these other kinds that people will reject, bluing or no bluing. But that's ok, cause I'll come along and clean up the rest.

'As far as I'm concerned people can debate the name till kingdom come, but I have no trouble identifying them as good as cyans, I'm happy, my friends are happy.

Other people have trouble tho '

Actually you seem to be doing far more debating than others here. But blanket statements dont make good science.




you know what makes good science?..being able to describe something to the masses that they can understand in their terms, rather than using big words and microscopic terms that most people don't, keeping it exclusive to a smaller community of people familiar with those terms

The best scientists on the planet have been able to do that. In fact, it doesn't even stop with the masses in general. A good example would be Stamets patent application. When people apply for a patent, they usually have to bring in an attorney because the attorney has to translate these scientific terms to a judge so that he can understand it. So the scientist is forced to literally teach the judge what is going on here. Most scientists can't do this or are unwilling to, that's why they have to hire attorneys who specialize in translating this stuff.

Stamets, by the way, IS able to describe many scientific principles to the masses, and to the patent judge, wich in my book, makes him more formally qualified, not less. I've read one of his patents, and it's online too and free to read...Good stuff

Anyway, I'm not the one debating here, most of what is above is what other people have said. For me, it doesn't matter what you call this, as long as it's consistent. It is in fact, consistently different than normal cyans which is nearly enough to change the ID key even if it is cyans, or fibrillosa, whatever.

Basically what I've been doing is posting photos, I think the debate involves some other folks, some of who are taking photos of mine that aren't even normallly what I see out there and applying it to something else..

The best I can do is post photos from the widest variety and range that I can find, and then let you 'formal' types go at it

Meanwhile, I'll have the popcorn ready :smile:


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6329864 - 12/03/06 10:17 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

ok, bluemeanie, they're not a new species, they are psilocybe cyanescens. There's no more need to help people identify them since that taxonomy is well established already


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6335635 - 12/05/06 08:19 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

well, I was going to correct myself and say I didn't care what you think, but you still seem unsure enough, so I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. Do you know what this is? 



I've never seen that here. I can tell very easy that I've never seen that here. It's so obvious it whaps me upside the head with a frying pan. If you can't see the difference between this photo and what we've been seeing here and posting photos of, then I recoomend you don't come here and pick cause you'll be next in line for the Darwin awards. I've seen galerinas here that look closer to the above photos than the psilocybes we've been picking here.

You know where I got this, right?  >  http://www.fungi.com/info/gallery/gallery5.html

Stamets isn't the authority on psilocybes, he just happened to name this one, along with Guzman. Both of them are saying what we find here isn't this.

If I ever see this here I'll be gald to take a photo, but I've never seen it, and I don't think anybody else has either

Quote:

bluemeanie said:
Hang on... Im confused, didnt you just say in a previous post that you didnt care, than spent that long writing a response afterwards... :wink:
Ill try and put it in ways that you understand, since this you have decided is the cornerstone of science.
I dont think its necessarily a new species. It could be, but just because it looks like it doesnt automatically mean that it is. I made this point at the start, and the basic response was something along the lines of 'well Peter and Stamets think that it is.'
I mean your welcome to accept that but I was more curious...
All I was asking for was evidence of the fact that this is a new species. And having read Peter's post Im still not convinced.
No need to take it personal...


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: thetonebone72]
    #6336272 - 12/05/06 12:28 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

right, one of those photos is mine, but none of them get a flat cap like the top photo. ever.

and that's what you have on your website, MJ, and copied from Stamets website.

Basically, if people do a Google search for cyanofibrillosa, they're going to find the top photo (the one on your website) On your own website you describe 70% loss in potency on drying. I've never seen that here either. All the ones below that top one I recognize, just not the one posted on your own website


Edited by auweia (12/05/06 12:30 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
    #6336303 - 12/05/06 12:37 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I think the Gartz one might be different..the larger one lower right..Never seen them get flat like that..that's similar to the top one a little


Edited by auweia (12/05/06 12:38 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: mjshroomer]
    #6336815 - 12/05/06 02:33 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

naw, it's no problem about my photo..

that's the one I sent to Stamets the next day..back in 2002, and he emailed back asking me permission to put it in his upcoming book, mycelium running, and I said sure, but he never got back to me and it was never printed, so I dunno. You, or anyone else is free to use it. As far as I know, that's still one of the earliest photos from the Bay Area.

I should also say that this photo also isn't really normal for what we see down here. In fact, that spot is in Golden Gate Park and never came up again after that. I have another one the same year that looks a little more normal, but this here is much more normal >

This is the stuff that's becoming very common here. Big puppies too These here are 3 inches across


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: OregonBluesGil]
    #6337093 - 12/05/06 04:03 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

well, I'd be happy to show MJ a place or too to see this local variety. I think I offered Stamets the same thing once. But no matter, I've already shown Peter Werner one of my better spots, and he's one of the few I would show that too, cause I know he's not going to rape it or blab it all over. That should be good enough till we get this all sorted out. He's in close enough contact with Stamets, basically replacing Stamets for California stuff, especially this type here.

So he knows what I've been seeing, and I'm sure he's getting some cultures from other Bay Area spots too. I'm just saying the ones down here don't look alot like the ones up in Washington


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: tahoe]
    #6337335 - 12/05/06 05:15 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

poor frustrated tahoe wants more pics! more rain! :banghead:


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: sui]
    #6338029 - 12/05/06 07:50 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

yeah, that's what I see too, in the mid size range


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: psiclops]
    #6339058 - 12/05/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

well, over the years I've seen maybe 10,000 of these. I'm not saying it's impossible for the stamets photo of cyanofibrillosa to occur down here, but it sure doesn't seem like that's what people are going to find.

I mean, if somebody told me that cyanofibrillosa grew in the bay area, and I looked it up and found that photo, I wouldn't be picking what I've been seeing

I think part of the problem is that many people find these in defferent stages of growth. When they're younger I bet alot of this looks very similar, but upon maturity they get so different.

Usually, when people put up a photo like Stamets, it's to represent a middle ground, a good healthy specimen to give a good indicator. Just about every species I've seen is like that, at least the ones I've picked, cyans, libertys, etc. Most people have a good representative photo on their website.

except for this cyanofibrillosa. I'm sure they do look like that in Washington, but after all this time I've never seen one like that here, I've never seen anyone else post photos that look like that either. If it was sometimes they looked like that I wouldn't bother mentioning it, but none of them look like that. It's not just me, there's quite a few others that posted San Francisco varieties here too in the last couple years...look for 'fibs' forum in the past

yeah, it's still possible that type can grow here, but the odds are getting worse as time goes on...

Oh and one other thing, if that type in Washington doesn't exist down here, we're not going to be able to prove that you know? because the way you're describing it, it's always going to be an open question, no matter how much time passes without us seeing that


Edited by auweia (12/06/06 12:06 AM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Tracking the Historical Psilocybe cyanofriscosa WorkmanV 4,035 17 01/17/08 01:01 AM
by Strophariaceae
* The Genus Psilocybe: An Update for Anno and all Members
( 1 2 all )
mjshroomer 5,994 28 01/24/07 05:51 AM
by pscyanescens
* My patch of unidentified bay area psilocybes Quankus 4,333 12 01/14/06 07:49 PM
by sui
* Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa hunt zorkieo 658 0 12/13/06 11:52 PM
by zorkieo
* Psilocybe Friscosa thread
( 1 2 3 all )
deathcapcubensis 11,058 48 11/06/06 06:35 AM
by Zen Peddler
* Possible psilocybe azurescens =) farmboybluez 11,684 16 09/20/17 03:08 PM
by perkysmiles
* I found some psilocybes, but not sure which ones..
( 1 2 all )
YouInfoIt 8,516 26 11/01/02 05:49 AM
by JovialLeprechaun
* sympatric specification in the genus Psilocybe
( 1 2 all )
Zen Peddler 5,465 30 07/29/05 04:17 AM
by Zen Peddler

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
61,026 topic views. 4 members, 12 guests and 9 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 0.023 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.