Quote:

In three years. Why would it take him three years to publish something? LOL. Maybe he just wants some of your glory... But did you find it first?
It isnt proper form to list the name of the person that makes the collections - its the person who publishes it first that should get the credit, and if they go and publish something before doing the proper checks they might end up with egg on their faces (Guzman subaeruginosa complex, etc).
Those mushrooms look like subaeruginosa - Ive changed my mind - i think some of them may be subs... Its certainly possible given the fact that subaeruginosa has been know to outcompete other psilocybes and is also known to exploit and co-habit the same habitats as Ps.cyanescens.
How about someone ask Peter if he wants some specimens of subaeruginosa for comparison.??

---

Quote:

Why would it take him three years to publish something?

---

Quote:

It isnt proper form to list the name of the person that makes the collections

---

Yes it is and that is in the Chicago Manual of Style. The book used for proper form of writing for scientific journals and other public notices.

Every deposited collection in herbariums has the name and date of deposit and the name of the person who collected it and what herbariumn it is stored in, as well as a deposit number to identify the collection and is in written as such and published in 99% of most papers on the taxonomy of species.

So Blue Meanie, for an simple example here is one such paper on P. pelliculosa specimens on deposit in herbariums in mexico, even I am listed by name for a collection from 1983 the Genus Psilocybe from a Seattle collection I made in 1977.



After you enlarge the image, right click the mouse onthebottom right corner of the paper tio read.

This is a good example of some mushroom collections. I am sure you will recognize some of the names of those who deposited this species found in clear cuts in the PNW from Humbolt county north to B.C, Canada and in parts of Europe. However, most clear cuttings are now illegal.

So your comments about peoples names in journals for herbarium deposits is incorrect.

What was said to Oregonbluegills is from a private pm message and should not have been posted here at all because it was a private conversation which we talked about in a pm./ It is a violation of rules to talk about what is said in a pm message.

I said it could be a new species and offered to do SEM and Chemical analysis which i can do in Bangkok legally. I do not want to get into anything about it now because of his and your comments.

AS for the name , The paper I suggested to him was for the chemistry and for the SEM work which I also can do in bangkok. Of course every herbarium collection used in an article gets a number and the name of whoever sent in the collectiona and where the location was and the habitat.

I can write those papers once a name is provided.

Guzmán already has several collections from several Californians who sent them to him on my suggestion,but Oregonbluegfils shrooms looked to me more like P. cyanofibrilosa speciemens similar to the images I already posted here of P. cyanofibrilosa rather than the normal shrooms people are calling P. cyuanofriscosa,A name which probably will not be used whent eh mushrooms identity is published by Guzmán in his revision of the genus Psilocybe.

Since I already have SEMs of P. cyanofibrilosa, I can do a comparative analysis of if and other collections and show whether they are the same species or not.

Blue meanie, This is not your affair.

Pollock had only one known specimen, P. tampanensis when he found it and he and Guzmán wrote the taxonomy from the one specimen and named it. And all the P. tampanensis of todays sclerotia came from a few spores scraped from the cap of that loan specimen found by Pollock in 1976. And from those spores, Pollock was able to grow massive shrooms of the specie sand produced the "cosmic comote" (Philosophers Stones) for the world (sclerotia of P. tampanensis).

You need to read your email. I am a little pissed at your comments and you should read the pm I sent to you about this matter and maybe stayed glued to your Australian shroom work because that is what you have experience in. Not that of the PNW where you have never been.

There are currently on deposit in several herbariums in Mexico over two dozen species of Psilocybe in the genera where there are only from one or two to five specimens deposited in certain herbariums of an individual suspected new species and used in formulating the taxonomy and naming of a species.

While Pollock's P. tampanensis was named from one fresh mushroom specimen only and found in Tampa, Florida in 1978, it was never seen again recorded or collected by anyone until a small collection was discovered in Mississippi in 1996. Many named species do not have any chance of 12 possible collections to study them and others have hundreds of collections deposited in herbariums.

mj

This is why I deleted over 12,000 photographs from this site because of people like you making rude unwarranted comments about thier assuming they known U.S. shrooms and about those who have done the major research in their 30-50 years in their lifetimes such as Guzmán, or Watling and others you obviously do not like or the results of their lifes works.

Oh btw, yes, we now have DNA confirmation of Psilocybe eucalypta as an individual species separate from P. subaeruginosa and P. tasmaiana.

And I also have in bangkok now several collections of the P. suaeruginosa mushrooms, or what people who sent them to us identified them as.

And now I think maybe I need to stay away from here for another six months or so.

have a shroomy day
mj