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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
OfflineOregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: CureCat]
    #6426100 - 01/04/07 08:45 PM (17 years, 27 days ago)

ya that kind of stuff chemical analis...I think the species


--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: CureCat]
    #6426154 - 01/04/07 09:02 PM (17 years, 27 days ago)

they want to get different samples from different sources..the people who can publish papers shouldn't rely on one source. It should be many sources

that way they can start seeing conistencies..if the scientists get enough of that, we might get a new species out of this..or maybe even two new species


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleburtonRebel
Male

Registered: 12/02/06
Posts: 1,222
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: CureCat]
    #6426347 - 01/04/07 10:07 PM (17 years, 27 days ago)

look in the bay area thread a couple pages back, im pretty sure those are what i found. i also commented on how they were unusual


--------------------
Wreck yourself before you check yourself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: auweia]
    #6427004 - 01/05/07 02:58 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Post edited on request of MJ


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


Edited by Zen Peddler (01/05/07 08:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6427026 - 01/05/07 03:30 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

bluemeanie said:
Has anyone thought of the possibility that there could be several phenotypical variants of a new, third species, or that there is a range of phenotypes that bridge the spectrum between Ps.cyanescens and Ps.cyanof.?? Both are possible and not with precedents.




YES! That is what I've been suggesting for some long time now.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: CureCat]
    #6427034 - 01/05/07 03:41 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Please check my post in the San Fran thread for a comparison of something


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6427132 - 01/05/07 05:52 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

bluemeanie said:
Exactly what Auweia said. Im sorry but what MJ proposes is ludicrious. Obvbiously he has just decided that its now a new species and wants to be involved in it.
You need 12 or so collections from various locations all exhibiting similar microscopic, macroscopic and habitat characteristics to properly lechotype the species and create a type specimen for the paper. Otherwise no one in their right mind would publish it. And now days you need to do some sort of isozyme protein or compatibility tests to rule out compatibility with existing species - otherwise its poor science.
Even then the collector is never remembered in any publication - its the author of the publication that gets their name next to the mushroom - with some Psilocybes its been different, but that is outside the normal rules.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that there could be several phenotypical variants of a new, third species, or that there is a range of phenotypes that bridge the spectrum between Ps.cyanescens and Ps.cyanof.?? Both are possible and not with precedents.

The fact that this a relatively commonly found mushroom makes it hard to believe that someone hasnt studied it before and attempted to identify it.




For us hunters, there can never be too many people working on ID for this. People have been working on this, but so far it's basically cyanescens, but why the different shape? Why are they doing this to us...what did we do to deserve this?...hehe...just kidding

Quote:


Has anyone thought of the possibility that there could be several phenotypical variants of a new, third species, or that there is a range of phenotypes that bridge the spectrum between Ps.cyanescens and Ps.cyanof.?? Both are possible and not with precedents.




Yeah, I mentioned that once before..That's what I think it is, actually. My first thought was that cyans were mutating, but mutation isn't the right word for it. But now we're seeing a couple variants of this new type, and they're still closer to cyans microscopically.

they probably would be indistinguishable from cyanescens if it wasn't for these variable shapes and sizes

except for that 'azure like' type....that one is different


Edited by auweia (01/05/07 09:51 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: auweia]
    #6427145 - 01/05/07 06:13 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

and thus...


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


Edited by Zen Peddler (01/05/07 08:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleauweia
mountain biking
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 2,725
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6427172 - 01/05/07 06:47 AM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Sorry Auweia - had to edit your post because it contained something Ive been asked to delete.


Edited by bluemeanie (01/05/07 08:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? *DELETED* [Re: auweia]
    #6427176 - 01/05/07 06:56 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Post deleted by bluemeanie

Reason for deletion: because



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemjshroomer
Sage
Registered: 07/21/99
Posts: 13,774
Loc: gone with my shrooms
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6427330 - 01/05/07 08:43 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Blue meanie said:

Quote:
I'm sorry but what MJ proposes is ludicrous. Obviously he has just decided that its now a new species and wants to be involved in it.




And also this comment
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.??




Another quote from Blue Meanie:
Quote:

Why would it take him three years to publish something?




It now takes from 1-3 years for a journal to publish an article. More people submit. The article is sent to the journals editor, then resent to three reviewers around the world who are on the boards of the various journals. They review, they send back to the journal with suggestions to shorten or remove items from the paper.

The 100-paged Distribution of the Species by Guzmán, me and Gartz, took three years to publish.

The original article I wrote on Australian and New Zealand
which appeared in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs in 1990 took a year and a half to write and correspondence with several dozen other people from down under to correct and verify my findings, a visit to the continent and then three people editing and reviewing and then the submission to the journal and then waiting on the reviews, almost 27 pages were edited out of the original article and then another year and a half before publication.

My recent paper P. antioquensis paper took almost two years to be published after submission to the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms and it is only five pages.

Then you stated that:
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


Edited by mjshroomer (01/05/07 12:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: mjshroomer]
    #6427627 - 01/05/07 11:18 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Sorry For al the Hassle


--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: mjshroomer]
    #6427642 - 01/05/07 11:24 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

auweia said:
For us hunters, there can never be too many people working on ID for this.




- all references to samples deleted...



Quote:

mjshroomer said:
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.


Blue meanie, This is not your affair.


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. Not that of the PNW where you have never been.




Mj- You seem to be taking this out on Bluemeanie, when he was never the one who spoke of the PM. Not to mention, nothing poor was spoken of you from the person who mentioned the email. It seems like you were trying to hide your interest, judging from your responce to the situation.

Furthermore, why should anyone be limited to studying mushrooms from their region???
I see nothing wrong with BlueMeanies interest and participation on the topic. He has asked a lot of good questions.
You go to other countries to study mushrooms, and no one has told you "stick to the mushrooms in your own area".


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


Edited by bluemeanie (01/05/07 08:21 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: CureCat]
    #6427695 - 01/05/07 11:42 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Well I once said in a Forum,That Maybe he and auweia,should get together and figure this whole Fricosa thing out before going to other countrys to study their mushrooms


--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOregonBluesGil
Forager/Gatherer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Humboldt County
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: OregonBluesGil]
    #6427849 - 01/05/07 12:29 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Ok I once told about a Landscaped Bed about 20 ft. wide and like a 100 ft long,It got covered in Gravel theis pass spring,I was sad Till the other day I went and checked it out,I was Happy to find some Cyans Forcing their way throgh the Gravel,The Patch will ddie off If I dont get fresh woodchips to them,but its in a very public place so At Night I'll have to go scape the rocks away to side with Flat edge shovel down to the dirt,apply woodchips to bareground,were there is Mycleium growing and cover Gravel back over.Here are some pics












--------------------
I'm in a Magical Mushroom land!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCureCat
Strangest
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 14,058
Loc: clawing your furniture
Trusted Identifier
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: OregonBluesGil]
    #6428495 - 01/05/07 03:35 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

If you're gonna go that far with it, might I suggest a transplant??

Simply uncover the mycelium, and carefully shovel up the colonized substrate, trying to keep the big pieces intact, and put it in a card board box or something. Then fill the holes with wood chips. The mycelium will reach it and eventually colonize the new chips.... if another species doesn't get to it first.
Any how, in the mean time, you can spawn the mycelium to a less public area, with more wood chips. Good luck.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: mjshroomer]
    #6429259 - 01/05/07 08:20 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

'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.'

Sure there is a record in a herbarium of the name - but ive never viewed any published work where there is mention to more than the collection location and whether it is lechotyped, etc.

I didnt aim to offend and I was probably more abrupt than was warranted. But I have edit every thread referring to the 'issue.'


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBobHumboldt
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 176
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: Zen Peddler]
    #6455261 - 01/13/07 11:46 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Damn, you guys are lucky. I lived in humboldt back in '78 to '81, then from '95 to 2005. I remember finding liberty caps in 1980, and lots of cyans in 2004 and 2005, but it looks like it's exploding! Awesome.


Edited by BobHumboldt (01/13/07 11:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZen Peddler
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
Re: ok here we go,Humboldt County Finds?Cyanfibrilosa??? [Re: BobHumboldt]
    #6460957 - 01/15/07 01:29 AM (17 years, 17 days ago)

'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. Not that of the PNW where you have never been.'

Should I refrain from making he same judgment of a person who wrote a book on Australiasian mushrooms when they've been to Australia how many times and for how long?? :wink:


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


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

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Humboldt County Help Foreversunshine 1,478 2 02/12/04 11:12 PM
by Gumby
* Goin on a hunt in humboldt county roofus 2,477 11 07/12/07 03:41 AM
by canid
* To Humboldt I go or not? El_Herbivore 2,003 14 12/14/03 04:48 PM
by mjshroomer
* Humboldt hunt (pictures) roofus 1,736 2 11/24/03 10:48 AM
by ToxicMan
* Sunday's Great Cyanescens Find 11-16-2003
( 1 2 all )
mjshroomer 5,854 27 11/19/03 02:04 PM
by mjshroomer
* ID on Humboldt shrooms? nubus 1,453 5 12/19/02 12:34 PM
by angryshroom
* humboldt county Ulgrim 941 1 12/30/03 09:17 AM
by canid
* Blueing Mushroom Find in Oregon!!! (5/18)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Joshua 29,246 140 12/08/18 02:14 PM
by Colonel

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
7,548 topic views. 3 members, 8 guests and 3 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.