|
 sui
I love you.
 
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 27,230
Loc: Cali, Contra Costa Co. 
|
 Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa  [Re: auweia]
#6322361 - 11/30/06 08:34 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
When i first found the "friscosas" it was like 3 years ago. I was looking for cyanescens. I didnt even know cyanofibs existed. I found the patch and because of the differences between the two i couldnt fully identify them. They were dryed by the sun, i harvested a sample of about an oz. And took them to the Oakland Mycological Fair, I got varyed reports some people saying they were Cyan, some fibs. I wen home and looked up fibs and they looked like they fit better than Cyan, but there were differences that i noticed. as far as the fibs go they are much taller, Aweia has stated this many times. Also the stem is generally fatter. Plus what Aweia mentioned in an above post.
*****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*****
and finnally the ratios of active chems seem to be more similar to Cyanescens rather than Cyanofib.
One other thing that ive noticed is that the friscosas fruit a couple weeks to a month before Cyanescens.
Also:
Anyone have any information on the comparison of the start and end of the Cyanofib season in contrast to the start and end of the Cyanescens season up in the PNW?
It wasnt until last year that we started hearing about the reports of a "new" psilocybe out of San Fran in Stamets book Mycelium Running. I tend to lean more toward this conclusion, based on the info that ive seen.
--------------------
"There is never a wrong note, bend it." Jimi Hendrix
Edited by sui (11/30/06 08:39 PM)
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: angryshroom]
#6322383 - 11/30/06 08:41 PM (14 years, 10 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.
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6322407 - 11/30/06 08:49 PM (14 years, 10 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
|
WaylitJim
Strangeland
Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 181
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: angryshroom]
#6322467 - 11/30/06 09:11 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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've recenlty sent samples to Workman of two bay area varieties. One is the classic Friscosa, the other is smaller and looks more like Fibrillosa. He's got a bunch of other material to get to first, so it might take some time.
|
angryshroom
Stranger
Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
|
 Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: WaylitJim]
#6324106 - 12/01/06 01:35 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Cool, good to know that its in the works at least. I'd love to know for sure what the heck these are!
|
 notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: angryshroom]
#6324150 - 12/01/06 01:55 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
me too. so im confused. what are to posibilites on the table. did these mutate and branch of due to climate or what. these things are like evolution in the making. but i guess we all are so... 
--------------------
|
baycafe
Urawa RedDiamonds
Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 500
Loc: 埼玉県&...
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: sui]
#6324182 - 12/01/06 02:08 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Sui,
Good to see you rock star and  on the finds.
--------------------
I think my eyes are getting better. Instead of a big dark blur I see a big light blur.
俺のシロシャイビケッルリプスがここです。
東京スカパラダイスオクストラ
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: baycafe]
#6326562 - 12/02/06 08:12 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
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...
'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?
'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.
Really only spore compatibility tests or DNA could really solve this, but phenotypical variation within species can be amazing (compare pygmies to swedish people)
'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?
'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. 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.
'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.
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
 Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6326770 - 12/02/06 11:59 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bluemeanie said:
phenotypical variation within species can be amazing (compare pygmies to swedish people)
Quote:
bluemeanie said:
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.
Well stated.
My frustration on this issue is the lack of evidence. Both sides- distinct species vs. phenotypic variant- lack convincing proof, though both make persuasive arguments... yet logical conclusions have yet to be made.
The point is, a good argument cannot be made without further research and evidence to support its claims.
--------------------
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6326819 - 12/02/06 12:24 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
wow thanks for making that post. iv been trying to soak up as much info as i can on this subject.
thanks for making what is not at all clear a little more understandable
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6326822 - 12/02/06 12:25 PM (14 years, 10 months 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
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6326848 - 12/02/06 12:35 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
that too is a truth. a rose by any other name would briuse as blue
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6327008 - 12/02/06 01:38 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, it's not simply a name... It's the curiosity of what it is that propels this discussion.
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6328373 - 12/02/06 10:00 PM (14 years, 10 months 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 
|
OregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 363
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 18 days, 12 hours
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6328491 - 12/02/06 10:49 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
sOUND gOOD TO ME hEY
--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land! 
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: auweia]
#6329236 - 12/03/06 03:06 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Hang on... Im confused, didnt you just say in a previous post that you didnt care, than spent that long writing a response afterwards... 
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...
'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'
Actually I dont agree, and Im in Australia...
Oh and: formal qualifications/psilocybes/formal qualifications/psilocybes/formal qualifications/psilocybes
--------------------
Edited by Zen Peddler (12/03/06 03:07 AM)
|
hoopershroomer
Bonafide Oneironaut
Registered: 03/30/06
Posts: 1,704
Loc: WA
Last seen: 5 years, 11 months
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6329413 - 12/03/06 03:59 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
nice pics, nice finds, and very interesting topic......but MANN dont rip out the mycelia from the ground like that, c'mon you newb!!? thats gonna kill your patch. pinch or use scissors when picked mushrooms or you kill off your patch when you rip the mycelia from the ground, with the shrooms
--------------------
"Life lived in the absence of the psychedelic experience that primordial shamanism is based on is life trivialized, life denied, life enslaved to the ego."
"You teach the world how to treat you, by showing the world how you treat yourself."
A well developed sense of humor is far superior to any religion"
"Everything you could want and could be, you already have and are."
 & 
|
Zen Peddler
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
|
You replied to me, but i assume you mean someone else? Otherwise I wish! Wrong time of year here to have done the wrong thing... 
--------------------
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6329864 - 12/03/06 12:17 PM (14 years, 10 months 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
|
auweia
mountain biking
Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
|
Re: Psilocybe Cyanofriscosa [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6335635 - 12/05/06 10:19 AM (14 years, 10 months 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...
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...
| |
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
