that is a larger than average cyanescens. later flushes from the same patch of 'cyanofibs' produced smaller mushrooms.

auweia said:

cyanofibrillosa from PNW

---

yeah, that is larger, but not like the ones in my photo

spores said:

that is a larger than average cyanescens. later flushes from the same patch of 'cyanofibs' produced smaller mushrooms.

auweia said:

cyanofibrillosa from PNW

---

you say things like that, that would lead people to believe cyanofibrillosa does not grow there. I have to go to work so I wont bother digging other instances up, there are more though.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

keep it up.

---

auweia said:

Cyanofibrillosa probably do exist, but people have been finding these instead



even worse, these one this photo are twice to three times the size of normal cyanescens,

---

First off, Thees are some 'Cynofibrillosa' i believe.... i picked them last year in SF



They were definitely bigger then most normal cyanescens but i found a cyanescens that same day with a huge 7-8cm Cap. Just as big as the biggest 'Cyanofibrillosa' i found that same day.

Size is determined by proper weather conditions, environment, and also each mushrooms genetics play a role too, i would imagine.

My friend who has been picking much longer then me said the "EL NINO" year we had back in the 1990's was the best ever. Slightly higher temps, high humidity and lots of rain into April. He claims he found, by the dozen, Cyanescens with stems almost exceeding 6" long, and Caps with an average size almost 3" in diameter. He almost didn't trust they were Cyanescens but they past all the tests. He says "Much more potent too!"

pscyanescens said:

First off, Thees are some 'Cynofibrillosa' i believe.... i picked them last year in SF



They were definitely bigger then most normal cyanescens but i found a cyanescens that same day with a huge 7-8cm Cap. Just as big as the biggest 'Cyanofibrillosa' i found that same day.

---

pscyanescens said:

Burton_Rebel: said "maybe you wouldn't be so hellbent in proving us all wrong"

If you are all wrong i want to see it be proven wrong! This is a forum for what i believe to be for the pursuit of factual information. Some times facts need to be separated from fiction, in order to find the real truth. 

Opinions are welcomed as well but you should really state that it is your opinion before or after you post. The way you worded your descriptions sounds like you were reading a book. Did you write it? How the fuck did you come up with it!

When you refuse to post a resource i will just assume you are pulling this info from your ass and spreading it around the world as what is perceived by most to be facts. State fact or opinion before you post to avoid agreements like thees.

---

okay....


...dude, since im obviously a more confident mushroom hunter than you are, i know what im picking to be active mushies. i take it you walk around with a field guide and then take spore prints of every cap and then take pictures, but only then to post them on here and ask us what they are. im gonna assume thats how you are bc you responded in a way that makes me think you lack knowlege.im sorry, i am an honest guy. no the meager description was not from a book, im sorry that wasnt infered by the first post. or in the second. it is a description that i wrote in reference to what i think a "friscosa" looks like. And yes, what i say is my opinion. still confused? most people say and interact with others and their surroundings with their own minds which causes motor function and language. i take it your a robot or a program designed to recite facts about mushrooms. i know what a cyanescen is, how about you? i dont need a book to tell me what it is every time i find one  or post something in reference to it.  my resource is my mind. what do you want me to do call guzman and tell him to tell you what i think about the mushroom. im sure he'll get right on that. the whole forum is dedicated to this friscosa species and since there is barely any information known about, the few mushroomers that found it are discussing it. get over it. or find another forum to bother ppl with your unwanted skeptic opinions. dude, seriously reading the last part of this forum, i feel like there are just sad sad mushroomers out there. a few bad trips will do that to you im sure. just think positively and have a little confidence in yourself.

Oh and btw, i did cite the mssf as the source for the unique spores, just so you have no questions about it. i heard it directly from them, so if you doubt they dont know what they're talking about, i guess your just lost and confused...

fuck, talk about beating a dead horse with a fucking stick







psilocybe cyanescen




bibliography

Stamets, Paul (1993). Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press. ISBN 1-58008-175-4.
Stamets, Paul; Chilton, J.S. (1983). Mushroom Cultivator, The. Olympia: Agarikon Press. ISBN 0-9610798-0-0.
Stamets, Paul (1996). Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press. ISBN 0-9610798-0-0.
Krieglsteiner G. J. (1984): Studien zum Psilocybe cyanescens-Komplex in Europa. – Beitr. Kenntn. Pilze Mitteleur. 1: 61-94.
Borovièka J. (2005): The bluing Psilocybe species of the Czech Republic IV. The problem of Psilocybe cyanescens Wakef. Mykologický Sborník 82 (1): 1-21. ISSN 0374-9436.

woah

you hear that?

it was the sound of my posts flying over your head.

maybe you can point me to where I was disrespectful...  I think I kept things pretty to the point.  you're the one calling me a lazy asshole for pointing out the 'facts' you made up and wanting more (err any) proof of what you all are trying to call facts, and it's me being disrespectful?

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I'm trying to get you all to show some proof of what you're suggesting.  prove yourselves right in other words.

somehow the fact peter said this new mushroom did not have forked cheilocystidia led you all to the conclusion that there are NO mushrooms with forked cheilocystidia in the bay area.  the only place people are saying that is here at the shroomery.  you just suggested it up there in your last post.  or attempted to at least.

burtonRebel said:

the species here dont have a forked cystidia

---

the species?  the 'new' one?  every species?  you are not being clear.  but you seem to be speaking in plural or else you would have used the word doesn't instead of don't. 

if a mushroom down there that is ID'd as cyanofibrillosa doesn't have forked cheilocystidia, I agree, it's not cyanofibrillosa. where do you come up with the idea the species (assuming 'the species' means every species, again, you weren't clear) in the bay area do not have forked cheilocystidia? you have any proof?  nope.  a reference to someone elses proof of it?  you don't have one.  if peter werner said it, point me to where.

auweia:

Strophariaceae said:

California P. 'cyanofibrillosa' have few pleurocystidia but lack the distinct bifurcate cheilocystidia of the Washington type collection.

---

it seems obvious to me that by "California P. 'cyanofibrillosa' (notice it's in quotes)" he's referring to the 'new' species and not P. cyanofibrillosa.  because P. cyanofibrillosa has the cheilocystidia he's talking about, if the mushrooms in question don't, they're not cyanofibrillosa.  he's not saying that P. cyanofibrillosa has forked cheilocystidia everywhere but in one region.  in other words, that there's a PNW cyanofibrillosa and a california cyanofibrillosa.  He's saying P. cyanofibrillosa has forked cheilocystidia and that's why it's different from the 'new' species.  how anyone can twist this around in their mind to mean there are absolutely no mushrooms in the bay area with forked cheilocystidia is beyond my comprehension.  do I know for sure there are?  no.  would I bet money there are? yeah.  do you know for sure there are not?  does peter werner?  does paul stamets?  does burtonrebel?  does anyone?  no, in all cases.

you guys really are too much.  have fun with your self-created drama.  just don't get mad if no one else wants to play or take half-ass interpretations seriously.  I can't wait till they finally name it and the speculation stops.

auweia said:

tahoe said:

those are the fibs!

---

I'll send 50 bucks to the Shroomery via paypal if anyone can prove the ones we get in the bay Area are psilocybe cayanofibrillosa

....

for the simple, basic, fact, that, you cannot apply the ID key and definition of psilocybe cyanofibrillosa, and apply it to the San Francisco bay area and expect that to be 100%

it will never happen, I'm telling you

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6409395#6409395
the ones?  unclear if you're talking about the new species or every psilocybe at the beginning. but the second to last sentence is pretty clear.

Quote:

well, we don't have an official ID on these yet. the only thing we know for sure is that under a microscope they are closer to cyanescens than to cyanofibrillosa

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/6423550/page/0/fpart/2/vc/1
in response to a thread about a psilocybe from humboldt, poster assumed it was cyanofibrillosa.  to be clear, you never viewed it under a microscope.

Quote:

yeah mj, I see that, but Peter Werner, Sporeworks, and now Bluemeanie are all saying the ones here don't match cyanofibrillosa from Washington

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6399163#6399163
the ones?  again, being unclear, it's a weak one, but it's misleading.

and the constant referral to 'cyanofibrillosa from washington/PNW'.

anyway, that's what a search turned up. 

I love you too burtonrebel.

tahoe said:

I call it a fibbecause that is what the proffesors at the fair called it.

ps cyanofibrillosa var. san francisco

---

Quote:

burtonRebel:

...dude, since im obviously a more confident mushroom hunter than you are, i know what im picking to be active mushies. i take it you walk around with a field guide and then take spore prints of every cap and then take pictures, but only then to post them on here and ask us what they are.

---

spores said:

auweia said:

tahoe said:

those are the fibs!

---

I'll send 50 bucks to the Shroomery via paypal if anyone can prove the ones we get in the bay Area are psilocybe cayanofibrillosa

....

for the simple, basic, fact, that, you cannot apply the ID key and definition of psilocybe cyanofibrillosa, and apply it to the San Francisco bay area and expect that to be 100%

it will never happen, I'm telling you

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6409395#6409395
the ones?  unclear if you're talking about the new species or every psilocybe at the beginning. but the second to last sentence is pretty clear.

that's right, the ones..By 'the ones' I mean the ones people have been finding. I do NOT mean the ones people have not been finding, haven't found yet, could possibly never find, because people will never know if they've never found something. I only mean the ones people have been finding here. The ones that are very common now. That doesn't mean the ones people have NOT been finding DON'T exists, it just means 'the ones' people have been finding. Now all the other people who have posted photos here that are not cyanscens, look an awful lot like like the ones I've been finding too, and I know that I gave a sample to the MSSF and they already posted a result here last year, and I linked to it here in this thread. Now, that doesn't mean that all the other ones people have found, even tho they looked similar, could be the exact same thing. It only means that there's a good chance of it, but everybody else could be finding cyanofibrillosa, and unlucky me, might be the only one to have come up with this non-forked cystidia type

but you know what I think?..I think the chances are pretty good that they are the same ones I've been finding too, so yup, I'll cough up 50 bucks if those ones ...um....we..

by 'we', I mean we as a group of people in the Bay Area, 'WE' are not connected except through this chat.

by 'Bay Area', I mean the greater San Francisco Bay Area. by 'group of people' I mean more than one person. by 'greater' I mean larger than the city of San Francisco itself

I still say you cannot apply a cyanofibrillosa key to this, because you're asking for trouble with the recommended dosage. I said it from the very beginning, if these are fibrillosa, then fine, I have no problem with it, but I'm not going to sit there and tell give people up to 4 times the amount they probably should be taking , based on the few websites with info already posted on cyanofibrillosa

Quote:

well, we don't have an official ID on these yet. the only thing we know for sure is that under a microscope they are closer to cyanescens than to cyanofibrillosa

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/6423550/page/0/fpart/2/vc/1
in response to a thread about a psilocybe from humboldt, poster assumed it was cyanofibrillosa.  to be clear, you never viewed it under a microscope.


Yes, I never viewed it under a microscope. That's why we have things like the MSSF here with microscopes, so that people like us, without microscopes, can take it to people like them, with microscopes..Those people with microscopes, then look at it, and get back to people like us, without microscopes...see how symbiotic that can get?

Quote:

yeah mj, I see that, but Peter Werner, Sporeworks, and now Bluemeanie are all saying the ones here don't match cyanofibrillosa from Washington

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6399163#6399163
the ones?  again, being unclear, it's a weak one, but it's misleading.

the ones....ah yes...the ones...the chosen ones..the ones we have been finding here....by 'finding' I mean people who have 'found' them here...that should actually be past tense now, since it already happened. This does not mean that people could find something else in the future. by 'could' I mean can, as in possible'

but I know the MSSF has gotten more samples than from just me, so you gotta ask them. Even tho they're saying cyanofibrillosa happens in the Bay Area on their website, there's nothing there about forked or non-forked cystidia, which by your own admission would make these not cyanofibrillosa..By these, I mean these ones I have found, and most likely others have found too. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it can't happen, but from everything I've seen and read so far from others, it's not really happening yet.

All I know for sure (by 'sure' I mean over the years I'm sure that I see more of these with my own eyes....by 'these' I mean these I, and most likely others here (by 'here' I mean here in this hub, and people I have met here in the Bay Area in person) have already been finding) is that this non-forked type is increasingly common..It is most likely to be encountered by hunters here in the Bay Area..this doesn't mean that it's impossible to encounter forked cystidia types, but the chances are probably less, than what we have seen so far.

Unless alot of these ones other people are posting DO have a forked cystidia, and the only way to tell is via a microscope. In that case, if there's no other way to distinguish between the two, then that would present another problem, wouldn't it?  Unless nobody cared

either way, there would have to be more from the MSSF about it, as they are getting these samples from other sources

so again, by WE, I mean we as a BAY Area peoples as opposed to YOU, as a Washington peoples

maybe next time I should not include myself as a member of the Bay Area, and make it them, as in me or them


and the constant referral to cyanofibrillosa from washington.

well?...you got anything else to compare it to?

here's an idea..how about comparing them to cyanescens?..that's what I think they are, but I can't prove it. I suspect that the labs are having hard time with it too. I can't prove that either, but there's clues.

anyway, that's what a search turned up.

yeah, and anyway, I'm confident that we'll eventually find out what this is that many people have been finding here..fibrillosa or not...if there fibs, they are not only NOT rare like some websites say, they are also alot stronger, than some websites say, so either way, somebodys probably going to...um...hopefully feel the need to update something

I love you too burtonrebel.


no comment.......too easy

---

pscyanescens said:

My spore prints turn out positive 100% everytime. Does this mean i should stop printing? Then can i be a "more confident mushroom hunter" like burtonRebel?

-PS i never have a feild guide when i am hunting actives. Makes you look more guilty. Also lets everyone know your hunting. Not alwys the best idea.

---