Quote:

---

OregonBluesGil said:
nope just started popping about a month ago,temps just right,I'm pissed off that this thread started turning into a Sh*t throwing thread,I've been waiting weeks to try to get these Pictures,and others posted,and all people want to talk about is throwing sh*t from roof tops,thats messed up,So what do people have to SaY ABOUT MY FINDS ARE THEy fIBS/FRISCO OR ARE THEY REGULAR cYANS,Some feed back about the shrooms would be nice

---

Very sorry about that.  I thought we'd answered your question.  I apologize for the side-tracking.

Basically, we think you have some of the new species being found in the bay area, known loosely as "Cyanofriscosa".  There is much controversy over the identification- whether they are indeed a new species, or if they are a phenotypic variant of Ps. cyanescens or Ps. cyanofibrillosa. 

Either way, they are active.  Congratulations on the find!

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---