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 
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
sui 
notapillow 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
on the finds.
& 
Workman
1 2 all )
mjshroomer
Quankus
deathcapcubensis
YouInfoIt
Zen Peddler